Archive for October, 2006
By Thomas E. Brewton
Words remain the same, but lose their meaning when twisted to fit ideological aims. One such word is equality.
A New York Times editorial dated October 26, 2006, proclaims, "The New Jersey Supreme Court brought the United States a little closer to the ideal of equality yesterday when it ruled that the state's Constitution requires that committed same-sex couples be accorded the same rights as married heterosexual couples."
The Times editorial implicitly presumes that the "ideal of equality" means entitlement to actual equality in all respects. Same-sex marriage is just the latest in a long list of socialist intellectuals' demands that judicial pronouncement, if not statute law, mandate equality of condition, rather than equality of opportunity.
Of course, even for the Times, equality has limits. There is no thought to equal protection of an infant's right to life, when weighed against the "right" to sexual promiscuity implicit in the pro-choice advocacy of abortion.
Our nation was founded on a completely different understanding of equality. Not until President Lyndon Johnson's full-bore-socialist Great Society did the politicians adopt the New York Times's definition of equality as entitlement, rather than opportunity.
English political traditions brought to North America in the early 17th century remained the founding traditions of the United States in the 18th century, when the Constitution was written. In that framework, equality meant only that everyone was entitled to equal treatment under the law, that the ruler, as well as the ruled, was subject to a higher law of God-given morality.
The Bill of Rights was intended, not to legislate equality, but to safeguard individuals' natural-law political liberties from arbitrary government power. One inescapable consequence of the individuality protected by the Bill of Rights is the absolute impossibility of uniform equality in social station, distinction, and income.
by Christopher Adamo
Ever since the rise to prominence of the Christian Coalition during the early 1990’s, Democrats have toiled ceaselessly to figure out a way to draw "values voters" into their camp. Not surprisingly, in this election cycle Democrats are forced once again to contend with the clout wielded at the voting booth by so-called "values voters," and are desperately trying to manipulate them into the liberal fold on the basis of anything and everything except for values.
During the mid 1990’s, as Bill Clinton campaigned for a second term, his political machine endeavored a reinvention of "values," particularly aimed at those religious hayseeds, by focusing on the issue of arson attacks on black churches. Of course, all discussion of the subject instantly dissipated into thin air, once Clinton had secured his reelection in 1996.
Recently, Hillary challenged us to confront our fallen eternal souls with the burning theological question of "WWJDAIA" ("What would Jesus do about Illegal Aliens?"). And of course, throughout their flailing efforts to convince America’s Christians that Godly faith really aligns them with liberal Democrats, those on the left monotonously repeat their case for the righteous generosity of the "nanny state" and big-government socialism.
The now mostly-dead horse of the Mark Foley scandal, into which liberals are desperately attempting to beat a shred of life, at least until Election Day, represents only the latest attempt by the party of abortion, "gay rights," and the counterculture as it seeks to appeal to Americans of traditional morality. But far from being some "Great Awakening" among Democrats, it is merely another purely political ploy with no more sincerity than any of its predecessors.
Nevertheless, the pattern continues, essentially claiming that the God-Hating liberals of the party of Ted Kennedy and Diane Feinstein are really devout, life-long conservative Americans. Paramount in this ruse is the bi-annual deference to a President whom Democrats fervently revile. But between now and November 7, the Gipper can smile down from Heaven on an America that appears to universally embrace him. Today, Mr. President they are all Reagan Democrats.
by Thomas E. Brewton
Liberals see the natural world as flawed and presume hubristically to restructure nature to fit their artificial, intellectual blueprint for perfection. In contrast, religious Jews and Christians are instructed to take joy in God's marvelously created cosmos, to recognize that the world is complex far beyond the capacity of any human minds to comprehend its entirety.
Liberals look to Marxian economics. Religious Jews and Christians seek God's guidance.
Liberal Republicans and Democrats, along with the media that follow the lead of the New York Times, are ceaselessly intent upon criticizing everything about life in the United States. This is true not just during political campaign season, but unendingly so.
Perfection, from liberals' viewpoint, would be a theoretical world-society with equal distribution of income in a socialistically regulated economy, under a one-world government led by socialist intellectuals in the UN.
If a liberal sees anything that differs from his idea of perfection, his knee-jerk reaction is to demand a new law to regulate or correct it. The implicit assumption is that everything in society is the product of materialistic forces emanating from the political state. Hence the harping, for example, on income gaps, and the presumption that the Federal government can, and should, run the economy to eliminate income discrepancies.
David Limbaugh's new book "Bankrupt" (see Brent Bozell's review in the Washington Times) documents this fundamental posture of negativism.
Seeing the world as all wrong, while confidently believing that you can fix everything if you are put in charge, is a basic characteristic of the gnostic doctrine of liberal-socialism.
As I wrote in The Da Vinci Code: Liberal Gnosticism:
Gnosticism is the belief that intellectual elites have secret knowledge about the structure of human society and about the relationship between humans and the cosmos. These elites are thereby empowered to direct human affairs.
by Erik Rush
It's amazing what one can learn about politics – and people – from a ten year-old…
My son (the ten year-old) saw the horrible condition of the starving people in Darfur (the Sudanese region in which human rights-related atrocities and ethnic cleansing have been going on since 2003) on a television news report. Every now and then, he will view people in similar condition in other war-torn nations, or ones in which there is political inequity (to put it politely). Obviously, the images of starving children are particularly disturbing to him.
"Why don't we send them food?" he asks.
"Well, we do," I tell him. "America sends billions of dollars in financial and food aid to countries like those every year."
"Billions?!?"
"That's right."
"Then why are they still starving?"
"Good question," say I. "Because the fat, aboriginal scum who run those countries generally steal most of the money and food and share it with the army in order to keep themselves in power."
"What's 'aboriginal' mean?"
"Never mind."
Miyamoto Musashi, the 16th-century samurai and great military figure in Japanese history, wrote about a concept he called "immature strategy" in his book Go Rin No Sho (A Book of five Rings). The basis of this was that one could not be an effective swordsman, military leader – or anything else, for that matter – utilizing underdeveloped, half-baked ideas or techniques.
Hence my son's initial response: Having been raised in a culture in which people ostensibly care about others, he reasoned that throwing a mess of resources at the problem would readily fix it. Then there's the fact that kids of that age still think everything ought to be the way they think it ought to be – just because.
Immature strategy; my ten year-old isn't aware of the political nuances involved, the corruption, greed and lack of concern for life that is business as usual in many cultures, but is anathema to the Judeo-Christian ethic to which he has been exposed. So his solutions are on a par with his maturity as well as his frame of reference.
by Jim Kouri, CPP
From 1998 until 2006, W.G. Van Dorian worked as an attorney in Criminal Law and Immigration Law in The Netherlands and Aruba. As such, Van Dorian came into close contact with terrorism and religious extremism. After the recent murders of Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh and Dutch politician Pim Fortuyn (supposedly the next president), Van Dorian decided The Netherlands was no longer a safe haven to write anything that is critical towards extremism.
He emigrated from The Netherlands to South America to publish his novel without having to fear repercussions from extremists.
Part One of a series titled The New World Order, the fictional thriller, The Invisible Invasion, describes a possible escalation in the world of (nuclear) conflict in the future with very realistic roots of religious extremism in present day Europe.
Recently, contributor Jim Kouri spoke with Van Dorian via e-mail. He remains in hiding in South America.
Jim Kouri: The Invisible Invasion is a fiction novel. Nevertheless, events that occur in the book don't seem to be far from reality. How much is fiction and how much is already occurring?
W. G. Van Dorian: As a defense attorney I was close to the fire. I had to defend suspected terrorists. Not just as my clients but also in daily life one noticed the aggressive behavior with which many Islamic immigrants refused to adapt to European culture and lifestyle (backed by overanxious leftist interest groups) and eventually turned against that society by renouncing anything that is different to Islamic culture, such as: fair treatment of women, tolerance, freedom of speech, human rights (except when they can appeal for discrimination, etc). The European societies backed by leftist politics let them for years and now someone who dares to criticize or even discuss Islam is a dead man. It's like this was their plan all along, thus I chose the title "the invisible invasion". Even though it's just a fiction thriller, I see these events as the beginning of the end of democracy and freedom of speech.
Kouri: You call the 'Bad guys' "Radicals" yet all directions in the book go toward Radical Islam. Why not call them such?
by Thomas Lindaman
With the recent news that North Korea tested a nuclear weapon, the world is left asking one question: Will Samuel L. Jackson sign on for a sequel to "Snakes on a Plane"? Yes, our mindset towards North Korea’s nuclear program has been…well, lacking. We’ve paid more attention to Anna Nicole Smith than to Kim Jong Il. And judging from the size of Smith’s…talent, I can see why.
As the situation in North Korea starts getting more tense, we look to our political leaders for answers. President George W. Bush has started talking tough, pushing for sanctions against the country and saying the international community will react. How? By letting us do everything and then complaining about what we’re doing? Yeah, that’ll work, just like it’s worked for the UN all these years.
Since Bush doesn’t have a good idea, what about the Democrats? They’ve come out and blamed the President for his bad policy towards North Korea, so naturally you’d think they have a better plan. Given that both Bill Clinton and Madeline Albright were tricked by Kim Jong Il into thinking the little guy was cooperating, I’m not sure I can take the Democrats that seriously. It’s like getting scammed in a game of One Card Monty.
So, who do we turn to for answers? Since you’re reading my column, I guess I should come across with some. Fortunately, I do have a few.
1) Let him try to launch a nuke. Without a doubt, Kim Jong Il is the most delusional leader this side of Howard Dean. He’s what would happen if Mao Tse Tung and Ross Perot had a kid. (Okay, I’m going to need therapy after that analogy.) He has a Napoleon complex to beat the band, so what does he do? He’s trying to turn North Korea into a superpower. However, there is one slight problem. Seems his missile technology is derived from the same aerodynamic engineering that you can find in a balsa wood toy airplane with a wind-up propeller and a rubber band. If Kim Jong Il keeps that up, he’ll take himself out of the picture.
By Rev. T. Myles Weiss MA MFT
Where’s the Muslim Martin?
Where is the voice of reform that will transform this religion of one billion people?
We need a voice similar to Martin Luther, who challenged the forces of corrupt Christianity. In his day, he dared to call for the end of selling indulgences, that vile practice which enslaved poor families by exchanging their hopes of eternity for their meager finances. The church of his era sold empty promises. Luther demanded change. He spoke out for a more spiritual future for those who followed Christ. He called on leaders to admit their failures and change their ways.
We need a voice like Martin Luther King Jr. who challenged the forces of segregation and spoke up for the civil rights of Black people in America. He used non-violent protest to draw attention to this shameful fact of America’s past. His voice changed our country.
We need a voice like Martin Short, whose self deprecating comedic styling may be instructional for the Muslim world, which seems to have a desperate need for a sense of humor. This ability to laugh at one’s self is seemingly absent from the mentality of mainstream Islam. If it is present, we need to hear it.
We are waiting for the “religion of peace” to demonstrate a self-correcting movement toward moderation. We are waiting for the masses of Islam to demand corrections to Jihadist theology. We are waiting for the civil rights enjoyed by Muslims in America and Israel to be granted to women, Jews, and Christians, Buddhists and Hindus in Muslim lands.
We are waiting for a humanity enhancing humor that reaches across differences and celebrates the universal human condition by “lightening up” and laughing a little.
We are waiting for Martin.
© Rev. T. Myles Weiss MA MFT 2006
_____
Myles Weiss is a Marriage and Family Therapist, Founder of Trust and Triumph, a successful substance abuse recovery group, and Pastor of Beth Shalom. He serves on the leadership teams and boards of several organizations including The Center for Changing Worldviews, Vertical Call and Beulah Prayer House. As co-host on Middle East Affairs for Changing Worldviews TALK Radio with Sharon Hughes, Myles expresses his passion to promote understanding of the pivotal nature of Middle East politics and the need for peace with security. Myles has conducted marriage and family seminars in Russia, organized outreaches in India and trained ministers in Africa, and received his Masters Degree in Marriage and Family Therapy from Azusa Pacific University. Contact: mwtherapy@sbcglobal.net .
We live in a changing world…
Sharon Hughes
President, The Center for Changing Worldviews
Host, Changing Worldviews TALK Radio
PO Box 750624
Petaluma, CA 94975-0624
(707)322-3632
Websites: http://www.changingworldviews.com/
http://www.womantalk.us/
Blog: http://changingworldviews.blogspot.com/
Email: sharon@changingworldviews.com
http://www.womantalk.us/
By Alan Caruba
In his book, “State of Fear”, author Michael Crichton appended an opinion entitled “Why Politicized Science is Dangerous,” and cautioned against, “a social program masquerading as a scientific one”, citing the widespread eugenics movement in the early part of the last century. (http://www.michaelcrichton.net/fear/fear_main.shtml)
“A second example of politicized science is quite different in character,” warned Crichton. “It exemplifies the hazard of government ideology controlling the work of science, and of uncritical media promoting false concepts.” Just as eugenics drew praise and support from politicians, academicians, and media in its time, so too has the manufactured crisis of global warming today. (Emphasis added)
This politicizing of science can be found in the way the United States government spends billions to fund various research programs. One example is the $40 billion spent by the U.S. Global Change Research Program since 1990. For that kind of money one would think something conclusive has been ascertained about “global warming”, but if its recent report is any indication, the answer is no.
Another egregious example can be found in the Environmental Protection Agency that, over the past decade, has made grants to more than 2,200 nonprofit groups. An Associated Press article by Rita Beamish in December 2005 noted that those grants often went to groups “that lobby and sometimes sue the agency.”
If anyone has been following all the talk about global warming in the last few years, it should be evident that the science of global warming is truly junk science. There are no scientific facts pointing to a global warming as the environmental scientists and greens have lead many to believe. Instead they point to unscientifically derived data to support their false theories.
Scientist have been recording the rise in global temperatures, but the data they are using is collected in urban areas. In the article, Debunking Modern Climate Myths, the fallacy of collecting temperature data in urban areas only enhances the urban heat island phenomenon. If satellite data is used and all the surface of the globe is considered there would be no evidence of increased temperatures found. But they might find small drops in the temperature.
Last year the junk scientists have mislead the public that another sign global warming was the record high number of violent hurricanes. Every major liberal news media picked up this false information, and many were lead to believe that the 2005 hurricane season was indeed foretelling global warming.
Again in the 2002 article, Debunking Modern Climate Myths:
Whether it be extremes of heat and cold, droughts, floods, hail, tornadoes or hurricanes, there is absolutely no evidence that these phenomena have increased globally over the twentieth century. In fact, there is much empirical evidence to suggest that more warmth leads to a more stable climate.
But occasionally the liberal media will report the truth, even if it is buried within the a news story reporting. The Hartford Courant, published the article, Hot Debate Over Hurricanes, which presents some truth on the fallacy of global warming but in reality only confuses the issue.
At the close of the catastrophic 2005 season, NOAA's official position was summed up in the headline on a Nov. 29 article posted on the agency's website. "NOAA attributes recent increase in hurricane activity to naturally occurring multi-decadal variability," it read.
The long article identified three prime reasons for the cycle's current activity. First, waters were warmer than average in the tropical Atlantic. Also the West African monsoon (the seasonal pattern of wind and rainfall) was stronger than usual while the Amazon Basin monsoon was weaker. The article stated flatly that the decadal cycle, also called a signal, "is not related to global warming."
[..] At a press conference Aug. 8 updating forecasts for the current hurricane season NOAA's response to questions about global warming was far less definite than it had been. Gerry Bell, NOAA's lead forecaster, said global warming could be adding to the multidecadal signal.
"There's still a lot we don't understand," he said. "Is global warming contributing this much? Is the [Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation] contributing this much? We can't say."
In a subsequent interview, Chris Landsea of the National Hurricane Center said, "there is a rich and robust debate going on in the country about what's going on with hurricanes."
With all this said, the reason the global warming scare is perpetrated is to scare the mis-informed to accept rules and regulations that would reduce the quality of life and freedom that western civilization enjoys today.
The UN treaty, Kyoto Protocol is an international wealth transfer scheme masquerading as an environmental agreement. Fortunately, the Bush administration has declared that it will not agree to any pact that exempts countries such as China and India, while requiring punishing sacrifices from the U.S. is an international wealth transfer scheme masquerading as an environmental agreement.
By Thomas E. Brewton
Modern mass production with interchangeable parts was a good idea in the automobile industry a century ago. But is it a good idea to homogenize national cultures, either in the interests of economic prosperity, or to further the socialist ideal of a one-world government?
Carol Derbis drew my attention to the potential dangers of the proposed North American Union, which aims at making NAFTA into an analog of the European Union, eventually uniting Mexico, Canada, and the United States on political and cultural grounds, as well as on economic policies.
As she writes, we must have full and public Congressional hearings before the proposal goes much further.
Chris Adamo addressed the issue last year, as did Jerome R. Corsi in this article earlier this year.
Those who fear the worst say that President Bush intends to abrogate United States sovereignty. That seems unlikely, but any surrender of our own Constitutional rights to a supranational agency, however limited the surrender, is a very bad policy. Our experience with the UN makes that abundantly clear.
Apart from the huge controversy over illegal immigration from Mexico, there are plenty of other negatives to consider.
Foremost among them is spotlighted by this website's Statement of Purpose:
The View from 1776 presents a framework to understand present-day issues from the viewpoint of the colonists who fought for American independence in 1776 and wrote the Constitution in 1787. Knowing and preserving those understandings, what might be called the unwritten constitution of our nation, is vital to preserving constitutional government. Without them, the bare words of the Constitution are just a Rorschach ink-blot that politicians, educators, and judges can interpret to mean anything they wish.
As relatively little has been elaborated about the North American Union concept in the media, one can only conjecture about the exact intentions and methods. Whatever the specifics of the proposed North American Union, it can be said that it has the potential to promote further cultural disintegration in our nation, which is as lethal a danger as Islamic jihad.
Liberals (and it has to be said that most Republicans as well as Democrats have evident left-leanings) have been educated in our colleges and universities to accept the social sciences view that human beings respond only to material factors. Thirst, hunger, the need for clothing and shelter, and the sexual urges are said to be the ultimately controlling factors in human society.
One has to be oblivious to history, however, to believe that the list of social influences is limited to the atheistic materialism of socialism. Our colonial ancestors were definitely motivated by the economic issues of taxation to issue the Declaration of Independence. But there was a far deeper ethos underlying their action: the centuries old English tradition of inalienable natural- law rights of individuals to be free from the arbitrary exercise of power by the sovereign. Those conceptions grew out of the Judeo- Christian moral traditions that constituted Western Civilization.
Moving in the direction of a political and cultural North American Union is to unwind the very substance of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
Thomas E. Brewton is a staff writer for the New Media Alliance, Inc.
The New Media Alliance is a non-profit (501c3) national coalition of writers, journalists and grass-roots media outlets.
His weblog is THE VIEW FROM 1776
http://www.thomasbrewton.com/
Email comments to viewfrom1776@thomasbrewton.com