Margaret Sanger a Feminist Heroine?!

Some feminists say that Margaret Sanger is a feminist heroine, an early feminist icon. I have to wonder if they are familiar with all of Sanger's ideas. If they are, I have to wonder about their own values.

"Mrs. Clinton Can’t Defend Patron Saint of Planned Parenthood" by Mona Charen (at National Review Online)

Ms. Charen writes:

Mrs. Sanger was certainly a birth-control pioneer. But when you examine the totality of Mrs. Sanger’s views, you’d think modern feminists would blanch — at least a little. Margaret Sanger was a most thoroughgoing racist. “Eugenics,” she wrote, “is the most adequate and thorough avenue to the solution of racial, political, and social problems.”

She also writes:

Representative Smith asked Secretary Clinton to respond to Mrs. Sanger’s views about the “deterioration in the human stock” and “the perpetuation of defectives, delinquents, and dependents.” As Goldberg has observed, conservatives are always asked to “own” their intellectual forebears and to disavow that which requires disavowal. Yet liberals skate by without having to distance themselves from the dreadful opinions and writings of their heroes and heroines.

We would all do well to consider the whole person before we hold anyone up as a role model--a hero or heroine.

We Can Learn a Lot from the Classics

I just read a marvelous essay over at American Thinker. It's called "How Democracies Become Tyrannies" by Ed Kaitz. This should be read by every American.

Mr. Kaitz's essay refers to scenes from Plato's Republic to show how, indeed, democracies become tyrannies, all with the permission, even encouragement, of its citizens. Here are two paragraphs from Mr. Kaitz's essay:

The answers to these questions were famously addressed in a few pages tucked within the greatest masterpiece of the classical world: Plato's Republic. On the surface, and to most reviewers of Plato's writings, the Republic is a dialogue on justice and on what constitutes the just society. But to careful readers the deeper theme of the Republic is the nature of education and the relationship between education and the survival of the state. In fact, the Republic is essentially the story of how a man (Socrates) condemned to death for "corrupting" the youth of Athens gives to posterity the most precious gift of all: the love of wisdom.

In the Republic, two young men, Glaucon and Adeimantus, accompany the much older Socrates on a journey of discovery into the nature of the individual soul and its connection to the harmony of the state. During the course of their adventure, as the two disciples demonstrate greater maturity and self-control, they are gradually exposed to deeper and more complex teachings regarding the relationship between virtue, self-sufficiency, and happiness. In short, the boys begin to realize that justice and happiness in a community rests upon the moral condition of its citizens. This is what Socrates meant when he said: "The state is man writ large."

The essay bears reading, as does Plato's Republic.

Updated to Add: There are two other articles referencing classics that would be a good read for you also. One that also references Plato's Republic is "How Republics Die: Plato's Cautionary Tale" by Mark J. Boone. Another, referencing Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged, is "'Atlas Shrugged': From Fiction to Fact in 52 Years" by Stephen Moore.

What to Do, What to Do?

As a conservative, I'm very concerned about the upcoming term of a liberal president supported by a liberal congress. With so many issues on the table--the economy, energy, health care, etc.--it is easy to worry that we're about to be led down a primrose path to the left. So what can those of us concerned about the loss of liberty, property rights, religious freedom, and other precious freedoms we have enjoyed here in the USA do? I ran across an article at American Spectator with some ideas. It's titled "What Conservatives Must Now Do" and is written by Peter Ferrara.

Mr. Ferrara discusses grassroots organizations that can then grow and strengthen our nation, getting us back to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" and following the Constitution instead of wandering off into the wilderness. Mr. Ferrara writes:

First and most important is to build up mighty, grassroots networks across the country. This is something that conservatives must do, not Republicans, who need to work on their own grassroots party network. Conservatives have become too good lately in lecturing Republicans on what they must do. We need to lead by building a powerful political movement, and the Republicans will then naturally follow.

The radical, liberal-left agenda is tailor made for generating grassroots firestorms in opposition. Included in that agenda is national legislation to remove all state restrictions on abortion, all parental notification, waiting periods, informed consent, and partial birth abortion restrictions. Instead we are slated for taxpayer funding for abortion on demand. Another beaut is national legislation to remove all state protections of gun rights, such as conceal and carry permits. Then there is the federal takeover of health care, the federal shutdown of proven, reliable energy production, global warming regulation to shut down what is left of the economy, the "fairness" doctrine to shut down talk radio, and national legislation to take away workers' rights to a secret ballot election to determine whether they will be forced into a union in their workplace. That last item also includes forcing union contracts on businesses, small, medium and large, in place of the current system of free negotiation.

After this partial list of what we have to work on, he goes on to describe what a grassroots organization might look like and what it could accomplish. I like that a lot of the focus is on informing Americans on the issues. It seems to me that there are far too many people who have the idea that they are entitled to have everything provided for them and done for them, and it blinds them to the serious losses they would face if the government attempted that--loss of freedoms of all types, loss of property rights, loss of choices (where to live, where to work, how to worship), and loss of quality in what is provided.

Many people don't understand insurance, for example, whether we are talking about health insurance, property insurance, or any other type of insurance. Let's take health insurance for an example. From what I hear people saying, they think that in exchange for a small monthly premium, all their health expenses should be paid by the insurance company, right down to the aspirin they had to take when they woke up with a headache. That is assuredly not what insurance is for. Insurance is to protect people against large losses (expenses) such as surgery, long term therapy, major illnesses such as cancer, and so forth. People are expected to cover the small expenses themselves--the bottle of aspirin, the deductible on the insurance, etc.--because those are affordable and can be worked into the family budget. Compare it to auto insurance--you don't expect auto insurance to pay for gas and oil changes. The auto insurance is to pay for the large expense of repairing your vehicle after an accident. If you don't understand what insurance is for, it is your responsibility to learn. It is not the government's responsibility to step in and pay/force the insurer to pay for every tiny expense. If we turn our responsibility over to the government, we are no longer free to make choices and, with government's poor record of managing anything, we can expect to have poor quality health care, if we can get it at all.

With all the concern over the economy, health, energy, and the many other issues facing us, I am hopeful that people will be more inclined to learn all they can about these issues and decide what they can support and what they cannot, thinking things through to their logical conclusions.

I am also hopeful that people will re-evaluate their own lifestyles and do everything they can to promote prosperity in their own families. Go back to budgeting and saving. Go back to home-cooked meals with healthier ingredients. Go back to reading books and watching movies at home instead of going out for expensive entertainment. Have family game night or take the family to the park to play. Stop living beyond our means. If you have a lot of changes to make, make them gradually, if you must. Talk to your family and enlist their support. Look on such changes as an opportunity and an adventure, not a deprivation. It's a great time to regroup and begin living a more sensible life.

Even when there is a lot of upheaval going on in the world, we can avoid making ourselves ill and depressed with worry. Look for the good. Appreciate what you have. Seek out the good in life and look for ways you can improve your life. It's the beginning of a new year. Make it a good one!

My Opinions

I am still pondering all the implications of an Obama presidency, coupled with a Democrat majority in Congress. I try to be optimistic and think that things won't be so bad and we'll get through this and be a stronger country for it. It is, however, very difficult to hold on to that viewpoint for very long.

Although Obama, assisted by the mainstream media, tried to keep the American people in the dark as to his real plans for America, enough information slipped out to cause serious concerns for those who care about our country and its Constitution. One issue is Obama's association with radical leftists. Whether we are talking about William Ayers or Rev. Jeremiah Wright or the others whose names you've seen here and there, we are talking about people who hate America and all she stands for. And we're going to let these people run the country?! Where are Obama's more moderate friends? Did he not have any? Let's face it--friends and associates and allies shape one's outlook a great deal.

Another issue is economics. Obama is definitely a taxer and a spender. He has plans for spending a trillion dollars of our (the taxpayers) money on various programs that have as their ultimate objective redistributing wealth. What Obama doesn't understand is that when there are wealthy people, those people invest, start businesses, and otherwise use their money to strengthen the economy and create jobs for others. The left doesn't seem to understand the difference between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome. The former is good and right and lets everyone have a chance. The latter is bad and wrong and punishes success while rewarding failure (often brought about by laziness). This applies in all issues, not just economic ones.

There are also issues of life. Obama is one of the most radical supporters of abortion in existence. He not only supports early-term abortion, but also late-term abortion, partial-birth abortion, and allowing babies who survive abortion to die alone without any care at all.

President Ronald Reagan said that government isn't the solution, but rather the problem. Yet Obama supports big government to an extent not before seen. He thinks government should rule every aspect of our lives--what we eat, the media available to us, how our children will be educated and at what age, our religious lives (or lack thereof), what transportation we can use, what products we can purchase (are they "green" enough?), etc.

Another issue is energy. Obama has sent signals that he wants to reinstitute bans on drilling, building coal plants and nuclear plants, and other necessary items that will allow America to become energy independent (at least as much as possible) and keep energy available while the various other energy sources (wind, solar, etc.) are developed and experimented with to see if they can become viable (they are not viable now) replacements for fossil fuels.

There are national security issues. Obama thinks he can talk our enemies into being our friends. He seems very concerned with dismantling our military as much as possible. Common sense says that a strong military is the best advocate for peace, but Obama would take that away from us. He wants to prevent our military personnel from being able to do their jobs fully and freely--something that is necessary for success. There has also been talk of his wanting to create some sort of civilian force, ostensibly to do community service, but how long before they would become enforcers of politically correct behavior in ordinary citizens? Obama wants them to be as well-funded as the military is now. What will that mean?

Obama seems to have some dreamy idea of utopia. This is not grounded in reality. If he studied history and economics, he would soon see the massive failures that ideas like his have inflicted on people in the past. Obama also seems to have the idea that once he is inaugurated, he will be the absolute ruler, that everyone will do whatever he wants them to do. If they don't, he thinks he will be justified in suppressing them and silencing their voices. He has already tried this during the campaign.

At his inauguration, Obama will take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution. He has already taken this oath when he has been sworn in to the public offices he has held to this point. He has done nothing to show me that he has any intention of taking this oath seriously. He has, in fact, stated that he wants to break free of the restraints put on us by the Founders in the Constitution. This is not the type of person who should be President (or a Senator, for that matter).

This all sounds extreme, but it is not my opinions that are extreme. It is Obama who is extreme.

So how did this man get elected? I suppose his charisma had something to do with it, although as the campaign progressed and he had to do interviews and not just give teleprompted speeches, it became clear that he was not a particularly good speaker without a prepared text and no interruptions for questions or comments. Frankly, I think a good part of the problem has come from education--from the public schools to colleges and universities. These sources of education have steadily drifted to the left, embracing baseless self-esteem and teaching tolerance of all things leftist--socialism, Marxism, communism, secularism, multiculturalism, and any other -ism you can think of (as long as it is a leftist -ism). Now we have a population who doesn't know much accurate history or civics and has had it drummed into their minds that there is nothing wrong with those leftist -isms. So when anyone tried to warn of Obama's socialist tendencies, they were greeted with a collective yawn and a "So what?"

The left has also been waging a battle for a long time now to eliminate religion from the public square. When religion goes, so do morals and common sense and the realization that there is right and wrong, good and evil. Everything is relative, according to these secular leftists. They have also been fighting free speech, defined by them as anything said that doesn't agree with their views. They are all for free speech and tolerance as long as it supports leftist views. If it disagrees, it has to go. For one example, take Prop 8 in California. It passed and its opponents are acting in very ugly ways. They are also being quite dramatic in discussing their pain at the defeat of Prop 8, but let one person try to inject a little reason into the conversation and the left shouts them down and accuses them of bigotry and hate. If Prop 8 had been defeated, you'd better believe the left would be gloating and would be quite hateful toward anyone who expressed even a little sorrow at its defeat. Yet said leftists don't even seem to be aware of their hypocrisy--they are too busy denouncing those who disagree with them to stop and consider their own viewpoints and those of others and think about whether they might be wrong. Nor can they seem to understand that some things are just plain wrong, no matter how sugar-coated they might be. Those on the left do not seem capable of debating the actual issues. They seem only capable of shouting down the opposition with name-calling.

For too long now, America has been dumbed down. Even those whose values and beliefs are conservative are gullible to the leftist propaganda. Many do not have the discipline or even the interest in educating themselves to correct what they learned in school or see in the mainstream media. Many have just bought into whatever they have been told. To be fair, I believe a lot of ordinary citizens who buy into leftist propaganda are well-meaning people who want to be fair and compassionate toward others. I just think that they aren't thinking the issues through and seeing the problems that will arise down the road.

The whole situation we are in makes me sad and a little frightened. Yes, we have survived many hard times before, but it hasn't been easy, and we were a stronger people then. Are we strong enough now to understand what is right and what is wrong and to fight for the right? Certainly, there are individuals who are strong enough, but are we, collectively, strong enough? I hope so, but I'm not sure. It just seems that there are many people who either don't think at all or at least don't think for themselves--they just buy into whatever the intellectual elite says they must think. This is so ironic because one thing leftists accuse conservatives of is marching in lockstep with their leaders. Yet it is leftists who are the real conformists. It is leftists who would squelch freedom and liberty.

Conservatives are not perfect. Still, conservatives recognize that there is such a thing as good and evil, right and wrong. They recognize that equality of opportunity is not the same thing as equality of outcome. The former can and should be supported, the latter should not be. Conservatives tend to be interested in thinking through the issues. Conservatives tend to be more mature in their outlook on life, recognizing that good needs to be fought for, defended, even sacrificed for. They recognize that life is not easy and it is not about getting whatever we want to satisfy our selfish desires. It is about caring for and about others and being of service and allowing others to be free, as well as themselves. Conservatives are not afraid of change. They just believe in considering the changes carefully and don't get caught up in thinking that change for its own sake is a good thing.

I have not linked to articles supporting my opinions in this post. I have been doing that repeatedly in previous posts. This post is just to express my concerns and the concerns of many other Americans as we face some potentially disasterous changes in our way of life, and to give my readers some things to consider.

Last Minute Thoughts

Three days to go before election day on 4 November. I hope and pray that everyone who intends to vote is studying the issues and the candidates, local and state as well as national.

While I disagree with John McCain on some issues (for example, global warming), I am certain that he will be a better president for America than Barack Obama. Senator McCain is a known man of character and courage. He is far more knowledgeable about foreign affairs and other important issues than Barack Obama. We can count on him to not make foolish diplomatic errors that could prove disasterous not only for ourselves, but for other countries around the world.

Senator Obama is secretive and evasive and a known ally of socialist/Marxist/communist people and organizations. He has lately been lowering the taxable ceiling from $250,000 to $120,000 annual income in various speeches by himself and his supporters. His planned expenditures total several trillion dollars. The only way he can pay for all that is to tax more and more people. Too often, the words "redistribute wealth" make people think of taking money from millionaires and billionaires and distributing it to the poor. There aren't enough millionaires and billionaires to pay for all of that, so much of the middle class will find their incomes taxed to the max. What people aren't thinking about, either, is the fact that it is the people with the most money who invest and start businesses and give to charity (usually--the Bidens and the Obamas haven't been all that generous with their own money). It is the wealthier citizens who do things that create jobs and other opportunities, which is far more helpful to people than just giving them some dollars.

There are also countless questions about Senator Obama's honesty. Why won't he prove that he is a naturalized citizen and therefore eligible for the office of President? Why won't he release his donor lists? Why won't he get specific about his plans for America? And what about the known instances of him and his campaign trying to intimidate to silence those who disagree with him? He's tried that in Missouri and in Pennsylvania, at least. What about ACORN's voter registration fraud being investigated in a dozen states?

Another thing about Obama that would be funny if it weren't so serious for our country is his lack of accomplishments. And yet his campaign dares to claim that Governor Sarah Palin isn't qualified! That is laughable. She has far more serious, executive experience than he has. She is far more ready for higher office than he is. Then, too, there is the race issue. It is Obama's campaign and not McCain's that has been playing the race card by labeling everything as racist.

America was founded on freedom and must remain that way. Why are we strong? Because we have had the freedom to work our way up from wherever we start to wherever we want to be. We have had the incentive to create and invent and improve life for all. We have had the freedom to create a strong military. That will all disappear if Obama's wealth redistribution, reduction in military, and other socialist policies are put into practice.

When it comes to healthcare, the more the government interferes, the more it costs. Let the free market capitalism reign. We will see competition driving prices downward. It's the same with education. Let there be competition among public and private schools. Let people have vouchers so that they can choose the best schools for their children. Competition will improve the quality of education faster than any government program.

And let's talk military. Senator Barney Frank wants to cut the military by 25%. If we do not have a strong military run by men of character who know what is at stake, we will never have world peace. Other countries will see no reason to hold back on their attacks, including here in the United States, if our military is weakened. Preparation for war is the best incentive for peace.

The last thing our wonderful country needs is to be run by liberal Democrats such as Barack Obama, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi. They want to cripple our economy by preventing our use of our own energy deposits, by going along with extreme environmentalists, and by taxing and spending. We all know it was liberal policies by Democrats and a refusal to heed warnings made by conservative Republicans that caused our current financial problems. That is just a sample of what we can look forward to if we elect those who ignore the Constitution or reinterpret it to suit their own agendas. Make no mistake about it--it will not be the elite liberals whose wealth is redistributed. They will exempt themselves from the policies they wish to inflict on the people of the United States.

The problems we have in America today were caused largely by the socialists policies of FDR and LBJ and others who have had the foolish notion that the government can manage our money and our lives better than we can. Government has its essential uses, but interfering in the free market and in people's lives are not among those uses. The more we get government out of our lives, the better and stronger America will be. A free people is far more generous than a forced people, who cannot afford to be charitable because all their money is going to a bloated government who uses much of that money just to pay for administering programs, never mind actually helping people.

As much as possible, government should be small and should be local, where the people can keep a closer eye on what is being done and can put a quick stop to waste and fraud. There have certainly been Republicans who have bought into the tax and spend and big government foolishness. They can be voted out of office, too, if they show no signs of mending their ways.

There is a lot at stake for America these days. Think about freedom and liberty. Reread the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States of America. Think seriously about the lessons of history. And whatever happens on Tuesday, think seriously about keeping a close eye on government and contacting your representatives at both state and national levels and letting them know how you expect them to govern on your behalf.

And may God continue to bless America.

Socialism Doesn't Help People

It's pretty clear, especially from his remarks to Joe the Plumber, but also from his general viewpoint and alliances, that Obama is a supporter of socialism and would like to take America in that direction. First, I would like to link to some articles that will shed some light on both socialism itself and also on Obama's connection to socialist ideas. These can be found at Thought You Should Know, on the "News" page, along with many other articles of interest. The articles are linked to the original websites they appeared on.

"Is Obama a Socialist?" by Henry Lamb

"Why Obama's Socialism Matters" by Bookworm

"Obama's 95% Illusion" by the Wall Street Journal editors

"It's the Socialists Taking Over Our Country" by Marie Jon

"President Barack Hoover" by Hugh Hewitt

"Governor Palin, 'Joe the Plumber', and the Real Middle Class" by Austin Hill

These articles explain socialism and why Obama can be considered a socialist. They give us a glimpse of what Obama's plans for America are.

One reason that I think people support Obama is that they think he is going to help people and lift them out of poverty, help them get healthcare, and give them money (taken from the wealthy). The problem is that when you take money from the wealthy, you cripple their ability to invest, to start businesses, and generally to create jobs, which is far more helpful to those who struggle than to just hand them a one-time check. You destroy people's incentive to invent new products and systems and start businesses that grow our country's economy.

There are other problems, too, such as universal healthcare. We learn from Canada, Great Britain, and other countries who have this socialist system for their healthcare that many people can't get the care they need when they need it. It may not be a big issue for those with only minor health problems, but for those with serious illnesses, such as cancer, it can mean death.

I suppose there are those out there who think that conservatives such as myself are ready to throw the poor and ill under the bus. No, we are not. We believe that the only real way to help people is NOT through government, but by individual efforts to help family and neighbors, by church help, and by private charities. Some charity organizations are nationwide, but they have local offices all over the country. The positive thing about local, non-government help is that it is where the people who need help are. It is able to get to know people and understand what their needs are and help them overcome obstacles to a better life. We have seen over and over how poorly government performs at most tasks. Why do we want to turn more and more over to it?

The particular danger of an Obama presidency is that he and those working with him won't stop at a little government interference and a little raising of taxes. They obviously plan to keep going until the government is in charge of everything. They plan to shrink the military, get rid of free trade, and oust capitalism. People need to think ahead and see the end results of Obama's plans to "help" people. There are many countries whose histories you can look at to see what happens--Cuba, Russia, China. Look at Great Britain and Europe today and compare that with what they once were. Look at what the UN tries to do to interfere with the governments of individual countries. It is hard to overcome the indoctrination of public schools, but there are sources of true information out there.

Obama has also shown that he is quite willing to try to intimidate those who don't agree with him. He's tried to sue the NRA for its ads and has also tried to prevent disagreement with him in Missouri. Then there's the whole ACORN organization and its attempts to use fraud in voter registration. There are Democrats as well as Republicans investigating that mess.

We have other problems to keep in mind. The great global warming hoax is being used as a tool to try to wreck the economy of countries all over the world, including the USA. Radical environmentalists are also a problem in other ways. We need to use all of our own energy resources (not only oil and natural gas and coal, but also nuclear plants, and we need to work on solar and wind and other sources of energy which are by no means ready to be our sole sources now) instead of sending money to buy from countries who are definitely not looking out for our best interests, yet Obama and many Democrats don't want us to produce our own energy. In addition, Obama has talked of sending $800 billion to other countries under the pretext of ending poverty. We have all seen how various tyrants and dictators do not use such aid to help their poor--they use it to enrich themselves and to tighten their grip on others.

I could go on and on, discussing abortion, the attempts to weaken families, the attempts to weaken religion, the lack of truthful information from the mainstream media, etc. There are very real dangers to America and its freedoms. There are many types of radicals who wish to destroy America as we know it, forgetting that it is America's freedom that has allowed said radicals to flourish. There are serious consequences to the actions of government and the people need to put a stop to the foolishness. One way to stop at least some of it is to NOT put Obama in as president. Another is to elect good people to Congress and toss out those who threaten our freedom.

You may not agree with me, but at least stop and think about what I've written. Read the articles I link to and think about what these writers say. I link to serious, intelligent people. I write from my heart. I just want American citizens to wake up and take a serious interest in their country's future and in all our individual futures. And please remember that we do not have to trash our country in order to help people who need help. The more prosperous and free our country is, the more we have available to help others. Also, when America sets a good, strong example for the world, other countries take heart and work to improve their own situations. There is so much good about America. She should be strengthened and not weakened.

17 Days Until November 4

We have 17 days to live through before the 4 November election. I suspect we will all be immensely relieved to have it over with! It does get tiresome to hear about the election and the candidates 24/7, but this is incredibly important for our country, so try to hang in there with it.

I have a number of articles that I really believe you should read and give serious thought to. There is a lot at stake in this election. First up are three articles about what kind of America we would be facing if Senator Obama is elected. These are from Townhall.

"Socialism! There, I Said It!" by David Limbaugh

"Do You Know the Real Barack Obama?" by Carol Platt Liebau

"Time to Use the 'C' Word" by Laura Hollis

These columns discuss information we've heard bits and pieces about, but have we put the pieces together to understand what Obama is all about and what electing him as President would mean for our freedom?

Since the mainstream media isn't what you could call objective or unbiased, you should counter what you hear from it with some information about McCain from his website. You can click on issues and then choose an issue of interest to read his positions. There are 21 issues listed. You may not agree with everything on each issue, but think also about who is more likely to maintain the liberty and freedom that is America--McCain or Obama.

From Jewish World Review comes Thomas Sowell's column titled "Record versus Rhetoric". He talks about Sarah Palin quite a bit, but also mentions McCain, Obama, and Biden. As usual, Dr. Sowell makes some great points.

Since race is often mentioned in this campaign (mostly by Obama and the Democrats, by the way), please read Charles Krauthammer's column titled "Who's Playing the Race Card?". Think about what he is writing. This column is also found at Jewish World Review. Many of these columns/articles I link to can be found at more than one website.

Pajamas Media has a piece on race and one on violent tendencies among Obama's and McCain's supporters. "PC Effect, not Bradley Effect, May Haunt Obama" by Bernard Chapin. "Obama Supporter Assaults Female McCain Volunteer in New York" by Oleg Atbashian. There are also a couple of other good articles from the same website that I'd want to highlight: "Gore's Dangerous Call for Environmental Civil Disobedience" by Gal Luft and "Obama Sells Out Education to the Revolution" by Mary Grabar. In fact, there are a lot of articles at Pajamas Media that I believe you would enjoy reading. Same with the other websites I link to. You get a different perspective from the MSM with facts to back these perspectives.

From National Review Online, you can read Michelle Malkin's column called "The Left Declares War on Joe the Plumber". At the same website, please read Kathryn Jean Lopez's article titled "The Justice Lets Us Walk Away With a Warning". This is an especially important article about the Constitution and its importance.

I know that I link to a lot of articles without a lot of commentary, but it's because these writers make their points so much more effectively than I could, and they've already done the research! What my point is, however, is that to elect Barack Obama as President of the United States would open the door to socialism, even communism. Not overnight, but steadily moving in that direction. I do not wear a tinfoil hat or see black helicopters everywhere I look. What I do see is that Obama allies with and supports terrorists and America haters. He is closely tied with ACORN who is being investigated for voter registration fraud in several states. He has ties with William Ayers and Bernadette Dohrn. He sat in Rev. Jeremiah Wright's church for 20 years listening to anti-American, black liberation theology sermons. There are a number of other radicals he and his wife have been allied with. If a white Republican had allied with neo-Nazis or the Ku Klux Klan or any of a number of extremist groups of that nature, do you think he would have been nominated for the Presidency? No. He'd have been run out of the race early on. So why is Obama still in the running? And while we're at it, why doesn't Obama answer questions? He either beats around the bush, changes the subject, or denies these documented alliances. Is someone this dishonest, evasive, and radical someone that we want as the President of the United States of America? No. A thousand times no. And there are other issues on which Obama's positions are dangerous--abortion, healthcare, redistributing wealth through raising taxes, etc., etc., etc. And while you're thinking about these things, think about what the chances are that you will somehow get something for nothing or be a part of the ruling elite. In all honesty, your chances are nil.

John McCain disappoints me with his acceptance of government interferance in the finance sector, but he is pro-life, strong on military, strong on the 2nd amendment, and any number of other reasonable pro-American positions. He also had the good sense to choose Sarah Palin as his running mate, a strong conservative woman with sympathy and empathy and a mind of her own, who has more executive experience than any of the other candidates.

While you are contemplating your votes for 4 November, carefully consider who you vote for to put in Congress--either the House or the Senate. Try to find the most honest, pro-American, pro-Constitution, pro-the people representatives you can find. The best thing for America is small government plus capitalism plus freedom and liberty for all. Think about it.

Edited to add:

I have an article about global warming linked above ("Gore's Dangerous Call for Environmental Civil Disobedience"), but I've run across two more that I think you should read. This is one area that I disagree with John McCain about. At American Thinker there is "An Open Letter from the Viscount Monckton of Brenchly to Senator John McCain about Climate Science and Policy". This is long, but a very good read, with lots to think about. I've linked to the first page--there are 3 more.

The other piece is the Saturday, 18 October post at Warning Signs, Alan Caruba's blog. The post's title is "With 'Friends' Like These" by Alan Caruba.

We have a lot of different issues that we need to keep an eye on all at once. Good luck to us, I say!

More Governor Sarah Palin in the News

There is much discussion about Sarah Palin still, especially regarding her interview with Charlie Gibson of ABC. One thing being made much of is the "Bush Doctrine" question. Some seem to think it makes Gov. Palin look bad that she didn't know exactly what Charlie Gibson meant by the Bush Doctrine. For a perspective on that, see Charles Krauthammer's column at Townhall titled "Charlie Gibson's Gaffee". There is no one definition of "Bush Doctrine" and Gov. Palin was right to ask Mr. Gibson in what respect he was referring to.

Another problem some people have is with Gov. Palin saying she didn't blink when asked to be the VP candidate. They think it shows thoughtlessness. What they aren't understanding is that to many of us, it meant conviction and resolve.

Some just don't understand that what Sarah Palin stands for is American values--courage, conviction, belief in the American dream, family and religious values. She shows that people can succeed at whatever they put their minds and efforts to. She's a strong, intelligent individual. She was chosen for those things and not for being a woman. The latter was just frosting on the cake for the McCain campaign.

Not everyone is going to see Gov. Palin in a positive light. That is their loss. No one is perfect, including McCain and Palin. At least, however, they don't have the kind of un-American associations that Barack Obama does (Davis, Ayers, Dohrn, Wright, et al), or the strong radical influences (Alinsky, for one, in addition to the previously mentioned leftists). The fact that the mainstream media gives Obama a pass on those major influences in his life and the lack of any real accomplishment in his past while running headlines everytime Gov. Palin sneezes is ample evidence of the leftist bias of the MSM.

One question that I would like to have answered is whether or not Barack Obama is eligible for the necessary security clearances that a President of the United States would need to have to do his job. I certainly wouldn't clear him for those security clearances.

Issues in Politics and on the World Stage

Sometimes the problems of today seem overwhelming. It is difficult to keep them all in mind. We need to do our best to be aware of what's going on and what it all means. New Media Journal has a good editorial titled "Ignore 'The Perfect Storm' at Our Own Peril" by Frank Salvato. In this editorial, Mr. Salvato discusses the way that many, though not all, politicians put their own quest for political power above the good of the country. One way the politicians have done this recently is by distracting Americans from some serious threats, from without and within, that we should be paying attention to.

An article from the Wall Street Journal provides some information about Russia and its use of finance to increase its power. It is "Kremlin 'Capitalism' Is a Threat to the West" by Peter Charles Choharis. Mr. Choharis provides a look at the ways Russia is flexing its economic muscles as well as its military muscles in order to gain power and control. It also shows a glimpse of some ways Russia might be circumvented, but it won't be easy, with Russia so willing to use its military. This, too, is a situation Americans would do well to stay informed about.

An article about our Presidential politics at Townhall.com is called "Not All African Americans Starry-Eyed for Obama" by Floyd and Mary Beth Brown. In this article, the Browns point out that many of Obama's ideas are far from what Dr. Martin Luther King's were and from what many African Americans believe. There are quotes from one of Dr. King's nieces, Dr. Alveda King, on the topic, as well. This article brings to the fore some serious thoughts for contemplation by all Americans.

A hat tip (if I had a hat!) to JR for the last 2 articles.

World View

I have been thinking about how each person has a world view, or perspective, on life. Where does this come from? How do we know whether our world view is a good one or not?

I think that beginning in childhood, we accumulate various influences that affect how we see life and the world. It begins with being influenced by (or rebelling against) our parents. We see their example in word and deed and form opinions about that. Once we start church attendance and school attendance, we are influenced by the various teachers we have, as well as our peers. This continues through high school and college. We begin to be influenced by media, whether it is newspapers, television, magazines, etc. Particularly persuasive speakers or writers may sway us more than we realize. We end up with a world view created by a hodge-podge of influences, some of which were accepted without any real thought.

Now that we are mature adults, it seems to me a good idea to reconsider our opinions and ideas and try to trace where they came from and if they are any good. This can be difficult, but it is better than drifting along without thought.

In my opinion, God and the scriptures are the best source for learning what life is about and what we should do with the life we've been given. Of course, our world view can influence how we interpret scriptures and what course we follow in choosing a religion or choosing to reject religion.

Other sources for learning are history and literature. If we read widely in these areas, we will get a more accurate picture of what works and what doesn't than we would if we restrict our reading to only those authors we know already agree with our perspective and opinions. Even the most objective of writers will be somewhat biased because of his world view. It's the same with teachers. Anyone who is in a position to select what material is presented and how it is presented allows at least some subconscious decisions to enter into the mix. That is why we should look to more than one source to educate ourselves.

As for choosing what to believe, that becomes an individual choice. The hope would be that we would do our best to choose based on facts rather than persuasive writing/teaching or what sounds good on the surface. We should learn to think things through and consider the consequences of whatever choice we are thinking about. Does it bring good into our lives and the lives of others, or does it bring bad?

Sometimes facts aren't enough. Faith enters into our choices, too. We think of faith as a religious term, but everyone has faith in whatever they choose to believe--evolution, atheism, Marxism, feminism, and other "isms" require faith from their followers. They require faith that the propositions are correct and good, whether they are or not. So it is actually a mix of facts and faith that form our world views.

Different people have different issues that concern them, so they look to different sources for answers. What concerns me is that sometimes people come to see problems where there are none simply because whatever world view they have arrived at conditions them to see things from a narrow perspective--if they are oriented to look for oppression everywhere, they will see oppression everywhere because that is what they have trained their minds to conclude upon viewing just about anything. So then we need to ask ourselves if we are being realistic or if we have bought into one philosophy to such an extent that we no longer see things as they really are. That can be difficult to sort out because we will have a tendancy to think that we are seeing reality, even when we are not.

I don't know the best way to evalute our world view and see whether it is good or not. The only thing I know to do is to consider the sources of our viewpoints and also to think through the consequences of having those viewpoints. It would also help to know what other viewpoints there are out in the world--that's where reading widely comes into play--so that we can consider those as well.

I said I didn't know the best way, but actually I do. It's just that it won't be acceptable to some. My best way is to consider all things in light of the scriptures and to pray about them, and to listen to God's prophets and apostles, found in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. For those who don't turn to religion, well, you can still read widely and think things through and do the best you can to sort out whether your views are reasonable or not.

One reason I have been thinking about all this today is the presidential election coming up in 2008 and all the candidates with all their ideas about how the United States of America should be run. We voters have a responsibility to make the best choice possible when we cast our votes in the primaries and in the general election. Some candidates have ideas that sound good on the surface, but when thought through, one realizes that those ideas will mean very high taxes, government interference, and/or wrecking the economy. They might mean loss of freedoms. So we need to consider things carefully and not cast our votes for reasons that won't lead this country and its people where they should go.

It's complicated, but giving conscious thought to our beliefs and opinions and ideas can make a big difference in how much good can come from our lives. I haven't covered nearly all that can go into this type of thinking and considering and each person will have his own ideas about it, but I hope that I have given you something to ponder.

Musings (or Rantings, Depending on Your Point of View)

Global warming, or climate change, is still making headlines. It gets blamed for everything and mankind gets blamed for global warming, even though there is evidence out there that man does not have that big an effect on the environment. There are ways, of course, that people can be better stewards of the earth, but those ways are best implemented on a local, personal level. Scientists can help, if they will actually follow the scientific method and not get into politics and personal agendas. Real information will help real people make real decisions about their personal stewardship responsibilities.

Education is a major concern, too, because it shapes the thinking of the rising generation. It seems that only liberal ideas and propaganda are welcome in schools these days. A true education comes with looking at all sides of an issue and thinking clearly and critically about them all. It also comes from an honest survey of the past in history and other writings to learn lessons that only history and the past can teach us about what works and what doesn't. Rewriting history or editing some of it out doesn't help anyone--it only hurts us all. Then there is this whole self-esteem thing. What good does it do a child to be praised or rewarded for doing things wrong? Does it really prevent hurt feelings? No. A child knows when he doesn't deserve praise or a reward. And as far as trying to prevent hurt feelings--well, that doesn't do much to prepare someone for real life, does it?

Feminism strikes me as being selective for liberal causes. It also strikes me as training women to see oppression everywhere, even when it isn't there in reality. And what about the oppression of women in the Middle East? That is a real, honest-to-goodness problem and yet feminists remain strangely silent on the subject. I can only presume that it is because supporting change in the Middle East doesn't fit the liberal agenda. It is a larger and more important example of what feminists did with Bill Clinton--sexual harassment was bad unless it was perpetrated by Mr. Clinton. I am sure there are consistant feminists out there somewhere, but I haven't been hearing from them. Certainly they aren't making the news.

Immigration is a tough problem. Yes, we all want to be charitable, but in my view, when someone commits a crime (coming the the United States illegally) and benefits from that crime, then things are seriously out of whack. It's frustrating, too, when some play the race card and accuse those of us who want the laws enforced of being racist. It isn't true and surely they know it, but it gets attention and stops any honest debate on the subject. It's the same with accusing people falsely of being homophobic because they believe that marriage is only for one man and one woman, and that school children shouldn't be subjected to all sorts of indoctrination about what constitutes a family and about what sexual behavior is acceptable.

There are so many ways that we allow government to intrude into our lives and go well beyond what they are constitutionally permitted to do and yet so many don't seem to realize that our freedom and liberty is at stake. Taxes leap to mind. So do things like hate-crimes legislation, laws to ban transfats and other things that someone has decided are bad for us (they may be bad for us, but it is not government's place to decide).

Certainly conservatives aren't perfect, either. The thing is, though, that most conservatives look at the big picture and see the problems that will arise when "feel-good" legislation is proposed and when education is one-sided and when those opposing them indulge in name-calling instead of addressing the actual issues and debating ideas honestly.

I understand that there are those opposed to my viewpoint and that is their privilege. What I can't understand is why they won't even consider that they might be thinking about some things in the wrong way--or, worse, not thinking at all, just blindly following the liberal agenda. Well, I suppose that is what they think about me. I just want people to be more objective and to think things through in a more complete way. I want to see real, honest debate in the presidential campaigns instead of candidates who tailor what they say to fit a poll they've seen or an audience they are speaking to.

Reflections

I just wrote an email to a friend and have decided to post some of the thoughts that the email stirred up in me.

I never meant for Scholar to be only a political blog. I want to write about many other subjects, too, without leaving politics out. But I also find myself discouraged by the negatives in the political arena. It seems like so many are headed Left toward policies that history tells us won't work. I know that not everyone is an extremist, but it sure seems like those in prominent positions of leadership are making some major mistakes and that they have plenty of supporters.

I also get discouraged that so many seem to speak out against patriotism, America, the military, and religion. Too many are in favor of abortion and socialism and peace at any cost. I'm for peace, but not at the cost of freedom and liberty. There are prices to pay for those good things. There are prices to pay for the bad things, too. I would rather pay for the good things.

I also am a Christian--a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints--and I believe in God and in Jesus Christ and in the Holy Ghost. I believe what They teach us through the scriptures. So I find myself wanting to be kind, tender-hearted, and forgiving, and yet I feel that God expects us to stand up strongly for what is right and true. If we have to fight for right, so be it. Surrender to wrong is not an option.

I feel strongly, too, that people are more important than plants and animals, and yet I believe that God expects us to treat His gifts to us (the earth and all her resources for one) with respect and to be good stewards of those things. I love and appreciate nature and its wonders. I do not believe, however, that it is necessary to trash capitalism and confiscate private property in order to be good stewards of nature.

I feel sad for the people of the earth who live under oppressive governments and who live in poverty. However, I believe they should stay in their countries and fight for freedom and rights rather than becoming jihadists or illegal immigrants. I believe that we should welcome immigrants from anywhere and everywhere who come here legally and who come here with the intent of becoming Americans. Multiculturalism and diversity are overrated and taken to extremes. People should be free to practice their religion as they see fit and to keep alive their language and culture--to a point. But if they wish to settle in the United States of America, they need to also embrace our language and culture. They need to obey our laws. They need to live up to our ideals. And they should not come here with the idea of living on welfare and social security and using our schools and hospitals and so forth without contributing by working and paying taxes and becoming Americans. It is to their own benefit to do things the right way.

I feel, too, that we Americans need to put a stop to government growth and the Nanny State. We need to stop the dumbing down of our public education. We need to stop letting the Leftists in academia indoctrinate our children with wrong ideas and radical views. We need to wake up and stop expecting things to be easy and non-competitive. Work is essential for us. Developing our talents and abilities and increasing our knowledge are essential for us. We can't do those things if we put the government in charge of our lives from cradle to grave. We can't do those things if we give up our freedoms and if we don't stand up for truth and right.

America has so much, not only for itself, but to offer the world. Let's not throw it away.

Perspectives

I imagine that readers of this blog at least sometimes think I am being mean and selfish. "Mean-spirited" is, I believe, the popular word these days. I want to help others as much as anyone, but America simply cannot help everyone all the time.

Think of your personal life. You cannot spend all of your money and all of your time helping others. The well would soon run dry and you would be needing help yourself. You have to set priorities. It is necessary to provide for yourself first so that you do not become dependent on others. You have to provide food, clothing, shelter, education, and so forth for yourself and your family, then make decisions as to where you want your charity dollars and time to go. We all recognize the need to spend some time on ourselves in order to have something to give to others.

Think, too, of how you have to manage your money. You have to have a budget and stick to it. If you spend more than you have income, you go into debt and that curtails your ability to buy necessities and to give to charity. Why is running our country any different? Whether it is an individual, a family, a city, a state, or a nation, it is foolish to spend more than we have income.

What about security? You realize the need to keep your home and car locked and protected. This doesn't preclude you from giving someone a ride or inviting them over for a meal, but it does protect you and your assets so that you can continue to be generous.

Our country also needs to protect itself and budget its spending and take care of its own. If we do this, we then have the resources to help at least some others around the world. If we overspend and allow ourselves to be overwhelmed by immigrants coming in too many, too fast, our resources will be depleted and we will soon not be able to help anyone. In addition, if we do not set limits, it becomes more likely that terrorists of various kinds, or criminals fleeing justice, will enter our country and destroy it from within, again with the result that we can no longer help anyone, not even ourselves.

Common sense tells us that we have to set priorities and we have to set limits. We have to enforce laws that are already on the books. We also have to stand strongly against terrorism, not only for our own sakes, but for the sake of others around the world who would soon be oppressed if we did not fight back.

We also need to limit government. Somehow, we have lost our way and the federal government is taking over many functions that belong to the states or to individuals. Then the government needs more and more in taxes to fund all these programs--programs that we either don't need or that we could better provide at a local or state level with the money we would not have to send to the federal government in taxes. If we don't limit government, we lose the ability to make choices and decide for ourselves where our money and time should go.

Think about it.

For Women Everywhere

In The Weekly Standard Christina Hoff Sommers writes an article called "The Subjection of Islamic Women" that should be required reading (and study) for women everywhere.

In her article, Ms Sommers discusses the differences between current American feminism and the growing feminism of Islamic women. She also points out the differences between current feminism in America and the "first wave" feminism of a century ago here in America. It is a long article, but well worth your time to read.

In her first two paragraphs, Ms Sommers lets us know of her concerns:

The subjection of women in Muslim societies--especially in Arab nations and in Iran--is today very much in the public eye. Accounts of lashings, stonings, and honor killings are regularly in the news, and searing memoirs by Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Azar Nafisi have become major best-sellers. One might expect that by now American feminist groups would be organizing protests against such glaring injustices, joining forces with the valiant Muslim women who are working to change their societies. This is not happening.

If you go to the websites of major women's groups, such as the National Organization for Women, the Ms. Foundation for Women, and the National Council for Research on Women, or to women's centers at our major colleges and universities, you'll find them caught up with entirely other issues, seldom mentioning women in Islam. During the 1980s, there were massive demonstrations on American campuses against racial apartheid in South Africa. There is no remotely comparable movement on today's campuses against the gender apartheid prevalent in large parts of the world.

You would think that the subjection of Islamic women would be of major concern to all feminists throughout the world, especially American feminists who, in spite of their statements to the contrary, have more freedom than any other women in the world and thus are free to help their sisters in the far more oppressive regions of the world. Ms Sommers' article discusses why the American feminists are not of more help to the women in other countries:

The reasons are rooted in the worldview of the women who shape the concerns and activities of contemporary American feminism. That worldview is--by tendency and sometimes emphatically--antagonistic toward the United States, agnostic about marriage and family, hostile to traditional religion, and wary of femininity. The contrast with Islamic feminism could hardly be greater....

One reason is that many feminists are tied up in knots by multiculturalism and find it very hard to pass judgment on non-Western cultures. They are far more comfortable finding fault with American society for minor inequities (the exclusion of women from the Augusta National Golf Club, the "underrepresentation" of women on faculties of engineering) than criticizing heinous practices beyond our shores. The occasional feminist scholar who takes the women's movement to task for neglecting the plight of foreigners is ignored or ruled out of order.

Ms Sommers goes on to discuss American feminist writings both radical and moderate and talks about some of the methods used to accomplish early equality in the United States. She also summarizes what Islamic women have been doing--they aren't waiting for American feminists to help them. In her final two paragraphs, she states:

The women who constitute the American feminist establishment today are destined to play little role in the battle for Muslim women's rights. Preoccupied with their own imagined oppression, they can be of little help to others--especially family-centered Islamic feminists. The Katha Pollitts and Eve Enslers, the vagina warriors and university gender theorists--these are women who cannot distinguish between free and unfree societies, between the Taliban and the Promise Keepers, between being forced to wear a veil and being socially pressured to be slender and fit. Their moral obtuseness leads many of them to regard helping Muslim women as "colonialist" or as part of a "hegemonic" "civilizing mission." It disqualifies them as participants in this moral fight.

In reality, of course, it is the Islamic feminists themselves who are on a civilizing mission--one that is vital to their own welfare and to the welfare of an anxious world. A reviewer of Irshad Manji's manifesto celebrating Islamic feminism aptly remarked, "This could be Osama bin Laden's worst nightmare." Ipso facto, it should be our fondest dream. And if, along the way, Islamic feminism were to have a wholesome influence on American feminism, so much the better.

I would really like to see women everywhere read this article and give some serious thought as to what it means and what they can do to help others, as well as re-thinking their more radical positions here in America, where we have widespread freedom and equality.

What is a Fifth Column and What Does it Do?

After taking a week off last week to recover from respiratory flu/bronchitis/the plague or whatever it was that was making me ill, I am back and ready to go again. Today, I would like to discuss fifth columns. What are they? What do they do? Do we have one in America? How about the rest of the world?

According to Merriam-Webster Online, a fifth column is "a group of secret sympathizers or supporters of an enemy that engage in espionage or sabotage within defense lines or national borders" and the etymology is "name applied to rebel sympathizers in Madrid in 1936 when four rebel columns were advancing on the city". More detail can be found at Wikipedia. Its article on "Fifth Column" defines that term as "A fifth column is a group of people which clandestinely undermines a larger group to which it is expected to be loyal, such as a nation." The article tells of the term's origin by stating "The term originated with a 1936 radio address by Emilio Mola, a nationalist general during the 1936-39 Spanish Civil War. As four of his army columns moved on Madrid, the general referred to his militant supporters within the capital as his "fifth column," intent on undermining the Republican government from within." There is more detail in the article if you are interested.

Frank Salvato has written an article at The New Media Journal titled "The 'Fifth Columnization' of America". In it, he discusses the fifth column in American society and what it does to undermine our nation.

The Progressive-Left’s American Fifth Column is most often epitomized by the militant, bullhorn toting activist who, when not examined thoroughly, seems to be advocating for one “civil right” or another. We see them at the pro-illegal immigration protests, the anti-gun protests, the anti-war protests, anywhere a group of people can lay blame at the feet of government and especially the Bush Administration. But the American Fifth Column’s tentacles spread much wider and delve much deeper into our history and our society and recent events illustrate this as fact, rather than fiction.

The American Fifth Column is born out of Socialist/Communist ideology where the citizenry grows dependent on the government while the government increasingly legislates itself more control over the people.

In the perfect Fifth Column world, everyone is equal and possesses an artificially elevated sense of self-worth, the competitive spirit is equalized through taxes and legislated oversight of private business and societal boundaries – including boundaries in speech and action – are enforced through a shadow set of laws known as political correctness, a set of laws that undermine the authority of the Constitution.

The American Fifth Column is embodied by the politically correct multicultural one-world movement and encompasses all of the Progressive-Left buzz word initiatives, such as “diversity,” “public good,” “it takes a village,” “global village” and so on.

Through the artificial equalization of our society the Fifth Column strives to achieve the Balkanization of the United States through the celebration of diversity while inducing the surrender of individual choice within those Balkanized communities to governmental entities; divide and conquer.

Sound familiar? We hear about it everyday, although not necessarily in critical terms, especially in our left-leaning Mainstream Media (MSM). I worry that we have become so brainwashed already by the left's propaganda that we think we're just being "nice" and "good" when we go along with the feel-good policies proposed, nay, demanded by the left. A number of people invoke Jesus Christ by saying that He would support such things as multiculturalism and diversity, without regard to the difference between the left's proposals/demands and the kind generosity that Christ would truly support.

Much of what the left wants involves serious damage to certain groups or classes of people. For example, they would steal from the rich to give to the poor rather than truly helping the poor by teaching them better ways of life, responsibility, accountability, and so forth. The left also wants us to tolerate, even embrace, other cultures and religions while suppressing our own. In other words, we aren't to just help others or appreciate others--we are to trash everything we have and are. This is just crazy!

As Mr. Salvato writes in his article:

When successful, the efforts of the Progressive-Left’s American Fifth Column achieve the neutering of the American spirit, the end of our celebrated melting pot where pride in individuality, whether ethnic, religious or social, gave way only to pride of country; e pluribus unim. It transforms pioneers into cogs in a machine for the “greater good” and feminizes our society, this feminization giving way to a society of defenseless victims who are completely reliant on government for their survival.

He goes on to discuss the shootings at Virginia Tech and asks why no one tried to stop Cho except for a " septuagenarian holocaust and Soviet Bloc survivor." Then there is this:

The American Fifth Column’s relentless and visionless opposition to the military efforts in Iraq stand as another glaring example.

I stand as one of the few voices who refuses to back down in the face of the Fifth Column’s relentless insistence that weapons of mass destruction was the onus for President Bush’s decision to assemble a coalition of willing nations to topple Iraqi strongman Saddam Hussein. This insistence, for the overwhelming part, is in error and it has been mischaracterized unmercifully in order to advance their politically correct, one-world efforts to equalize the United States on the world stage.

Ingenuous people will admit that after being reminded of the reasons given for action in Iraq – Saddam Hussein’s genocide of his own people and his blatant violation of the cease-fire agreement that allowed him to live at the end of the Gulf War – it would have been unthinkable to have allowed this madman to go unchallenged.

Yet, the American Fifth Column denounces the Bush Administration, condemns the military actions taking place on behalf of and authorized by a freely elected Iraqi government and insists on arguing the least tangible of all the points given for military intervention in Iraq, WMD, even though regime change in Iraq was mandated by Congress as US policy under the Clinton Administration.

Question for the Progressive-Left Fifth Column: When did genocide become acceptable to you?

That's quite a question, isn't it? And what about education in America?

Perhaps the most disturbing avenue the Fifth Column has cultivated is within our education system. From grade school through college, the education establishment, bolstered by the political activists and social engineers of the agenda-driven National Education Association, has the government mandated opportunity to poison the minds of our children, to brainwash our country’s youth.

Nary a day goes by when there isn’t a story espousing the political indoctrination by the likes of a Ward Churchill or a Jay Bennish, “teachers” – and I use the word loosely – who impose their political beliefs on their students while usurping the parental birthright to bequeath familial core values to their children.

School systems lorded over by busy-body Progressive-Leftists increasingly employ text books that rewrite history at our nation’s expense. Parents are kept from attaining full access to programs mandated by our schools that promote questionable adult content in the form of what is termed sex education under the heading of “diversity” and “cultural awareness.” And some public school systems are promoting the “understanding” of Islam by forcing students to become “Muslim for a day,” in direct contradiction of the Progressive-Left’s belief in separation of church and state.

Then there are the actions of some of our elected officials.

As the Fifth Column Progressive-Leftists make inroads into our society, our education system and our state and federal governments, the overwhelming majority of Conservative lawmakers can’t find their spines long enough to demand action against elected officials who have certainly become nothing less than enemies of the State.

Not one Conservative lawmaker – in leadership or otherwise – has called for investigations into whether or not treason charges should be brought against or at least resignations be extracted from:

▪ House Speaker Nancy Pelosi: For her non-authorized and unconstitutional contact with the leader of a State sponsor of terrorism in a time of war in direct violation of the Logan Act. And for then declaring that she was “too busy” to meet with US General David Petraeus when he came to Washington to brief Congress on the current situation on the ground in Iraq.

▪ House Whip Steny Hoyer: For his contact with leadership of the terrorist organization The Muslim Brotherhood, a radical group who actively works to promote the creation of a global Islamic Caliphate as it aids and abets terrorist organizations such as al Qaeda, Hezbollah and Hamas, among others.

▪ Representative John Murtha for blatantly lying to the American people about not receiving a briefing from General Petraeus when Murtha received a personal briefing via telephone from the General for almost 30 minutes

▪ Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid: For his declaration “The war is lost,” a statement that most certainly aided and abetted the propaganda campaign of terrorist organizations with which the United States is currently at war.

While the Fifth Column chalks up victory after victory, inching further and further toward controlling not only the House and Senate but the White House and Supreme Court as well, Conservative lawmakers can’t even find the outrage to charge treason and demand resignations when elected Fifth Columnists are successfully aiding our enemy, steering our country into the abyss of military defeat and toward the human indignity that is Socialism.

Why do any of us find it so hard to stand up for what is right and put a stop to this treasonous foolishness? What makes it acceptable?

But perhaps the most blame for the mess we’re in lies with the American people, specifically the Conservatives among us. While the insanity of the third party route and the casting of protest votes is incredibly clear to those who understand the threat of the Fifth Column, those pale in comparison to the most damaging shortcomings of the Conservative movement: personal inaction and abdication of responsibility.

Mr. Salvato ends his article by asking some very direct questions of us, as Americans, including this one:

The time is shortly after 9:28am ET. The date is September 11, 2001. You are on-board Flight 93 and the al Qaeda hijackers have just made their move to commandeer the aircraft. After a few cell phone calls you come to understand that the World Trade Center is for all practical purposes gone and that the Pentagon has been attacked, all through the use of suicide missions that piloted aircraft as weapons into their targets.

Question: Do you have the courage, do you have the conviction, to you have what it takes to charge the cockpit, to confront the hijackers, knowing full well that you, in all probability, are going to die? Or are you one of the many who cowered in the back of the plane waiting to be slaughtered.

I hope we can all find our way to think seriously about this and find our spines, strengthen them, and support what is truly right and good, in our society and in the world.

Compassion?

At Jewish World Review Dennis Prager writes a column titled "Compassion and the decline of America" in which he discusses the values trampled by a misguided sense of compassion. He begins with a little story:

This past weekend, a friend of mine attended his 13-year-old son's baseball game. What he saw encapsulates a major reason many of us fear for the future of America and the West.

His son's team was winning 24-7 as the game entered the last inning. When he looked up at the scoreboard, he noticed that the score read 0-0. Naturally, he inquired as to what happened — was the scoreboard perhaps broken? — and was told that the winning team's coach asked the scoreboard keeper to change the score. He and some of the parents were concerned that the boys on the losing team felt humiliated.

In order to ensure that the boys losing by a lopsided score would not feel too bad, the score was changed.

Mr. Prager goes on to point how this "compassionate" act trashed four values: truth, wisdom, building character, and fairness. For example:

Truth was the first value compassion trashed. In the name of compassion, the adults in charge decided to lie. The score was not 0-0; it was 24-7.

He discusses all four values and shows how "compassion" creates far more problems than it might solve. The conclusion?

Compassion in social policy almost always produces unfair results. Compassion for murderers allows them to keep their lives after taking the life of another. Compassion for minorities leads to affirmative action, which means that individuals who are not members of a designated minority will be treated unfairly. Compassion for immigrant children led to bilingual education, which subsequently prevented most of those children from advancing in American society.

Compassion as the primary determinant of behavior is effective in personal life. In making public policy, it is a morally and socially destructive guideline. In fact, it is so bad that thinking people must conclude that its primary purpose is to enable policy makers who are guided by compassion to feel good about themselves.

This is recommended reading as an object lesson in thinking things all the way through instead of just acting on surface appearances.