New Superfoods

I found an article at Science Daily about some new superfoods you can add to your diet for good health. Not that they are new foods per se, but science has discovered more about how healthful they are. The article is called "Try Adding These Superfoods to Your Thanksgiving Dinner This Year". It's a little late for Thanksgiving, but try them with your leftovers.

Kiwi is a delicious fruit with a strawberry-like flavor. Apparently, they are also extra healthy! The other foods mentioned are barley, cranberries, kefir (anyone know what this is?), and broccoli sprouts, which I'm not familiar with, but I like broccoli, so I'll probably like them.

I just made a trip over to Wikipedia. Here's what they have to say about Kefir:

Kefir (alternately keefir, kephir, kewra, talai, mudu kekiya, milkkefir, búlgaros) is a fermented milk drink that originated in the Caucasus region. It is prepared by inoculating cow, goat, or sheep's milk with kefir grains. Traditional kefir was made in skin bags that were hung near a doorway, and the bag was knocked by everyone passing through the doorway to help keep the milk and kefir grains well mixed.[1]

Kefir grains are a combination of bacteria and yeasts in a matrix of proteins, lipids, and sugars. This symbiotic matrix forms grains that resemble cauliflower. Today, kefir is becoming increasingly popular due to new research into its health benefits. Many different bacteria and yeasts are found in the kefir grains, which are a complex and highly variable community of micro-organisms.[2]

Traditional kefir is fermented at ambient temperatures, generally overnight. Fermentation of the lactose yields a sour, carbonated, slightly alcoholic beverage, with a consistency similar to thin yogurt[3].

I think I'll pass.

Federal Spending

At The Conservative Voice there is an article by Paul M. Weyrich called "A Guide to Federal Spending Out of Control". There is a link in the article that lets you download a pdf booklet called "The Little Book of Big Government".

The article begins by stating:

One of the reasons the Democrats won that resounding victory in the 2006 elections is that Republicans lost their way. In the 109th Congress there was profligate spending which would have made President Lyndon B. Johnson blush. Following the 2006 elections the Party leadership resolved that the GOP was going to get back on track. The leadership determined that spending was again going to be a major issue for the Republicans.

Toward that end, Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-MO) has produced a booklet to help GOP Members of Congress “in making the case for a smaller, less intrusive, more efficient and more effective federal government.”

After giving some example facts and figures, Mr. Weyrich says:

The Blunt booklet contains interesting information about eternal Federal programs, Federal regulations which stifle free enterprise, the looming entitlement crisis and much, much more. It is useful for every head of household, indeed every voter, to have around. In this era of remarkable technology, it will be possible to download in your browser the booklet by typing the web address mentioned above.

But I warn you, once you read and digest all of the data in the “Little Book of Big Government,” you won’t be able to put it down and moreover you will become part of the tax revolt in this country. You will demand that Congressmen and Senators cut back on government spending and your friends won’t want to see you coming as you demand that they understand the looming entitlement crisis. What are friends for if not to bother them on issues!

I recommend reading this article and downloading the booklet (it's 55 pages) so you can read and consider what it says. Government spending, especially by the federal government, is definitely out of control and citizens need to become aware of the details and contact their senators and congressmen to encourage them to turn things around. Or perhaps it would be best to demand that they turn things around.

Somehow those in government have gotten the idea that our money is their money and that they can spend it endlessly. Some of it is our own fault as citizens and voters because we don't realize the extent of the problem. This article and the booklet will help us to become informed and able to do something to stop the nonsense.

Latest Information on WMDs in Iraq

At FrontPage Magazine there is an article about WMDs in Iraq. The article is called "Shattering Conventional Wisdom about Saddam's WMDs" by John Loftus. This is an interim report as there are literally many shelf-miles of documents to be gone through and translated, but what has been learned so far shows that while the WMDs aren't all buried in the sand, there definitely were WMDs long after 1991--right up to just before we invaded Iraq, in fact.

The article isn't too long, and is well worth the time to read it. Here is the first paragraph:

Finally, there are some definitive answers to the mystery of the missing WMD. Civilian volunteers, mostly retired intelligence officers belonging to the non-partisan IntelligenceSummit.org, have been poring over the secret archives captured from Saddam Hussein. The inescapable conclusion is this: Saddam really did have WMD after all, but not in the way the Bush administration believed. A 9,000 word research paper with citations to each captured document has been posted online at LoftusReport.com. This document research has been supplemented with dozens of interviews.

The next two paragraphs provide something of a summary which is documented by the rest of the article and the research paper mentioned above:

The absolutists on either side of the WMD debate will be more than a bit chagrinned at these disclosures. The documents show a much more complex history than previously suspected. The "Bush lied, people died" chorus has insisted that Saddam had no WMD whatsoever after 1991 - and thus that WMD was no good reason for the war. The Neocon diehards insist that, as in Raiders of the Lost Ark, the treasure-trove is still out there somewhere, buried under the sand dunes of Iraq. Each side is more than a little bit wrong about Saddam's WMD, and each side is only a little bit right about what happened to it.

The gist of the new evidence is this: roughly one quarter of Saddam's WMD was destroyed under UN pressure during the early to mid 1990's. Saddam sold approximately another quarter of his weapons stockpile to his Arab neighbors during the mid to late 1990's. The Russians insisted on removing another quarter in the last few months before the war. The last remaining WMD, the contents of Saddam's nuclear weapons labs, were still inside Iraq on the day when the coalition forces arrived in 2003. His nuclear weapons equipment was hidden in enormous underwater warehouses beneath the Euphrates River. Saddam’s entire nuclear inventory was later stolen from these warehouses right out from under the Americans’ noses. The theft of the unguarded Iraqi nuclear stockpile is perhaps, the worst scandal of the war, suggesting a level of extreme incompetence and gross dereliction of duty that makes the Hurricane Katrina debacle look like a model of efficiency.

Here is what the last paragraph says:

Saddam’s nuclear documents compel any reasonable person to the conclusion that, more probably than not, there were in fact nuclear WMD sites, components, and programs hidden inside Iraq at the time the Coalition forces invaded. In view of these newly discovered documents, it can be concluded, more probably than not, that Saddam did have a nuclear weapons program in 2001-2002, and that it is reasonably certain that he would have continued his efforts towards making a nuclear bomb in 2003 had he not been stopped by the Coalition forces. Four years after the war began, we still do not have all the answers, but we have many of them. Ninety percent of the Saddam files have never been read, let alone translated. It is time to utterly reject the conventional wisdom that there were no WMD in Iraq and look to the best evidence: Saddam’s own files on WMD. The truth is what it is, the documents speak for themselves.

There is still much to learn, of course, but the information gathered so far is beginning to answer a lot of questions.

Veteran's Day 2007

“Throughout our history, America has been protected by patriots who cherished liberty and made great sacrifices to advance the cause of freedom. The brave members of the United States Armed Forces have answered the call to serve our Nation, ready to give all for their country. On Veterans Day, we honor these extraordinary Americans for their service and sacrifice, and we pay tribute to the legacy of freedom and peace that they have given our great Nation.”—President George W. Bush, 2007 Veterans Day Proclamation

Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his
friends. (John 15:13).

Remember Veteran’s Day today.

Indoctrination in Delaware

I don't know if you have heard about the program at the University of Delaware wherein they had a "treatment" for the "incorrect attitudes and beliefs" of their students, but I am relieved to tell you that said program has been terminated, effective immediately. FrontPage Magazine has an article about the program and its termination, "Victory at University of Delaware" which recounts the story and provides links to more information about it.

This program was a shocking attempt to "train" students to think in a certain way about various issues of the day. At Jewish World Review, Dr. Walter Williams writes a column titled "Academic Cesspools II" which details some of the insane things that the University of Delaware was doing before the program was terminated. We can all be thankful the program has ended.

I would urge alumni and parents of students to find out what is going on at their universities and get involved in supporting true academic freedom. Voting with their pocketbooks and their feet would be a good beginning.

About the Constitution

A lot of Americans seem to misunderstand what the Constitution says. Some call it a "living" document, meaning that they can interpret it in any way they wish. Not so. Dr. Walter Williams has written a column titled "Congressional Constitutional Contempt" in which he explains some of the main ideas that are actually in the Constitution. The column can be found at Jewish World Review.

To start with, Dr. Williams tells us the oath that members of Congress take when they enter office.

Here's the oath of office administered to members of the House and Senate: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me G-d." A similar oath is sworn to by the president and federal judges.

It is quite specific about supporting and defending the Constitution. He also tells us about the efforts of Rep. Shadegg (R-AZ) to enforce this oath.

In each new Congress since 1995, Rep. John Shadegg, R-Ariz., has introduced the Enumerated Powers Act (HR 1359). The Act, which has yet to be enacted into law, reads: "Each Act of Congress shall contain a concise and definite statement of the constitutional authority relied upon for the enactment of each portion of that Act. The failure to comply with this section shall give rise to a point of order in either House of Congress. The availability of this point of order does not affect any other available relief."

Simply put, if enacted, the Enumerated Powers Act would require Congress to specify the basis of authority in the U.S. Constitution for the enactment of laws and other congressional actions. HR 1359 has 28 co-sponsors in the House of Representatives.

When Shadegg introduced the Enumerated Powers Act, he explained that the Constitution gives the federal government great, but limited, powers. Its framers granted Congress, as the central mechanism for protecting liberty, specific rather than general powers. The Constitution gives Congress 18 specific enumerated powers, spelled out mostly in Article 1, Section 8. The framers reinforced that enumeration by the 10th Amendment, which reads: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people."

I have to wonder why this Act has never become law. It is perfectly consistent with what Congress should be doing. After giving some quotes from our founding fathers regarding their intentions and how these intentions fit with what Rep. Shadegg is trying to do, Dr. Williams says:

Congressmen, openly refusing to live up to their oath of office, exhibit their deep contempt for our Constitution. The question I've not been able to answer satisfactorily is whether that contempt simply mirrors a similar contempt held by most of the American people. I'm sure that if founders such as James Madison, John Adams or Thomas Jefferson were campaigning for the 2008 presidential elections, expressing their vision of the federal government's role, today's Americans would run them out of town on a rail. Does that hostility reflect constitutional ignorance whereby the average American thinks the Constitution authorizes Congress to do anything upon which they can get a majority vote or anything that's a good idea? Or, are Americans contemptuous of the constitutional limitations placed on the federal government?

If only Americans would actually study the Constitution and know what it says, they could elect public officials who would truly support and defend the Constitution. The improvement in America and the preservation of her liberties would be great.

If you do not have a copy of the Constitution, you can read it here at Patriot Post. And on their Historic Documents page, you can read the amendments to the Constitution and other historic documents. Very important reading.