A Parody of Reverend Lowery's Inaugural Benediction

The original benediction:

Lord, in the memory of all the saints who from their labors rest, and in the joy of a new beginning, we ask you to help us work for that day when black will not be asked to get back, when brown can stick around -- (laughter) -- when yellow will be mellow -- (laughter) -- when the red man can get ahead, man --(laughter) -- and when white will embrace what is right.

And my benediction...

Lord, in the memory of all the saints who from their labors rest, and in the joy of a new beginning, we ask you to help us work for that day...

When the Taliban are not Sacred Cows again.

When political correctness will not infect us.

When our Constitution trumps Congress' intrusion.

When our gas will not be taxed.

When the dead man does not give up his bread, man.

When our president is born a resident.

When a platitude has some facts, dude.

When family values trumps tranny values.

When the Left will not resort to theft.

When the Center will choose a gender.

And when the Right will put up a fight.

Amen!

Cultural Agitators Hijack Oscars

In light of the Oscars, it is obvious that Hollywood is one of the most politically and religiously slanted social institutions in America. Upon accepting the Oscar for Best Original Screenplay for Milk, gay activist Dustin Lance Black proclaimed:

When I was 13 years old, my beautiful mother and my father moved me from a conservative Mormon home in San Antonio, Texas to California, and I heard the story of Harvey Milk. And it gave me hope. It gave me the hope to live my life. It gave me the hope one day I could live my life openly as who I am and then maybe even I could even fall in love and one day get married.

I wanna thank my mom, who has always loved me for who I am even when there was pressure not to. But most of all, if Harvey had not been taken from us 30 years ago, I think he'd want me to say to all of the gay and lesbian kids out there tonight who have been told that they are less than by their churches, by the government or by their families, that you are beautiful, wonderful creatures of value and that no matter what anyone tells you, God does love you and that very soon, I promise you, you will have equal rights federally, across this great nation of ours.

Thank you. Thank you. And thank you, God, for giving us Harvey Milk.

Milk only grossed $31,279,982 worldwide, a disappointment considering it stars Sean Penn. Wall-E, nominated for the same award, grossed $534,741,772 worldwide. This is not to suggest that the award is solely based on the size of the audience. Evidently, it's based on the sexual orientation of the audience. Consequentially, Milk received more attention at the Oscars than it did at the box office.

As a result of Hollywood's preferential treatment of a film based on its worldview, I figured I grant the same appreciation for films that didn't necessarily top the box office, but deserve credit for advocating the values of God, family, and country. These films represent a counter-cultural market that has met a demand for taste and representation.

The Passion of The Christ

Shortly before The Passion of The Christ hit movie theaters nationwide, Entertainment Weekly asked on the cover, "Can Mel Gibson Survive 'The Passion of The Christ'?"

Not only did this film survive, it became the highest grossing non-English film and most successful R-rated film in the United States. The film went on to stump Hollywood elites, who had no prior idea how powerful the counter-cultural market could prove to be.

Aside from its profitability, the film portrayed the most powerful depiction of the crucifixion the world has ever seen.

Facing The Giants

Members of Sherwood Baptist Church in Albany, Georgia pull off an impressive film about Grant Taylor, a football coach who struggled to lead his team into a winning season for six years. Taylor and his wife also face the drama of infertility as they long to conceive a child.

Taylor's trials and tribulations are confronted when he brings God onto the team. Gradually, the Giants become confident in themselves and each other.

This film has plenty of humor in it as well.

Bobby Lee Duke is an egomaniacal coach who has led his team into the championship for years. As the Giants get their act together, Duke's ego is replaced by madness. As very few would suspect, this role was played by Sherwood Baptist associate pastor Jim McBride.

J.T. Hawkins Jr, and upbeat assistant coach (and a black man) pokes fun at Taylor's ongoing journey into baldness:

When a black man loses his hair. He still looks cool. Look at Michael Jordan... Samuel Jackson... [continues with all the black bald men he can think of] And what do you have? Cool Jack.

Fireproof

Described as "the best work of my life" by actor Kirk Cameron, Fireproof grossed $33,415,129 (more than Milk) and the highest grossing independent film of 2008. At the height of his career on Growing Pains, Cameron converted to Christianity and began insisting on more immaculate story lines.

Fireproof is the story of Caleb Holt, a firefighter who is brave and courageous on the job, but at home, his marriage is headed for divorce. The story begins with the classic breakdown of a relationship caused by a lack of love and respect. Throughout the film, the sins of Caleb and his wife come to a head. Caleb is not only addicted to internet pornography, but ignorant of his wife's family situation - her mother is disabled and in need of hospital equipment.

In an effort to save the marriage, Caleb's father gives him a book of daily guidelines to win back the love of his wife. Initially resistant to accepting God in his life, he is frustrated with the lack of recovery:

John Holt: Has she thanked you for anything you've done the last 20 days?

Caleb Holt: No! And you'd think after I washed the car, I've changed the oil, do the dishes, cleaned the house, that she would try to show me a little bit of gratitude. But she doesn't! In fact, when I come home, she makes me like I'm - like I'm an enemy! I'm not even welcome in my own home, Dad. That is what really ticks me off! Dad, for the last three weeks, I have bent over backwards for her. I have tried to demonstrate that I still care about this relationship. I bought her flowers, which she threw away. I have taken her insults and her sarcasm, but last night was it. I made dinner for her. I did everything I could to demonstrate that I care about her, to show value for her, and she spat in my face! She does not deserve this, Dad. I'm not doing it anymore! How am I supposed to show love to somebody over and over and over who constantly rejects me?

John Holt: [touches, then leans against cross] That's a good question.

The Onion's Scott Tobias whacked the film, saying that "Fireproof gets hung up in a lot of Promise Keepers hoo-hah about reaffirming marriage as a covenant with God rather than a contract filed at City Hall." Regardless, Fireproof would go on to become Cameron's second most successful film in his career.

An American Carol

From Naked Gun producer David Zucker comes a slapstick political comedy, much in the vein of his previous work. Although Zucker voted for Al Gore in 2000, he credits such personalities as Dennis Prager and Charles Krauthammer for inspiring a change in his worldview.

Michael Malone (played by Kevin Farley) mimics the antics of Michael Moore as he vows to ban the Fourth of July with the help of a couple jihadist friends. Throughout his efforts, he meets General George S. Patton (Kelsey Grammer), among other American icons to persuade him to embrace his home country, rather than propagate against it.

The gags are mostly political, which alienates a good portion of the audience, but reaches out to a market that rarely attends to slapstick comedy. This may explain why Fox News ended up cancelling The 1/2 Hour News Hour, which was well-done, but would have found more success on Comedy Central.

American conservative talk radio personalities such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck and Mark Levin praised the political comedy, and encouraged their listeners to see it. Although it opened grossing only $3.8 million at the box office, it still topped Bill Maher's anti-religious Religulous.

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

Ben Stein stars as the host of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, which challenges an atheistic scientific establishment to a debate over the origins of mankind. The science of intelligent design is addressed for the most part as a cultural struggle, but the film is sure to present such theories as irreducible complexity in order to validate its scientific merit.

Controversial from the get-go, the film dares to link the role of evolutionary theory to the most inhumane societies of the 20th century, especially Nazi Germany and the Former Soviet Union. The link to Hitler's extremes to wipe out "inferior" races resulted in a harsh condemnation from the Anti-Defamation League:

"The film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed misappropriates the Holocaust and its imagery as a part of its political effort to discredit the scientific community which rejects so-called intelligent design theory. Hitler did not need Darwin to devise his heinous plan to exterminate the Jewish people and Darwin and evolutionary theory cannot explain Hitler's genocidal madness. Using the Holocaust in order to tarnish those who promote the theory of evolution is outrageous and trivializes the complex factors that led to the mass extermination of European Jewry."

In a courageous move, Stein confronts Richard Dawkins, the leading advocate against the intelligent design movement.

Richard Dawkins: We know the sort of event that must have happened for the origin of life.

Ben Stein: And what was that?

Dawkins: It was the origin of the first self replicating molecule.

Stein: Right, and how did that happen?

Dawkins: I've told you, we don't know.

Stein: So you have no idea how it started.

Dawkins: No, no. Nor has anyone.

Grossing nearly $3 million on its first weekend, Expelled became the third biggest opening for a documentary.

When we look at the lack of success from films such as Milk, and notice that they have been shined upon by the film industry, we come to understand that Hollywood has been hijacked by agenda-driven elitists who are at war through political activism.

What did Harvey Milk accomplish that was so significant? A lot, if you put sodomy on a pedestal. Nothing, if simply being a member of the San Fransisco Board of Supervisors and a cultural agitator is all that can be spoken of.

A Nation of Cowards?

All throughout Barack Obama's 2008 presidential campaign, he promised "change we can believe in." He positioned himself as a reformer of the political process, giving millions of Americans hope that civil discourse would be conducted in a respectful manner. Unfortunately, fewer people than ever have reason to believe in the "change" they voted for.

Whenever Barack Obama finds himself under the gun, he uses the historically oppressed half of his race as a defense mechanism (he's also half white by the way).

That may seem like a radical statement, but in light of Attorney General Eric Holder's recent comments, and given the overall shakedown approach of other members of the Obama Administration, it appears to be a major portion of their agenda.

Any positive contribution of the Civil Rights Movement to society was overshadowed by his tirade of contempt for a nation that elected their first president of African decent:

"Though this nation has proudly thought of itself as an ethnic melting pot, in things racial we have always been and continue to be, in too many ways, essentially a nation of cowards."

First of all, it is not the job of an Attorney General to discuss racial relations (or, one might say, to foment sophomoric racial tension). Given the race-baiting nature of Holder's approach, he doesn't appear to be qualified to head law enforcement on a national level. Secondly, this is not how you address a maturing nation about Black History Month. Americans are remorseful for the grievances and injustices that African-Americans dealt with for over 400 years.

Given the sensative nature of race, Eric Holder may wonder why many Americans do not wish to discuss the subject. Seemingly, anyone who disagrees with the left's racial agenda is tired of being called a "racist" for simply disagreeing with affirmative action or reparations for slavery. Race is a subject that turns otherwise decent people into bullies when they are faced with affirmative action horror stories. In light of Bill Cosby's crucifixion, the black community needs to wage war on the subcultures responsible for the negative influences that led to the tragic examples of a wedlock majority and high abortion rates among the black community.

During the Bush Administration, which gave minorities more appointments to high government posts than ever before, we weren't faced with this kind of approach. At worst case scenerio, there was a misunderstanding of the "three-fifths compromise" of the U.S. Constitution by Former Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice. Even so, her comments were not intended as a cheapshot of zero-sum multiculturalism. In other words, shaking down one group as a tactic to advance another.

Since the campaign, Obama has distanced himself from the racial tolerance and progress of the Bush Administration. In a frustrated tirade of his own, he attacked his critics and accused them of being racist fear-mongers.

"What they’re going to try to do is make you scared of me. You know, he doesn’t look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills. We know what kind of campaign they’re going to run. They’re going to try to make you afraid. They’re going to try to make you afraid of me. He’s young and inexperienced and he’s got a funny name. And did I mention he’s black?"

Because nobody bothered to call out this candidate for his "Hymietown" moment, we have the most racist administration in history - filled with tax cheats, lobbyists, race-baiters, and street agitators. It is a combination of Clinton's attack dogs and a new class of classless lilliputians.

Obama's race-baiting has a history as well. In this video from 1995, Obama acts as though he is a street agitator who sat in the pews of Reverend Jeremiah Wright. He attacks "white executives" for not wanting to pay more taxes to inner city children. He bases his salvation on his ability to redistribute wealth. Come to think of it...



It's 2009, and very little has changed. When asked about the "Porkulus" bill, Secretary of Labor (and former Berkeley professor) Robert Reich made it clear that it was an act that would not only dismiss highly trained professionals from infrastructure projects, but would write off the opportunities to white males who fell on hard times.

"I am concerned, as I’m sure many of you are, that these jobs not simply go to high-skilled people who are already professionals or to white male construction workers…I have nothing against white male construction workers, I’m just saying there are other people who have needs as well."

Obama has been in office for only a month. And yet, the examples of pinning of one race against another are endless and frequent. Even his Inauguration, he was sure to consider a race-baiting reverend such as Reverend Joseph Lowery to deliver a benediction that attacked anyone of Asian and European decent:

"Lord, in the memory of all the saints who from their labors rest, and in the joy of a new beginning, we ask you to help us work for that day when black will not be asked to get back, when brown can stick around -- (laughter) -- when yellow will be mellow -- (laughter) -- when the red man can get ahead, man -- (laughter) -- and when white will embrace what is right."

There's your modern-day "civil rights legends" at work.

The Truth About the Community Organizer

On January 20, 2009, America sworn in its first community organizer turned president. As they did in the campaign, every major media network paid little attention to the big story and emphasized President Barack Hussein Obama's race everywhere you turned. Governor Paterson of New York, successor of the disgraced whore-monger Eliot Spitzer, even suggested that mentioning the term "community organizer" at repetition amounted to racial overtones.

Unfortunately, the GOP used it as a laughing matter to make a point about Obama's second greatest weakness - his lack of experience. Throughout the campaign, John McCain was sure to avoid the subject of Obama's greatest weakness - his radical political mentors.

Take the third presidential debate for example, with Bob Schieffer. McCain was asked about Obama's associations with Weatherman Underground bomber William Ayers, a man who is said to desire the extermination of 25 million capitalists who refused to fold on their convictions. At first, McCain dodged the question entirely. It reached a point where Schieffer had to push McCain to even discuss the issue.

While coming off as passionate about running a dignified campaign, McCain was clearly disinterested in revealing Obama's controversial past. Sarah Palin was able to scratch the surface on Obama's past, but only used the "community organizer" title for humorous purposes.

You may want to take a deep breath before I go on.

According to L. David Alinsky, the son of Saul Alinsky, Obama is a master of the tactics his father taught. In the Boston Globe, he wrote this letter to the editor:

"ALL THE elements were present: the individual stories told by real people of their situations and hardships, the packed-to-the rafters crowd, the crowd's chanting of key phrases and names, the action on the spot of texting and phoning to show instant support and commitment to jump into the political battle, the rallying selections of music, the setting of the agenda by the power people. The Democratic National Convention had all the elements of the perfectly organized event, Saul Alinsky style.

"Barack Obama's training in Chicago by the great community organizers is showing its effectiveness. It is an amazingly powerful format, and the method of my late father always works to get the message out and get the supporters on board. When executed meticulously and thoughtfully, it is a powerful strategy for initiating change and making it really happen. Obama learned his lesson well.

"I am proud to see that my father's model for organizing is being applied successfully beyond local community organizing to affect the Democratic campaign in 2008. It is a fine tribute to Saul Alinsky as we approach his 100th birthday."

Saul Alinsky was a transformational Marxist who was deeply influenced by Antonio Gramsci, an Italian communist philosopher. Gramsci and Alinsky believed that you could not change the West with a confrontation. Instead, a "long march through the institutions" was required to change it from the inside out. As opposed to a Bolshevik-style revolution, a revolution on the United States would have to be achieved through the democratic process by the practice of infiltrating the institutions, such as churches, courts, universities, and schools through a trained stealth facilitator - otherwise known as a community organizer.

In an effort to appear centrist, Alinsky and his followers would frown upon overt 1960's throwbacks that protested the Vietnam War and lacked personal hygiene. They would dress professionally as they spoke to the common man. When speaking to the middle class and their blue-collar followers, they would persuasively articulate what they called "common sense solutions for working families." Only in their inner circle would they vent about "racism," "sexism," and "oppressive corporate systems."

The ultimate goal of the community organizer was to weaken the firm beliefs of the middle class through a series of discussions among a diverse group in order to achieve a pre-planned outcome. In short, it is twisting the truth to achieve a concensus among the group.
In order to achieve the consensus, the meetings must consist of all five of these elements:

- a diverse group
- dialoguing to consensus
- over a social issue
- led by a trained facilitator
- toward a pre-planned outcome.

The diversity of the group is necessary in order to shake down an individual's firm convictions by the means of peer pressure. The fear of a man's rejection from society will cause him to remain silent about his convictions unless he is to change his mind. The goal of this manipulative process is to achieve a paradigm shift - a change in the individual's thought process altogether.

Obama's ties to Alinsky are furthermore exposed in a speech given by Michelle Obama on the campaign trail. The language was nearly identical to Chapter 2 of Saul Alinsky's stealth Marxist manifesto, Rules for Radicals. From Michelle Obama:

"Barack stood up that day and spoke words that have stayed with me ever since. He talked about 'The world as it is' and 'The world as it should be...All of us driven by a simple belief that the world as it is just won't do -- that we have an obligation to fight for the world as it should be."

This utopian tidbit is based on this selection found in Rules for Radicals:

"The means-and-ends moralists, constantly obsessed with the ethics of the means used by the Have-Nots against the Haves, should search themselves as to their real political position. In fact, they are passive -- but real -- allies of the Haves... The most unethical of all means is the non-use of any means... The standards of judgment must be rooted in the whys and wherefores of life as it is lived, the world as it is, not our wished-for fantasy of the world as it should be."

I leave you with a chilling video on this subject matter found on You Tube:

Harding and Race: A Reality Check

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Harding addresses...

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

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

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

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

He concluded:

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

McBama’s Crimes Against the Constitution

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

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

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

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

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

According to Thomas Jefferson, the Tenth Amendment is the cornerstone of the Constitution. It reads, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read the rest of this statement:

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

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

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

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

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

The Case For Chuck Baldwin

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

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

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

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

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

What about John McCain?

What about him.

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

What about Sarah Palin?

Get to know her a little better.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

His own input on the issue:

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

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

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

The Dark Side of Obama

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

Keyword: credibility.

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

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


Just Plagiarism

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

Just Words Pt. I:



Just Words Pt. II:



Just Words Pt. III:





The Afrocentric Trinity United Church of Christ

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

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

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

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

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

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

Whatever that means.



A Communist Mentor

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

This is not a rush to judgement.

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

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

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

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

Friendship With A Pentagon Bomber

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

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

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


Abortions on Newborns

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

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

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

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

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

The Declaration, The Constitution, or The Communist Manifesto?

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

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

Have fun, share, and enjoy!

Questions

1. "[A] graduated income tax."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

________________________________________________

Answers:

1. The Communist Manifesto.

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

2. The Declaration of Independence.

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

3. The Communist Manifesto.

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

4. The U.S. Constitution.

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

5. The Communist Manifesto.

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

6. The Declaration of Independence.

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

7. The Declaration of Independence.

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

8. The U.S. Constitution.

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

9. The Communist Manifesto."

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

10. The U.S. Constitution.

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

The Inevitable Maverick

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

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

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

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

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

Still considering a third party vote?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The War on Darwinism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

His crime?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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: