God Save America

by Thomas E. Brewton

Since the 1930s, most Americans have come to believe in a fairy tale that has no happy ending. Democrats' victories in the recent elections have revived the fairy tale.

Washington Post staff writer Dan Balz, in a November 13, 2006, article explores the unresolved questions and internal debates remaining after the recent congressional elections.

One of those questions, as he sees it, is:

Equally important is the question of which party can adequately address the twin problems of keeping the United States competitive in a global economy and restoring the social contract that has helped provide economic security to workers and that has been shattered as a result of the corporate restructuring that globalization has brought about.

Mr. Balz is working under a false assumption: the expectation that the Federal government controls business, as well as the idea that it is possible to have a "social contract" under which government can effectively provide economic security to workers.

That assumption originates in the religion of socialism, which presumes that councils of intellectual planners, backed by technocratic administrators, are capable of managing businesses better than businessmen. Intellectuals and technocrats theoretically are motivated solely by the common good, not by private greed for profit. Businesses therefore, in theory, will be more efficient and be able to support full employment at all times when under government control.

In practice, this hasn't worked well, a typical example being the collapse of the socialistic EU's technocratically-managed AirBus and the resurgence of Boeing.

The term "social contract" was most famously used by John Locke in 1689 and by Jean-Jacques Rousseau in 1762. Locke's conception, not Rousseau's, was the basis of our War of Independence in 1776.

Locke erected a theoretical framework for a government of inherently limited powers. Even the king is subject to God's higher law of morality, which embraces the natural-law rights of individuals. Individuals, when they entered a social contract to create political society, retained inalienable rights to life, liberty, and private property. Hence our 1776 slogan, "No taxation without representation."

Click to read more …

You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

by Robert E. Meyer

We had a Marriage Amendment referendum in Wisconsin this November, as they did in several other states. I have to admit that for a while I was pretty concerned that the outcome of the vote was in doubt.

Last spring, I was having breakfast with a man who has been very influential in my life over the past several years. I complained to him about the indifference and complacency that I noticed on the marriage issue. At that time, I saw Letters to the Editor every week arguing for voting "no" on the amendment referendum. I saw very few rebuttals. It would be more than generous to say the arguments against the amendment were very specious, but they were cleverly presented to appeal to the emotions, and dupe anyone who was not doing their own independent research.

In Wisconsin, as well as seven of the eight states with binding referendums on marriage, the amendments passed, taking the question of the legal composition of marriage out of the hands of judges.

After the vote, editorial sections of regional newspapers I read, were teeming with sour-grape diatribes by those who had voted against the Marriage Amendment. They spent their editorial capital either ridiculing the ethic, or trying to shame the "backward majority" who had voted for the amendment.

One such letter was composed by a man in his late twenties, who took a futuristic approach in his effort to scold "narrow-minded" readers.

He imagined that it was the year 2056, and that he was an incontinent senior citizen, who was trying to get someone to change his soiled diaper. He reminded the current generation alive then, that though the state of Wisconsin had passed an amendment legally sanctioning only traditional marriage, he was one of the "enlightened" progressives who didn't vote with the rest of the ignorant yokels.

I responded to him in my own Letter to the Editor as such…

Click to read more …

You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

MILWAUKEE, Wisconsin, Nov. 28 /Christian Newswire/ — As those who have worked to defend preborn children from the horrors of abortion in America and who have stood uncompromisingly against the legalized slaughter of an estimated 50 million Americans in the womb since 1973, we join with one voice in expressing our indignation and opposition to Rick Warren's welcoming of Senator Barack Obama to his church on December 1, 2006. Rick Warren is bringing Senator Obama to his church to speak for his Global Summit on AIDS and the church and to take an AIDS test in front of the cameras at a noon press conference. 

Senator Obama comes to Rick Warren's church believing that abortion should be kept, "safe and legal". When Barack Obama campaigned for the U.S. Senate in 2004, his wife wrote a fundraising letter for him that revealed his support of partial-birth abortion. She said Obama's position is that the "partial-birth abortion ban . . . is clearly unconstitutional and must be overturned."  Support of partial-birth abortion goes a lot farther than the politicians who want abortion to be "safe and legal." Senator Obama actually supports the barbaric practice of allowing abortionists to kill babies by allowing them to be partially, born, their skulls punctured and their brains sucked out. Further, he repeatedly opposed an anti-infanticide bill in the state of Illinois that only passed after he left. Killing a child at any stage of life is a violation of God's clear command, "Thou Shall Do No Murder". In addition,Obama's solution to the growing AIDS crisis has been and continues to be the widespread distribution of condoms, not chaste behavior as directed by the Bible. 

Click to read more …

You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

by Jeff Lukens

Thanksgiving is a chance to gather with loved ones and share in a time-honored American tradition. For some, it is an excuse to stuff themselves with turkey and football. For others, it is a special time of "giving thanks" for blessings in their lives.

One may ask, "thanks to whom?" Well, thanks to God, of course. Never before has the question been difficult to answer. Perhaps we should consider that America's blessings of prosperity, freedom, justice, peace and opportunity. They are gifts from a mighty and gracious God. These days, however, the preeminence of God may look more like a matter of opinion.

Clearly, this was not the Pilgrims' view. They had come to this land in 1620, not to escape God, but to find Him in His fullness. They bowed their heads in acknowledgment of His power and grace. To them, He was the one and only truth.

In front of them was a desolate wilderness in a harsh Massachusetts winter. Behind them was a vast ocean that separated them from the rest of civilization.

Before starting their new lives, they made a covenant with God written in the Mayflower Compact. They had come to form a colony for the "glory of God." In return, they would receive His protection and blessings in this new land. That bond, of their faithfulness and His blessings, would be the key to their survival.

Click to read more …

You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

By Alan Caruba

In late October I attended a luncheon briefing in New York sponsored by the Middle East Forum. The speaker was R. James Woolsey, former director of the Central Intelligence Agency and currently a vice president at Booz Allen Hamilton. The room was filled with men who represent a class of citizenry known as “influential.” Woolsey’s topic was “Energy Alternatives and the War on Terror.”

Normally, I give men like Woolsey a lot of respect because they’ve earned it. However, it didn’t take long before I began to hear views that made me begin to question, not just the wisdom of what Woolsey was saying, but why he was saying it.

“The way strategically over the long run to weaken the enemies of Israel, such as Ahmadinejad, is to weaken the role of oil,” said Woolsey. “Oil makes it harder to avoid genocide in Darfur because the Sudanese have a deal with China, and it makes it harder to deal with Iran, because China and Iran have an oil deal.”

Say what? Weaken the role of oil? Genocide in Darfur has something to do with China? Iran will not pursue its lunatic Islamic apocalypse because it has an oil deal with China?

A lot of what Woolsey told the attendees is fairly common knowledge. He noted that natural events such as hurricanes can affect the amount of oil available and that terrorism—he called it “malevolent interference”—could provoke a war that would interrupt the flow of oil out of the Middle East.

Click to read more …

You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

by Erik Rush

It will all be over shortly, for better or worse; many agree that the midterm election of 2006 is (or was, if you're reading this after 11/7/06) perhaps more significant than will be the general election of 2008. It has been the ugliest, most calumny-ridden election season I've ever seen, for reasons that are apparent to some and not so apparent to others.

As my friend and colleague Marie Jon' put it the other day (and I'm paraphrasing), "The GOP may not be perfect, but the Democrat Party is subversive and evil." I think I would amend that to "the Democrat Party is subversive and is serving evil." I've attempted to clarify on several occasions that this corruption is largely focused within the national Democrat Party leadership (as opposed to some silly blanket indictment of all Democrats as serving evil); this has gone largely ignored by those who choose to manufacture their own reality - or just enjoy writing profanity-laced hate mail.

A great deal of the diatribe that's ensued has centered around the War on Terror (or WWIII, if you prefer), particularly the Bush Administration's handling of the Iraq campaign. It is in this area I've heard most of the blatant lies and fearmongering during the election campaign. Certainly recent and past scandals involving irresponsible Republican leaders and RINO (Republican In Name Only) politicians haven't helped.

I'm no historian, but I imagine it's possible that just prior to Philip II of Macedon's defeat of Athenian forces in 338 BC, there were factions in Athens who were busily casting blame as to how the other (or others) had potentially doomed them to Macedonian conquest. The Old Testament is replete with similar stories (some involving prophets) of those who attempted to provide sober advice to Jewish kings whilst various factions indulged in promoting falsehood, engaged in vainglory - and elected to worship these strange carved poles for some obscure reason.

Click to read more …

You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

By Thomas E. Brewton

In a society embracing the philosophy of pragmatism, in which there are no independent standards of right and wrong, there is no limit on depravity or tyranny.  The road to serfdom and inhumanity becomes gradually steeper and slipperier with each step along it.
A quote from The Sunday Times [London], 5 November 2006, in the Brussels Journal provides dismaying confirmation.

One of Britain’s royal medical colleges is calling on the health profession to consider permitting the euthanasia of seriously disabled newborn babies.

The proposal by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecology is a reaction to the number of such children surviving because of medical advances. [...] The college’s submission was also welcomed by John Harris, a member of the government’s Human Genetics Commission and professor of bioethics at Manchester University. “We can terminate for serious foetal abnormality up to term but cannot kill a newborn. What do people think has happened in the passage down the birth canal to make it okay to kill the foetus at one end of the birth canal but not at the other?” he said.

Start with abortion, move thence to euthanasia.  Champion farming of babies to be killed for extraction of fetal cells.  And why not revert to eugenics, the founding cause of Margaret Sanger’s Planned Parenthood? (see Reviving Eugenics?)

Click to read more …

You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

By Alan Caruba

If you are expecting me to launch into a diatribe about people who do not believe in God or religion, forget it. I don’t much care what anyone believes so long as they are not trying to convert or kill me for what I believe. Unfortunately, history and our present times are a testament to the way religion has proven to be the justification for slaughters of every description.

“Atheists” is a groundbreaking study conducted by Bruce E. Hunsberger and Bob Altemeyer, recently published by Prometheus Books ($20.00) and a slim, paperback volume best read by people such as psychologists, sociologists, and those interested in religious studies. Hunsberger was a professor of psychology until his death in 2003 as is his collaborator, Altemeyer, who teaches at the University of Manitoba. They had previously collaborated on “Amazing Conversion: Why Some Turn to Faith and Others Abandon Religion.”

To my surprise, virtually no studies have been conducted to determine why people become atheists. Most of us are aware of atheists only when one of them institutes a lawsuit involving the separation of church and state. The notion that children cannot pray in school, as do lawsuits to remove “One Nation Under God” from our coinage or to remove a religious symbol from display tend to annoy a lot of people.

Religion in American life became a hot political issue when the Supreme Court permitted abortions under the penumbra of “privacy” rights. It flared up again as a right to die issue, but again the courts ruled this was a private matter to be determined by individuals, family and the advice of physicians. It drives the debate about same-sex marriage. Despite the passion of the Religious Right, these issues, for good or ill, appear to have been settled in the minds of most people.

Click to read more …

You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

by Erik Rush

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State."

- Nazi propaganda chief Joseph Goebbels

It's a no-brainer that the Republican leadership in this country blew it big time, and though President Bush was certainly not wholly responsible, the buck as they say, always stops there. If Bill Clinton could take credit for an economic boom that was initiated before he took office, Bush had to know that he'd never escape blame for any and all shortcomings in fighting this war - which was looming for decades - despite its modern challenges and unconventionality.

The RINO (Republican In Name Only)-ridden GOP, quivering with fear of the politically-correct, the media, and in some cases its members' pocketbooks, completely neglected its base. High-profile scandals reeking of immorality and greed originating from within the Party of The Moral High Ground certainly didn't help; they were understandably seized upon by the opposition and the media, and further alienated the base. In the case of Iraq and the border issues, the Bush Administration gave Republicans and Independents alike nothing to look toward. Bush's firing of Donald Rumsfeld (which Bush, loyal to a fault, should have done two years ago) and his tough talk of the last month was way too little, way too late. It is unfortunate that Americans' shake'n'bake perception of geopolitics forgot to remind us of the price we paid for nearly 50 years of a Democrat-controlled Congress.

"One-party rule wasn't good for the country."

- Angie Paccione, defeated candidate for Colorado's 4th Congressional District, on the retaking of U.S. House of Representatives by Democrat Party.

"Rule"? Excuse me?

Click to read more …

You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

by Thomas E. Brewton

We are no longer "One nation under God." The destructive blows of liberal-progressivism since the 1930s have increasingly left us a disunited, spineless rabble.

The urgent readiness of the majority of voters to pull out of Iraq, regardless of the consequences, is the expression of a nation that no longer has core beliefs and faith in itself. We refuse to fight for our national rights and our survival, preferring groveling, making-nice to other nations, to get their approval.

Liberal-progressive spokesmen like Senators Kennedy and Kerry declare that gaining the approval of other nations via the UN should be the objective of our foreign policy. Supreme Court Justices declare that we must turn away from the Constitution to laws of other nations for guidance in deciding cases before the Court. Laws to make English the nation's official language are denounced by liberals as racism. Politicians on both sides of the political aisle perceive no danger to our survival in the overrunning of the Southwest and the West Coast by Hispanic illegals who have no intention of Americanizing themselves, and by immigrants who openly declare their intention to become the majority and vote to secede from the United States.

This sort of craven surrender of national tradition and pride is not unprecedented. It started in Europe in the 19th century.

There is very little of Friedrich Nietzsche's thought that can be taken seriously. But his appraisal of the jellification of European culture in the late 19th century is an exception.

In "Beyond Good and Evil" (1885), speaking of the ethos prevailing in Western Europe (what we witness today in the United States as a cultural war between Judeo-Christian traditionalists and liberal-progressive, atheistic materialists), he wrote:

Click to read more …

You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.