"America is like a healthy body and its resistance is threefold: its patriotism, its morality, and its spiritual life. If we can undermine these three areas, America will collapse from within."
--Joseph Stalin

Tuesday, November 21, 2006

Gingrich For President '08: Is His Baggage Too Heavy?

Will Malven

It appears to this writer that former Speaker of the House of Representatives Newt Gingrich is preparing to run for the Presidency in '08.

The big question: is his personal baggage too much to over-come for him to succeed? I’m talking about the alleged marital infidelity, the alleged hospital break-up with his first wife, his second divorce and third marriage after an extended affair while still married-quite a load to explain to a conservative public; quite a load to explain to people who rated moral issues as the biggest single deciding factor in the last election.

Then there's the matter of the $300,000 penalty assessed against him for alleged questionable activities involving GOPAC and his book deal. I recall that entire circus, and spent a fair amount of time listening to the testimony before the Ethics Committee on C-Span. I personally never was convinced that GOPAC was anything more than what Gingrich represented it to be, nor that any real wrong doing occurred.

Once again it was the appearance of wrong doing (a favorite tool of the Democrats-appearance is sufficient grounds to convict) more than anything else that caused his demise and early retirement from the House Speakership. Certainly there was some questionable decision making (the exact phrase was "intentional or reckless disregard for house rules"), but no crimes were committed, and the ethics committee's fines were disproportionate for the transgressions. The combination of a few shaky Republicans and vindictive Democrats, still smarting from Gingrich's successful pursuit of Democrat Speaker Jim Wright, as well as their outrage at the Republicans having the nerve to wrest control of the House from them (didn’t we know that it was their divine right?) proved to be enough to get him reprimanded and fined.  [Note the term, “reprimanded,” not as is generally stated by Liberals, “censured,” which would have been an entirely different and far more serious matter.]

As to his personal peccadilloes, I must admit I am uncomfortable with that sort of reckless behavior.   It echoes too closely the behavior of Bill “Bubba one” Clinton.  I do believe that it shows a certain lack of self-control.  I also believe that it demonstrates a rather cavalier attitude towards keeping ones word (marriage is a vow, a lifetime commitment).  I realize that this kind of attitude may seem antiquated in this society of quickie marriage and quickie divorce, but I still believe in a man keeping his word.  Is this issue sufficient to disqualify him from being President?  I’m not certain, but I don’t think so. 

My revulsion of Bubba’s personal behavior was an aggregate of his lascivious behavior and his Liberal agenda.  That and the multiplicity of scandals surrounding his administration (White Water, File-gate, Pardon-gate, Kathleen Willey,  Juanita Broaddrick, etc.) conflated to rise to the level of a grotesque mockery of the prestige and honor of the Whitehouse and the Presidency.

The question remains however. Can the Newtster surmount the heat he is sure to receive from his competition? The answer depends entirely upon his ability to bypass the MSM and get his message directly to the voters. Newt has a lot of people out here who think very highly of him.

Be that as it may, he is certain to face a very tough primary campaign from Senators Frist, McCain, and Hagel. He is equally assured of being subjected to hate mongering at least equal to that we witnessed against President Bush during the last election from the Left. Creepy-crawlies like George Soros and Michael Moore (ugh! I can hardly stand to type his name), in concert with their hatchet groups like MoveON.org, Communist Cause, and People for the Highly Questionable Elitist Way will certainly mount a full court press.  We can expect a rousing shout of outrage from DNC commissar Howard Dean and his hit-team (AARRGGHH!).

The reason I am asking these questions, is that I believe Newt Gingrich to be the single most qualified candidate for the office of the President in recent memory. He ought to be ideal for the Liberals who showered President Bush with unjust labels like "Dumbya" and "stupid." There could be no such assault on Mr. Gingrich's intellect. His knowledge of how the system works, or is supposed to work, is equal to that of anyone in government. His familiarity with our historical provenance as a professor of American History and Government gives him a perspective unique among the likely candidates. And since we already know that immoral behavior is “no big deal” for the Left, Gingrich’s morally questionable behavior should actually be a plus for them.  Of course Liberals won't embrace him because Newt believes in limited government, not the Socialist Paternalistic State of the early 20th century of which they dream.

Newt expresses a vision of the future possibilities for this nation that none have come close to matching. Having read his latest book, Winning the Future, I believe it to be a rare example of farsighted and far-reaching policy goals designed to take this nation forward into this new century. Newt's thinking is clear, positive, and thoughtful. His ideas are practical, and achievable. Newt offers a vision of hope for the American people and this nation. As a student of government and of the presidency, he definitely has the "jets" to get the job done. He also has one other thing to offer us, a New Contract With America.

So I find myself back at my original question. Can Newt overcome his negative baggage? As a history professor, he has the oratory skills to convey his message in a clear and concise manner. His skill as a debater is great. He is a true conservative, and well liked by other conservatives who, like me can make allowances for his shortcomings. He would be a leader who, unlike any alternative the Democrats are likely to put up--say "Billary" for example--would not let this nation slip into the doldrums of a U.N. led "world government."

His belief in the rightness of America, her place in history, and her future, would assure us that the evils espoused by the Left, such as the desirability of judges who believe themselves to be legislators, would not come to pass.

Only time will tell us the answer to this big question. Personally, I hope he can do it. It would be a shame to waste such a mind and talent.

Go Newt!  Gingrich for President!  Gingrich in 2008!  Oh! Just Practicing.

“But Billy Did It!”: Warrantless Surveillance Not “Un-Warranted”

Will Malven

In the intervening days since it was first revealed that President Bush

“approved consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution, to intercept the international communications of people with known links to Al Qaeda and related terrorist organizations,”

there has been a lot of crosstalk concerning the “violation of the law” vs. “power of the President.”  When the hate talk hit fever pitch, the Administration and its defenders came out with a barrage of responses, all relating to the fact that this kind of activity was done by President Bill Clinton and has been occurring fairly regularly since FISA first came into being.  It has been said by me, as well as by the President’s critics, that this is the same unfortunate argument a fifth grader might use in defending his actions, “but Billy did it!”  Well, that’s true as far as it goes, but I soon realized that this excuse is used all the time in politics and in our justice system.  It is the much alluded to and lauded (by the Left in particular) principle of “stare decisis.”

Yep, the Democrat Senator’s favorite legal principle, especially when it comes to “abortion rights,” stare decisis is being invoked by the Bush Administration to bolster the argument that the President possesses the power, under certain circumstances and free of any restriction, to authorize the Attorney General to approve electronic monitoring without obtaining a FISA court’s prior approval.  You see, it seems that Billy really did do it, as did both Jimmy Carter, and Ronald Reagan.  In fact warrantless wire-tapping pre-dates FISA.  This activity was done by FDR in the ‘30s when his Attorney General requested the authority so he could empower J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI to perform wiretaps (which were illegal even for criminal activity) to try to get Axis agents. In placing this request he emphasized that FDR would be acting as Commander In Chief to protect this nation from foreign powers.  This was carried forward by every succeeding administration, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, every single one. 

The fact of the matter is President Jimmy Carter issued Executive Order 12139 which allowed for the gathering of intelligence “without a warrant” under certain circumstances.  In responding to this, it has rightfully been pointed out that this Executive Order 12139 specifically requires the monitoring to comply with all provisions of FISA’s Section 1802 which requires that there is “no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party.” Bill Clinton also signed an executive order 12949 which had to do with physical searches without a court signed warrant and his order specifically requires that all such searches comply with USC 50 chapter 36, subchapter II, section 1822, which asserts that no US person is involved.  However Bill Clinton did authorize such a search and seizure against Aldrich Ames, who was a citizen of the United States.  He did this because he was capable of using the “inherent powers of the President” as described by Jamie Gorelick in her testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee on July 14th, 1994.
“The Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes," Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick testified "and that the President may, as has been done, delegate this authority to the Attorney General." It is important to understand," Gorelick continued, "that the rules and methodology for criminal searches are inconsistent with the collection of foreign intelligence and would unduly frustrate the president in carrying out his foreign intelligence responsibilities.”

So, according to the Clinton Department of Justice, this power to conduct warrantless searches inheres to the office of President of the United States. Would that Ms. Gorelick have been as avid to protect America by allowing the free flow of information between domestic and foreign intelligence sources, rather than raising and strengthening the “wall” between the two (funny how the Left seem to like walls, “wall of separation between church and state,” wall between domestic and foreign intelligence, oh well that’s a column for a different time).  Now however, the argument is being made that Jamie Gorelicks statement “pre-dated” the FISA subchapter on physical search and seizure and therefore does not pertain to the current circumstances.  The problem with that argument is that it ignores the meaning of the phrase “inherent authority.”  If a power is “inherent” to an office, that means it is a “native right” and exclusive of any other authority.  Meaning, FISA cannot apply.  The 4th Circuit Court’s ruling in US v. Truong Dinh Hung seems to support this argument to wit: 

"the executive branch should be excused from securing a warrant only when the surveillance is conducted 'primarily' for foreign intelligence reasons." 629 F.2d at 915. The court held, however, that warrantless surveillance was not permitted "once surveillance becomes primarily a criminal investigation," or "when the government is primarily attempting to form the basis for a criminal prosecution." Id. at 915.1
Thus we have the testimony of Jamie Gorelick, Deputy Attorney General under Bill Clinton, and the Truong ruling in support of the President’s order. To that I would add Presidential Order 12333, issued by President Ronald Reagan.  President Reagan’s order differs from those of Carter and Clinton in stating that warrantless surveillance is lawful if approved by the Attorney General:

“provided that no foreign intelligence collection by such agencies may be undertaken for the purpose of acquiring information concerning the domestic activities of United States persons”[my emphasis].

That little phrase “for the purpose of” carries a world of difference in meaning.  The government is still under injunction from spying on United States persons if that is their purpose, but not if it is incidental to surveillance of a foreign agent.

The final piece of the puzzle is what is being “monitored” and how it was being done.  You whining “civil libertarians,” anti-government libertarians, and paranoid “tin hat” devotees, get real.  You are not that important, unless you have been talking to Osama bin Laden...HAVE YOU?  This monitoring is not being done by 4,000 g-men wearing a pair of headphones hunkered down over a little radio listening to individual phone calls, honest, it’s not, I promise you. What is being discussed is a bank of computers, monitoring thousands of phone calls searching for key phrases and words or names.  If the computer kicks out a positive hit, it then goes to someone in the NSA who gives it a quick read to see if it is relevant. Only if it is considered relevant, is it then given a careful examination.  This is not the case of “massive domestic espionage” which is implied by the New York Times and the babbling head-bobbers on the Left.  It is just prudent surveillance, besides...


Sunday, July 16, 2006

Cowboy Diplomacy Revisited

July 17, 2006
Will Malven

Last week Time Magazine (that unimpeachable source for political satire) declared definitively: "THE END OF COWBOY DIPLOMACY, What North Korea, Iraq and Iran teach us about the limits of going it alone."

This, I guess, is what passes for conventional wisdom among the elites of the Paleo-media. They would have us believe that the only wise course for the President to take is one of negotiation, or as our enemies describe it (or would if candor could be expected) going to them hat in hand.

Those of us with a somewhat longer memory (oh…say…than last night's binge) would more aptly describe it as leading with one's chin, or perhaps doing "the Chamberlain."

A quick look at the relative benefits of doing what Democrats always seem ready to advocate, negotiating with an enemy of freedom versus doing what most Conservatives advocate, meeting threat and obstinacy with force, proves the latter to be far more effective in achieving one's goals, assuming one's goals include winning and/or surviving.

"You can get much farther with a kind word and a gun than you can with a kind word alone." (Al Capone)

He wasn't a great American, but Al Capone was an astute observer of human nature, especially the human nature of the criminal mind. In today's world of diplomacy, there are a number of leaders who clearly fall into that category; first among them would be Kim Jung Il of North Korea and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran, followed closely by the members of al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, and the rest of the Islamic Jihadist organizations all of which are organizations with a criminal mentality whose only raisons d'etre are the killing of innocent civilians and the destruction of Israel and all of Western Civilization.

Negotiation gave us Eastern and Western Europe and the suffering of hundreds of millions of people under a repressive Stalinist dictatorship for 50 years.

Confrontation and strength in the form of Mutually Assured Destruction kept that Stalinist, expansionist government at bay for those 50 years.

Negotiation gave us a Communist Cuba.

Confrontation gave us a missile free Cuba (though still Communist, thanks to JFK).

Confrontation almost did and would have, if given the chance, won the war in Viet Nam.

Negotiation by an overwrought Nixon administration under the gun of an overbearing Democrat Congress snatched that near victory away leaving thousands of American MIA's unaccounted for and 50,000 dead for no apparent reason.

That same negotiation left Pol Pot the opportunity to murder as many as 5 million of his fellow Cambodians.

Confrontation with the Soviets by President Ronald Reagan and Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher at a time when most of the world was screaming for unilateral nuclear disarmament ended the reign of 50 years of repressive Stalinist, expansionist government.

Negotiation left Israel surrounded by nations and people determined to destroy them.

Confrontation with and defeat of those nations, in three separate wars, positioned Israel as the strongest and safest nation in the Middle East.

Negotiation with Saddam Hussein left him in a position to terrorize his neighbors, murder and torture his citizens, and build up his arsenal.

Confrontation removed Saddam Hussein from power for good.

So what about Time Magazine's assertion that cowboy diplomacy is dead today?

Well it depends on what result you are seeking. If you want to face a North Korea which continues to research and build-up its nuclear capability as it has since the Clinton Administration, in the face of a decade of "intense negotiation" (ooh, those words just send a chill of fear down your spine), just continue to "intensely negotiate" with this inhuman murderous thug, and pretty soon Kim Jung Il will be in a position to threaten all of his neighbors with nuclear weapons.

If you want to shut him down, destroy his missiles while they are on the ground (Cowboy Diplomacy). It's called having credibility in your threats (real "intense negotiations"). Currently, we have no credibility with North Korea since we warned them that they would face "severe consequences" if they launched their missiles. They did and we gave them…what…another severe warning. Yeah, like that's going to shake them up.

If all you do is issue warnings and threats (stern or otherwise) and you never act on those warnings and threats, then you are a toothless lion. For North Korea now, we are that toothless lion.

Iran continues to thumb its nose at us and we continue to "sternly warn them" to behave like good little Muslims. Iran foments war against Israel using its Hezbollah surrogates in Syria and Lebanon and we tell Israel to be "restrained" in their response.

I have a novel idea, why don't we tell Iran to be "restrained" in their actions? Why don't we take affirmative actions to support the Israelis in their battle for survival?

Ariel Sharon went against his own instincts and attempted to negotiate with the Palestinians and the Lebanese Hezbollah by disengaging and withdrawing from their territories, the reward for doing so was violent military aggression by those same parties.

Now Ehud Olmert is responding with limited but appropriate attacks and our government is warning him to be "restrained" in his response.

I think that it is time for the world to be un-restrained in its response to these monsters. It is time for some real "cowboy diplomacy" (the Ronald Reagan kind). The only thing that people like Kim and Ahmadinejad are capable of understanding is force. They will not back down as long as they see that they can ignore our diplomatic entreaties with impunity.

The enemies of freedom understand force and only force. They live by Mr. Capone's statement. So much so that it bears repeating: "You can get much farther with a kind word and a gun than you can with a kind word alone."

Thursday, June 15, 2006

As the Deficit Continues to Plummet, National Media Silent

Will Malven

You won’t hear about it from the Paleo-media.  You won’t see it on the television unless you’re watching Fox News.  It’s a sign of the success of President Bush’s economic policies and tax-cuts. 

What is it? 

It is the rapidly declining federal deficit.  For the past two years now the deficit has been severely under-performing.  It has been consistently falling short of the projected levels at a rate of about $50 billion/year.

You read it right; the federal deficit is dropping like a stone. 

Yep, in spite of the Clinton recession, in spite of the events of 9-11-01, in spite of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, in spite of the global war on terrorism, in spite of record pork-barrel spending by a congress out of control, in spite of historically high gasoline prices, in spite of the Katrina/Rita hurricane disasters, and in spite of all the Democrats can do or say to drive down public confidence in the economy, President Bush is on track to beat his target of halving the federal deficit 3 years ahead of schedule.

How can this be? 

Tax-cuts work!  The Presidents economic plan is and has been working better than even he could have hoped.  Because of the tremendous health of the national economy brought on by the Presidents tax-cuts, federal revenues are up substantially, even outstripping the growth in spending.

The record annual deficit of $413 billion occurred in FY 2004.  Since then the deficit has been sinking fast.  Last years deficit came in at $319 billion and this years projections by the Congressional Budget Office now put it below $300 billion.  The original estimates for FY 2005 projected a deficit of $350 billion.

The math is simple, thanks to a booming economy brought on by the tax-cuts so maligned by the Democrats, revenues this year are up 12.9% compared to the same time last year.  Spending, in spite of all Congress could do has been held to a robust 8% annually.

With numbers like these and the continued growth in jobs, one would think everyone in America would be rejoicing and lauding the tremendous success of the President, but that would avail Democrat politicians little.  So the Democrats have made it a point to distort the numbers and flat out lie about the economy at every turn.

Employment is at an all time high, the Democrats tell us that the jobs that have been created aren’t worth having.  All of the “good” jobs are going overseas. 

The truth is that the “flood of jobs going overseas” is actually a trickle.  Yep outsourcing, the great bugbear cited endlessly by the John Kerry-Heinz/John ”Shyster” Edwards campaign has proven to be a tempest in a teapot.

In an economy which, according to the U.S. Department of Labor, employs 144 million people (non-farm payroll), the number of jobs lost due to “offshore outsourcing” continues to be around 200,000/year.  The current unemployment rate is 4.2%.

You would never know it from the Paleo-press, but we are in a booming economy. 

Let me repeat, tax-cuts work, they always have.  Democrats know this, but they will never acknowledge it because it goes against everything they stand for, vis. big government programs, the nanny state, socialized medicine, a tightly controlled economy, you know, socialism (if not communism).

As a percentage of Gross Domestic Product, the current deficit is below its halcyon days of the 1980’s.  If Congress can keep its meddling hands off of our money and extend the tax-cuts enacted at the behest of President Bush, there is a very real probability that America will see reductions in the national debt in the next 5 years.  Though that sounds like a long way off, it is well before even the rosiest estimates of this administration.

Of course Congress refraining from raising our taxes is a major caveat, especially if the Democrats take over our government.  Clinton was the beneficiary of an artificial and unsustainable tech bubble and his drastic reductions in the size of our military (an economic artifice for which we are now paying). 

Virtually all of the so called reduction in the size of government President Clinton took credit for in balancing the budget came from cuts in our military.  This short-sightedness has been directly responsible for the Democrats loud lamentations over the difficulties we have faced in sustaining our troop levels in Iraq.

It was left to President Bush to rebuild our military to appropriate levels (an ongoing process) and to re-equip our troops to enable them to achieve their mission.  Additionally, the changed nature of combat brought about by the new tactics of asymmetrical warfare as practiced by the terrorists has changed the requirements for equipping our troops.

Hummers, the vehicles intended to be the work horses of our army for the foreseeable future, have proven to highly vulnerable to the tactics of the terrorists in Iraq.  As such, the military has been forced to spend billions in retro-fitting them with upgraded armor.  This unanticipated complication has also led to various crash programs to design new more suitable vehicles to replace the hummer.

The nature of this war has also exposed the need for all of our troops to be supplied with personal body armor, another unanticipated expense in the pursuit of our military objectives.  As with the equipment needs, the changed nature of warfare has added the additional burden of revised training for our troops.  New tactics and new techniques in fighting a determined insurgency have led to the building of new training facilities and training in public relations as well as those new tactics.

Yet, in spite of all of the difficulties inherited by this administration and these new and unanticipated costs for the military, the deficit is now beginning to fall. 

Even as that happens, the Democrats continue their ill-advised and moronic drumbeat for increased taxes.  They would have the tax-cuts instituted by the President expire so that they can pursue their own private agenda of buying the votes of special interest groups and instituting their utopian socialist state.

I can think of no action more certain to wreck the economy than to follow the advice of these socialist dinosaurs.  Increasing taxes is the most certain way to stall the economy and plunge America back into the doldrums we experienced in the closing years of the Clinton administration.

President Clinton’s legacy (aside from a stained dress and multiple charges of sexual assault) was a weak military, Osama bin Laden, and a recession. 

President Bush’s legacy, if Congress doesn’t lose its nerve, will be a free and democratic Iraq, a strong flexible military, a robust economy, record employment, a more secure nation, and a declining deficit.

That’s a pretty good legacy by any standard.  Short of a stronger more enforcement oriented policy on illegal immigration, something I continue to find to be a severe failing on the President’s part, I couldn’t ask for a greater record of accomplishment form President Bush.

President George, you da man!

Long Live Our American Republic!!!

Reckless Endangerment of Our Troops: Murtha, Kerry-Heinz, and the Anti-War Press

Will Malven

“I know there was a cover-up someplace. They knew about this a few days afterwards and there’s no question the chain of command tried to stifle the story. I can understand why, but that doesn’t excuse it. Something like this has to be brought out to the public, and the people have to be punished.”

Thus says Representative John Murtha (D-PA) about the incident in Haditha.  This “Hero” of the Democrat Party has designated himself Judge, Jury, and Executioner of the Marines involved in the Haditha affair, all without hearing a single bit of testimony. 

What a guy! What a fair minded Congressman.  What a jerk!

Statements like the above and stories the press carries in which conclusions are reached and accusations are made without a shred of evidence deserve to be called what they are, reckless, uninformed, dangerous, politically motivated hate speech toward our troops and their mission.

Comments from the Leftist bloggers leave no mistake as to their opinion of our military.

From Arianna Huffington:

“jaw-dropping accounts of drugged up, hallucinating, and stressed out U.S. troops, "killing the wrong people all the time..."

“ the killings in Haditha -- like Abu Ghraib, like Bagram, like Guantanamo, like all the everyday, unheralded horrors perpetrated on innocent Iraqi civilians.”

Nothing like an adoptive American (she’s a naturalized citizen) slandering our troops. Maybe she needs to be sent packing,

Murtha served in Viet Nam, so what?  Benedict Arnold was a hero of the Revolution just before he betrayed his nation. 

Brave John Murtha.  John Murtha of The “Cut and Run” Strategy.  

  • Twenty-three years ago, John Murtha recommended to President Reagan that he should pull the troops out of Lebanon.
  • Thirteen years ago he advised President Clinton to cut and run from Somalia.  
  • A year ago he proposed that the troops be withdrawn in 6 months—and redeploy them to Okinawa, a mere hop, skip and monstrous jump from Iraq. 
Now that’s what I call a determined leader, dedicated to the principle of freedom and democracy.  Sort of a “So long! Oh and thanks for letting us get rid of Saddam Hussein, you guys are on your own now.  Have a nice day.”  With friends like Murtha, Iraq doesn’t need any more enemies. Nor, it seems, do our troops in Iraq. 

Looks like every decade or so, Mad Captain Jack Murtha’s feet start getting antsy and he hankers to “cut and run” like a Democrat.

As for Senator John Kerry-Heinz—who served in Vietnam, by the way—he is also part of the “cut and run” Democrat strategy.  It is his turn to call for a total withdrawal in 6 months. 

On Monday he introduced an amendment to the Military spending bill that would require President Bush to bring all U.S. combat troops out of Iraq by year's end.  He too is a man of strength and commitment. Just don’t rely on him to be consistent. 

Who knows, depending on what the poll numbers say, next week he may introduce another amendment demanding President Bush pledge to keep our troops there for the next 2 decades.  These weighty matters require serious study and (political) analysis.  One doesn’t just go off half-cocked.  I mean what if the people decide they want to stay the course?  Poor John, he has so many decisions to make and so small a brain. Too bad he can only flip in one direction at a time.

What is it with the Democrats and the 6 month thing?  Is there something magical about the number 6?  Senator Harken has also come out for the 6 month idea.  Hmmm...666.  You don’t suppose...nah, can’t be...can it?  You never know. The anti-Christ is supposed to come from central Europe and old “I actually voted for the funding, before I voted against it” Kerry-Heinz is a wanna be Frenchman.  France is in central Europe...sort of.  Lord knows the Democrats want to take back the reigns of our government so badly that they would sell their souls to achieve it; maybe they did.

Alright, I’ve had my fun. Now let’s get back to my original claim.  I did call these critics of the war dangerous, didn’t I? So let’s see why.

In combat situations, events happen in the blink of an eye.  Consequently our troops have to be able to make instant decisions in order to save their lives and those of their brother soldiers (apologies to the other services, for expedience I’m going to use the terms soldiers and troops interchangeably even though in the specific instance of Haditha we are talking about Marines).  In those situations, to hesitate is to die. 

When their actions are criticized and unsubstantiated charges are made against them for doing their jobs as they are trained to do, then doubt can creep into their minds.  They may begin to think:

“Should I clear this room in which I believe there is a hostile presence or should I  make sure there are no civilians in there?  I don’t want to get into trouble for doing what I believe is right.”

In a combat situation this is frequently a fatal doubt.  These soldiers suffer enough over the “collateral” casualties they cause, without the weight of presumptive guilt being lumped on them by a bunch of arm-chair generals peering over their shoulders looking for mistakes in hopes of scoring political points.

You don’t have to take my word for it, just ask Sgt Ilario Pantano who was falsely accused of executing two Iraqi civilians in 2004.  The ordeal he went through was terrible, yet he said that what these marines are going through is far worse because of all the political one-upsmanship going on by critics of the war. 

Sgt Pantano only had to deal with a military tribunal, not a bunch of Democrat politicians and Pulizer pursuing reporters seeking to score points off of what has turned out to be a nightmare. In an interview on Hannity and Colmes, he made the very points that I have been making.  This kind of accusation and conviction by the press, without even allowing the targets to respond, undermines the safety of our troops. It causes them to hesitate.

Our troops have clearly laid out procedures for entering a suspected hostile environment.  It is called “clearing.”  If they suspect that hostiles are on the other side of a door, they are to burst the door open, roll in a grenade, and then follow up with a large volume of small arms fire.  Not very discriminating perhaps but it saves the lives of our soldiers.

We also know that the terrorists with whom we are fighting have no compunction at using civilians as shields.  In fact they do so on purpose hoping to make headlines of the sort we are now seeing.  It makes great propaganda for them and the Democrat Party. 

If you’re willing to explode a car bomb in the middle of a market to exact the maximum number of dead Iraqi civilians, what do you care about the few you are using as a shield?

Now for a bunch of politicians (the Democrats) who continually express outward concern for the welfare of our troops and who follow the daily American death toll and punctuate every sentence about the war with the current numbers of American dead and wounded, I find it curious that they would be so cavalier in their leap to convict our troops of wrong doing in the absence of any real evidence (the simple existence of civilian casualties is not that evidence).  They must know that undermining the confidence of those same troops can only further add to the danger they are in. 

Could it be that they wish for more casualties so they can use them in their campaign against the war and against the President?  I wouldn’t go so far as to assert that they don’t care about the welfare of our boys in Iraq, but one does have to wonder.

Why are they so quick to believe the worst about our soldiers?  Why are Democrats more willing to believe the claims of the Iraqis than the word of our own troops?  Why are they more willing to believe the words of terrorists who have been released from detention than they are the troops who are assigned to guard them? 

Clearly one reason is that Democrats and more specifically Liberals have always feared and distrusted our military.  They are the same folks who always seek to blame America first.

Finally let’s discuss the aid and comfort those on the Left are giving to our enemies. 

Rest assured that the terrorists and insurgents are reading, watching, and listening to every word that appears in the media.  Every grandstanding political speech against the war, every accusation made against our troops and our government, all of it is fodder for their propaganda mill.  Everytime they hear Senator Kerry-Heinz call for a quick cut and run withdrawal of our troops they think they can outlast us. 

Not only that, but everytime an Iraqi citizen who is not quite sure whether he should give his allegience to the elected government or to one of the insurgent faction hears those words, it gives him cause to reflect, another reason to doubt.

For people who actually are compassionate, not merely paying lip service, the only possible course is to see the war through.  The only compassionate action is to make sure that the Iraqi people get their chance to build a safe, stable, democratic, and open government.

I have been criticized (surprise) for accusing those speaking out against the war of being traitors. They ask, “Can’t we even criticize the war?  Isn’t that what freedom of speech is all about?”  Short answer, if it endangers our troops, if it endangers our security, NO! 

Giving aid and comfort to the enemy is treason.  Undermining the moral of our troops in a time of war is treason.  Being an advocate for the enemy is...treason.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!

Friday, June 9, 2006

Ann Coulter: Our Golden Haired Truth Teller

Will Malven

Oh my! How rude!

Ann Coulter has dared to tell the truth about the Democrat political ploy of trotting out “widows and orphans” to make their anti-President Bush, anti-military, anti-America arguments under the assumption that their status of “victimhood” would protect them from any direct criticism.

As a reward for this truth-telling, she has been loudly reviled by the paleo-media pundits and such “moderate” (read lift-wing) luminaries as New York Governor Pataki, the “Prince of Pretense” Bill O’Reilly, Hilary “Stand by Your Man” Clinton, and, of course, the numerous extreme left-wing blogsites.

These critics are aided and abetted in their campaign by a press that carefully edits the words of Miss Coulter to convey the impression that, rather than simply criticizing those four women, she was attacking all 9/11 widows, something patently and demonstrably not true.

Lies are ever the currency of the left.

The MSM would have you believe that these four, self-labeled “The Jersey Girls” are speaking for all women who lost their husbands in the 9/11 terrorist attacks.  However, the fact is that these hateful political activists have been roundly criticized by many of their fellow sufferers. 

That kind of straw man attack tactic is typical of liberals.  They accuse someone of saying something they didn’t say then attack them for saying it.  They are incapable of making their arguments without lies or distortion, because they are attacking someone who is telling the truth.

We have been treated to an endless parade of “unassailable” hate mongers hiding behind the screen of their own self-proclaimed suffering or military experience.  The so-called “Jersey Girls,” Cindy Sheehan, Max Cleland, John “Mad Captain Jack” Murtha, John “Purple Heart” Kerry-Heinz (he served in Vietnam, you know); no matter how shrill and venomous their accusations and hate speech, we are not to dare criticize them.

This is nothing more than a new variation of the old worn out “chicken-hawk” argument.  It is the false claim that you cannot comment on some event, unless you have been personally touched by that event.  This is pure horse-hockey.  These “victims” have injected themselves into the discours politique and are therefore legitimate targets for criticism.

I, of course, have never felt any compunction in attacking these false spokesmen.  Cindy Sheehan, the mother of fallen American hero Casey Sheehan, was so intensely saddened by her son’s death that she failed to erect a monument on his grave; rather, she threw herself into a self-aggrandizing stalking campaign of hatred and slander against President Bush, virtually accusing him of pulling the trigger of the gun that killed young Casey.

A woman who can so callously abandon her family to their sorrows so that she can become a heroine of the left deserves no sympathy, only contempt.  The same holds true for these “Jersey Girls.”  I haven’t heard that any of these grieving widows has refused or returned any of the millions of dollars, much of which came from this “evil government” they seem so avid to denounce.

Again, people who place themselves in the position to be the faces of the Democrat political agenda by their own efforts (even “widows and orphans”), cannot be considered immune to criticism.  Those on the left, who routinely level far more hateful personal attacks against President Bush on a daily basis, most sourced in lies and distortions, are suddenly outraged when someone on the right dares to criticize, or even worse, state the truth about their liberal icons.

Are we supposed to let Representative John Murtha’s scurrilous attacks against President Bush and the troops in Iraq go unanswered simply because he served in Vietnam?  Are we supposed to allow Senator John “Kerry-Heinz’s lies to go unanswered simply because he received a Purple Heart for a (self-inflicted) wound during his short stay in Vietnam?

Not a chance.  Representative Murtha’s cowardly cut and run strategy for losing the war in Iraq deserves to be slammed for the evil it is.  I will remind the readers that this same John Murtha was instrumental in our cut and run strategy in Somalia . . . yep, that was his recommendation.  Such cowardly advice deserves and will receive no quarter from me or any other truth teller.

Are we to excuse Senator Kerry-Heinz’s tow-faced stands on the Iraq War and his vote against funding the troops in Iraq (he actually “voted for the funding before [he] voted against it”] because he spent a few months in Vietnam? 

Not I.  While I salute those who chose to serve for their willingness to do so, these acts of selflessness in no way insulate them from criticism of their subsequent actions and speeches.

As Miss Coulter said, the Democrats expect us to refrain from objecting to fetal stem-cell research simply because they trot out the late Christopher Reeves or Michael J. Fox to speak in favor of it.  If we then take a stand based on our beliefs in the sanctity of human life, even that of the unborn, we are called “heartless” or “unfeeling.”  If we oppose abortion and speak of passing an amendment protecting the life of the unborn, they trot out the old worn-out line about women dying in back-alley abortion clinics, as it they used to stack the bodies of those poor unfortunate women like cord wood in the days before abortion became legal.  Of course those unborn children don’t matter in the culture of selfishness promoted by the Democrat Party

For the left, taking responsibility for one’s actions is unimportant—it might even be immoral.  In my opinion, “choice” occurs when an individual decides to engage in unprotected sex, not in deciding whether or not to kill the resulting unborn child.

The “right to privacy” ceases to exist once one decides to kill a human being.  Whether that “someone” is an adult or an unborn child, it is murder.  It is the state sanctioned taking of a human life without due process of law.  It is an abridgement of their divinely “endowed” right to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

Democrats are cowards and bullies.  They hide their agenda behind the skirts of those like Cindy Sheehan and the “Jersey Girls,” because they know that the American people would reject their policies entirely, unless presented by these sympathetic figures.  We know that for a fact.  It has been proven time and again through the elective process.

If Howard Dean, Rahm Emanuel, and Harry Reid were to come out promoting the arguments that these women have, they would be exposed as the political hacks they truly are, so they use these surrogates to make their arguments for them, in the mistaken belief that their suffering grants them immunity from contradiction.

The truth remains the truth, even in the face of such an emotionally charged attack.  The unfortunate circumstances which led to the unexpected celebrity of these people, do not exuse the boorishness and hateful nature of their attacks. 

If one chooses to dance in the political arena, she must be prepared to pay the piper.  The constitutional right of free speech is a two-way street.  That which guarantees the right of these women to speak their minds, even in hatred, guarantees the right of those of us who disagree to respond in kind.

Those on the left are ever dishonest and hypocritical when they lash out against a critic like Ann Coulter in feigned indignance.

Martyrdom is not an invitation for unbridled, uncivil discourse.  Every time one of these “victims” makes the choice to launch a politically motivated attack, they have, by their own choice, made themselves eligible for an equally spirited response.  The have abandoned the protection from criticism that their initial suffering granted them and have opened themselves up to attack.

I applaud Ann Coulter for having the strength and courage to speak the truth.  Would that more so-called “conservatives” displayed such courage to an equal degree. 

It is time to take on these purveyors of hatred whenever they speak out, rather than tucking our collective tails and cowering in fear.

The truth will out, if we have the courage to speak it.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!

Tuesday, June 6, 2006

Estate Tax: Legislated Envy

Will Malven

There is nothing more revealing of the liberal’s mindset than any casual discussion of taxes and taxation.  Such a discussion inevitably devolves into an argument about “fairness” and “greed” as in the “greedy rich people” never have to pay their “fair share” of the tax-burden.  “The middle class and the poor bear the lion’s share of the tax burden, while the wealthy don’t pay any taxes at all.”  The persistence of this myth, even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, can be maddening to those of us who live in the real world.

Liberals remain convinced that no one can achieve success and wealth without “lying, cheating, or stealing” or being “unduly lucky” in some way.  It simply is not “fair” that some people are wealthy while others in our society live in poverty.  It remains a matter of faith for liberals that success is evil.  It is inconceivable to them that an individual, through hard work and intelligence, could be successful without resorting to some sort of flummery. There is no villain in society more reviled than the successful businessman.  In their narrow view of life, private enterprise is the most corrupting influence in America.

The American liberal’s sad adherence to the failed philosophies of Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, and Joseph Stalin causes them to see the natural occurring disparities, evident in any society based on “capitalism,” between the wealthy and the poor not as due to inherent differences in an individual’s industriousness and frugality, but more as due to inequalities of opportunity inherent in a society that rewards evil behavior with wealth.

Liberals, sitting on their coffee breaks pontificating on the “sad lack of fairness” in the world, eye each hard working individual with suspicion and arrogantly label any industrious coworker as a “brown-noser” or a “suck-up.”  They view the small businessman who spends 16 hours a day struggling to make his business successful as greedy and suspect that he can’t possibly become successful unless he “cheats” in some way.

In their idealized union environment, liberals tell the hard workers, “Back off!”  Those who chose to do more than their allotted measure of work, are chastised and coerced to limit their work.  Over performance, they are told, makes their brother workers, who only do what they are told and no more, “look bad.”  Over performance leads “management” to expect higher productivity from all workers.

Envy is one of the tenets of faith in the Religion of Liberalism.  When they see an individual of wealth, rather than being inspired to achieve more, rather than saying “I will work hard so that I too may become wealthy,” they wrap themselves in robes of envy.  “It’s not fair,” they cry.  “They have more than their fair share,” they whine.

Having made this determination, it is only natural that the solution they offer is to “level” the playing field through a confiscatory tax system.  That is the origin and purpose of our “progressive” federal income tax system.  The thought behind this progressive system is not simply, “You have prospered from living and working in our nation and using its infrastructure so you should pay your “fair share.”  It is “You have prospered “unfairly” and “disproportionately” from living and working in our nation so you should pay more than other, less industrious, people.”

What follows from that belief, that success should be punished through a progressive and confiscatory system of taxation, is the belief that no one should be able to profit “unfairly” from the industry of their forbearers.  “You didn’t earn the money; your parents did, so why should you benefit from their work.”  This is nothing more than a new way of whining, “It’s not fair.”

One caller on C-Span, the inspirational source for this editorial, thinking himself to be very “clever,” I’m sure, attempted, in sarcasm, to ridicule those of us who oppose any form of inheritance tax.  He adopted the role of a wealthy inheritor saying, “Why shouldn’t I profit because my father was smart enough to buy “XYZ” stock at $50 and sold it at $1000?  Just because other people weren’t smart enough to do the same thing is no reason that I shouldn’t profit from my father’s success.”  Of course the implication of such a call was that the caller would get rich without having earned it. 

So what, like…this is supposed to be a bad thing?

I wonder, how many of these envy ridden liberals would be so conscientious as to turn down an inheritance under these circumstances.  “No thank-you, I didn’t earn this so I want the federal government to have it all…” Riiihgt, I believe that, it happens all the time.  I wonder how many of the “fastidious Liberals” gamble.  I wonder if they pull the handle down hoping that they lose.  I wonder if they play blackjack hoping the dealer wins every hand.

I wonder how many of these “conscientious liberals” play their state lottery each week hoping to win $40 million in unearned income.  Oh, of course, they buy the ticket hoping to lose.  I’m sure there are some, a very few, who are so heavily indoctrinated into the culture of Marxism that they would refuse wealth no matter what the source, but most would switch their opinions and arguments overnight were they suddenly to find themselves in possession of wealth. I have seen this “miraculous transformation” personally in one of my closest liberal friends.  The sudden inheritance of unexpected wealth brought about a convulsive tranformation turning a “McGovern Socialist Liberal” into a “Reagan Conservative.”

That is the proof of envy. 

If you are among the very few who would refuse wealth were it offered to you, congratulations, you are a true believer—a fool—but a true believer nonetheless. 

If you would accept wealth if it was offered to you as, I suspect, 99% of these self-righteous prigs would, then you are nothing but a faddish socialist, a hypocritical jerk, and envy is your only motivation.

The “Death Tax” is an Envy Tax, nothing more.  It is based on the tired, old, failed, economic system of socialism.  The more you earn, the more successful you are, the more you should have to pay.  Success is evil so it must be discouraged at any cost so that the rest of us won’t feel stupid or inferior because we aren’t successful.

Perhaps, using this philosophy of “fairness,” we should handicap all citizens so that those of us who are “too-fill in the blank” are brought back down into the realm of the “average.”  If you’re “too smart” then you should be given a “stupidity pill.”  If you’re “too athletic,” you should have some portion of your body removed so that you will no longer think yourself better than others.  That is the ultimate result of the fairness argument.

Envy is a sickness.  It is a disease of a warped sense of morality.  It is, according to the Bible, a sin.  No one who indulges themselves in envy and jealousy can possibly be happy.  How can one enjoy what he has got, what he has achieved, if he is too preoccupied with making sure that others don’t have more than he does?

The so-called Death Tax is a bad idea and the time has come to eliminate it entirely.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!

Sunday, March 26, 2006

The American Dream Is Not A World-Wide Entitlement!

Will Malven

Alright people let’s get something straight, if you are living in some foreign country, say Mexico for example, you are not automatically entitled to come to this nation and achieve “the American Dream.”

The following comment from a protestor in Phoenix who was one among the estimated 10,000 protestors marching on Senator John Kyl’s office:

"They're here for the American Dream," said Malissa Greer, 29, who joined a crowd estimated by police to be at least 10,000 strong. "God created all of us. He's not a God of the United States, he's a God of the world."

Excuse me Malissa Greer, you’re right, God did create all of us, but he did not create all of us in America.  Access to the American Dream is not a God given right; it is a privilege of those of us who are rightfully, lawfully, citizens of this nation.  In our wisdom, we have found it to be mutually beneficial for us to allow a limited number of immigrants to come to this nation and we have passed laws on how that is to come about.

Among those laws one will not find “Just come on in where and when you choose to.” The members of Congress, on both sides of the aisle, are in danger of completely misreading the tenor of the American people on this issue. The laws they are currently discussing are not what the average American citizen believes to be acceptable.

Rarely have I seen Americans so exercised about an issue.  Illegal immigration and Congress’ failure to deal effectively with it is rapidly becoming the issue.  I called this issue in my September 28th editorial.  Over the past 6 months this issue has steadily escalated to become the big issue of the election.  It will almost certainly eclipse the Iraq war as the most central issue of the 2006 election, and the party which grows the backbone to properly deal with this issue will have a lock on Congress. The party whose member cowers in fear hoping to gain the Hispanic vote is going to end up losing.

At every coffee bar, in every conversation, the questions of what to do about illegal immigration and the possible destruction of our nation and our culture, always arises.  Here in Texas, it is always accompanied by the “duck and peek” maneuver so typical of our politically correct society.

Before bringing up the topic of Illegals, the speaker will always duck his head and peek out of the corner of his eye to see if someone of Hispanic heritage is nearby.  Americans are tired of having to worry about the future of the nation and their children’s future.

The real problem here is a problem of respect, or lack of respect, for the law.  How can you expect people to obey the laws, when they see millions of non-citizens flaunting the law in broad daylight?   We have police men who are not allowed to detain non-citizens for being here illegally by City ordinance.

Local law enforcement is told that it is not their problem, so they simply ignore the small groups of “day-laborers” who gather at various locals throughout the community.  These “day-laborers” are Illegals who are waiting for people; mostly contractors who need unskilled labor, to come by and hire them.  If you spend any time watching them, you will see them rush to congregate around each pick-up truck that pulls up; each bidding against the others to get a job.

This is not a situation conducive to respect for the law.  Former New York Mayor Rudi Giuliani proved that tolerance of smaller crimes leads to more serious crime when he cracked down on the panhandlers and street crimes in the Big Apple, New York went from being one of the most crime-ridden cities in America to one of the safest.

The current proposals in Congress, in which illegal immigrants are required to pay fines, pay back taxes, and take English language lessons, are not credible.  How can you expect to force compliance with the new law, if you haven’t shown the will to enforce the current laws?  What would possibly compel these Illegals to do what is necessary to become citizens? 

To be sure, most of the illegal immigrants are decent folks just trying to get a piece of the American dream, but as I said before, that dream is not an entitlement.  We already have provided a path to that dream, it’s called legal immigration.

What we are dealing with here are people who are not willing to wait in line to gain access to citizenship.  We also are dealing with businesses that are making higher profits by having access to below minimum wage workers, rather than being forced to pay competitive wages that would attract citizens to those jobs.  It is true that some of those jobs like agricultural jobs will probably not attract American citizens regardless of pay, especially in this society of entitlement.

The only reason farmers cannot draw American citizens to do this work is because citizens aren’t forced to work.  If the choice was between performing backbreaking agricultural work and starvation, there would be no difficulty in attracting legal residents to work the fields.

The only workable system is one of enforcement first.  Fine and jail employers who are found to employ Illegals, then round up and deport the illegal immigrants.  Then and only then will you be able to have a credible policy. Until then there is no incentive for them to obey the laws. 

Many Illegals themselves will tell you that they come across the border because “everyone else does.”  So it doesn’t make sense for them to wait to do it legally.
 Contempt for the law is bred by the failure to enforce our current laws.

That truism is universal, not just an illegal immigrant’s truth.  We see it in our society regardless of the population.  Enron and WorldCom occurred because of failure to sufficiently monitor and enforce the existing laws for corporate accounting practices.

Contempt for all law always follows a failure to enforce the smallest of laws.

Until President Bush, Congress, and the INS find a way to enforce our current laws, there will be little reason to believe that new laws will solve this problem and this is a problem which must be solved.

I truly believe that should the government fail to deal with this problem, there will be such a build-up of resentment and hatred among the American populace, that it will boil over and violence will ensue on a large scale. 

Frankly, I would prefer not to see that happen, but Thomas Jefferson did admonish us that:

 “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”

Long Live Our American Republic!!!

Wednesday, March 8, 2006

“Scientific” Creationism is Neither Scientific Nor Christian.

Will Malven

[Note:  This is one of my reposts.  The date is approximate.]

I really hate to get into this discussion, because I will be slammed from both sides. One side (the pro Separation side) will say “See I told you so.” The other side will accuse me of being a heretic (which I am) or anti-Christian or some such nonsense. But…Here I go.

Today I heard one of our self appointed “Guardians of American’s Souls” arguing for the teaching of the so-called “Scientific Creationism” in concert with the scientifically accepted theory of evolution. Puhleeez! Will somebody get a net?

Let me say right here and right now, there is nothing-I repeat-NOTHING scientific about “Scientific Creationism” beyond the name. It is a pseudo-science just like the astrology, or alchemy of Leonardo daVinci’s time. I’m sorry folks, but those are the cold hard facts.

“Scientific Creationism” is a vain attempt to reconcile the extensive scientific evidence that supports evolution with the verbatim account of Genesis in the Bible. The two have nothing in common. If your faith in God is so weak, that you require a trumped-up, pseudo-scientific, explanation of how life got here; if your faith is so shallow that the mere probability is a parable (remember, Jesus used many of them in his teachings), rather than a day-by-day, step-by-step account of how God made the world, then I suggest that you have a whole lot of praying to do.

John Calvin defines faith as, “a firm and sure knowledge of the divine favor to us, founded on the truth of a free promise in Christ, and revealed to our minds and sealed in our hearts by the Holy Spirit...That assent itself is more a matter of the heart than the head, of the affection than the intellect.” [My emphasis]

The Bible, in Hebrews 11:1-3 defines faith as, “…the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen…Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.”

In other words, don’t look for evidence to support your faith outside of yourself; it comes from God, directly to you.

True spirituality requires faith, not proof. There is a reason that all proofs of God’s existence require the lens of faith. Spirituality requires work. God does not spoon feed us. He will help us accomplish great things if we are willing to work for them. Our degree of spirituality is in direct proportion to our faith. Faith, true deep in your soul, to the tips of your toes faith, requires work and encompasses doubts. Without doubts, we would not be human, because as humans, we are not perfect. We may only aspire toward perfection. For me, if I make a little progress in that direction each day, that is enough. Afterall, as far as I know, only one presence, here on earth, has ever known Perfection.

Biblical teachings like Genesis do not belong in public school science classes; they belong in the home and in church. Failure to recognize this is tantamount to attempting to do the one thing in the interaction of religion and government that our Founding Fathers forbade. I quote, “Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion or the free exercise thereof…” By attempting to force a government entity to introduce patently Christian doctrine into a taxpayer supported organization (i.e. school), these “guardians of our souls” are attempting to do just that, establish a state religion.

Most of those reading this have gone all of the way through school without having been taught this pseudo-scientific garbage and managed to hang on to their beliefs and faith, including, I might add, these panhandlers of creationism. As far as I am concerned, these guys are just con-artist looking to put a donated buck in their own pockets, that might be better spent supporting a minister in Africa or Asia.

Folks, if someone tries to sell you proof that God exists, while claiming to be speaking from the in-dwelling Holy Spirit, better check your wallet.
Anonymous said...
It's unbelievable that this even has to be discussed in 2005, but you're right on. Some may think this a matter of trivial importance, and a harmless way to indoctrinate children, but it's far from it. Teaching both scientific fact and the kind of reasoning that is valid in science is crucial for the long term competitive advantage of America in an increasingly technical world. Teaching creationist nonsense like "ID" and the like is ultimately self-defeating, as you end up with a populace that can't distinguish science from ad hoc wishful thinking; not only are these people unfit to work in scientific fields, they are susceptible to falling for every snake oil scam that comes down the pike (the comparison to astrology is quite apt.) The (re-)rise of creationism is a disaster for America.

-your friendly neighborhood biologist
Herman Cummings said...
Both Creationism and Evolutin are in error!!

School boards neglect to consult the leading expert on the book of
Genesis. The Cobb County School Board in Georgia needlessly lost
their "sticker" case because they chose to bury their heads in ignorance,
rejecting the opportunity to successfully defend their position. Their
attorney, Linwood Gunn, chose not to listen to the line of questioning
that would have proven that the exclusive teaching of evolution is

The Dover Area (York County, PA) school board and the law firm they
hired both failed to respond to the letters sent to them offering help
concerning the upcoming law suit. They refused to accept that "ID"
is an inferior concept, and the board does not want to teach
historical reality.

The Kansas State Board refuses to invite that same Genesis expert to
correct their misguided attempt to offer an alternative to evolution.
Intelligent Design does not teach the students about the life and death
of past life forms on Earth. Yet the Kansas State Board invites those
that do not understand the Genesis text to speak, and plans false
"hearings" which are really a charade of "fact finding" inquiry.

The fact is, Genesis is not about "Creation Week" as creationism and
theology have taught mankind. God revealed a certain concept to
Israel (Moses) in 1598 BC, that modern science did not discover for
another 3000 years. However, the world of creationism has incorrectly
interpreted Genesis as giving a description of how God created the
Earth, and that is not what early Genesis is about.

On the other hand, Charles Darwin examined physical data around the
world, and came to the wrong conclusion. In an effort to explain the
appearance, disappearance, and reappearance of life forms over the
course of the 4.6 billion year history of Earth, the false doctrine of
evolution has been zealously embraced by secular science.

Various school boards (GA, KS, PA, AL, TX, etc.) across the USA
have repeatedly refused to learn the facts about the observations of
Moses. Some boards want to teach the inept doctrine of "Intelligent
Design", thinking that is their best chance of having creation introduced
into the curriculum. Others only want to teach evolution, thinking that
it is the only possible answer, and that Genesis is just "religious junk".

The present track record of school boards in courts of law that
try to question evolution, is very poor. You'd think that they would
soon learn to obtain all available factual information before confronting
the secular world of science. The school board members that favor the
exclusive teaching of evolution fail to understand that they are promoting
the religion of atheism. Doesn't that fail the so called "Lemon Test"?

Both sides are in ignorance, and seem not to have the desire to teach
students all available truth, giving the students closure on the
origins of life on this planet. Avoiding the truth is denying reality, and
those who deny reality are generally called "insane".

Herman Cummings
PO Box 1745
Fortson GA, 31808
(706) 662-2893