Navigation:

Letters to the Editor

Wow. No hate mail this month. Instead, we have two promising writers who want to join our crew! Expansion is a beautiful thing.

Hello. My name is Jessica Ainley. I am 23 years old, a proud member of the Army National Guard, the proud wife of a United States Marine and
extremely Proud to be a young, female member of the Republican Part. I used to lean more to the left, but in the past few years, I have seen
the error in my ways. (There's a reason it is the "Right" party...) I actually tend to lean a bit more far right than most, but that is also what
makes my thoughts a bit more interesting, too! I currently attend Palomar Community College in San Marcos, CA and am a member of the College Republican Club there. I've attached an essay that I wrote for the club's Newsletter. I hope you enjoy it and thank you for your time.

Sincerely,
Jessica P. Ainley

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Dear Emil Levtin,

Hello and good day. My name is James Chang. I am 16 years old and I reside in Wayland, Massachusetts. As you probably know, my town is famous (infamous?) for its long-standing liberal partisan. Just in my high school, the ratio of the Young Democrats to the Young Republicans was about 8:1. Today, this ratio no longer exists, for the president of the Young Republicans graduated, and nobody has the interest or the resources to continue it. Thus, the legacy of conservatism died out in our high school.

As each day passes, the liberalism on my school increases more and more. This can be plainly seen in the point-counterpoint section of our school newspaper, where the same three authors spew out propaganda promoting "tolerance" and the editors-in-chief omit the large majority of dissent. The lamest one I've read was a plea to the administration to punish students for using the term "chick." The author staunchly believed that it was a derogatory term objectifying women, and somehow connected it to another rant on the whore-pimp double standard (if I can still find the article I'd gladly email snippets to you).

I attempted counterpoint the author by writing an article justifying the use of the term "stud (by definition: a bull whose sole purpose is to fertilize cows; in slang: a man who easily picks up the chicks)" and explained the history of the double standard (a creation of women, not men). I anticipated my article to appear in the next issue of the newspaper. I waited and waited; it turns out that the last time would ever see it was when I prepared to print it from my computer. In a moment of anger, I deleted it, and wrote another article on the liberal partisan of the press. Needless to say that didn't get published either, and I deleted that one as well.

I've stopped writing for the newspaper after those incidents. However, your blog offers me new insight and resources in my approach to politics. I discovered it via Parents and Students for Academic Freedom (http://www.psaf.org), and I find it utterly amazing that a 12 year-old could have so much intellect and leadership skills. Although my contributions to the school newspaper are no longer, thanks to your site, and others like http://www.protestwarrior.com, I now have the proper resources to restart the Young Republicans Club, this time with a much more localized focus. I cannot start it this year, since club proposals are long over, but next year we're coming back with a new light. Keep blogging young prodigy.

James Chang

RESPONSE:

Dear Sam,

I was very excited to receive your e-mail and find out that I am not the only 'very' young Republican in this state. The youngest writers of my newsletter apart from me is Jared, who is 17 and in a private high school, National Affairs Correspondent Boris Ryvkin who is graduating from high school in New York and has been accepted to Brown University, and Gerard Balan (second in charge) who just turned 24 and attended Tufts University. He know scored extremely high in the GRE test and is going to graduate school this fall.

I am happy to know that my newsletter was one of your influences to restart the Republican club in your high school. I wish you the best of luck in that procedure, please keep me informed about it.

Your story about how you became a Republican was especially interesting to me since I was thinking a long time about the question if students who have know conservative or common sense influences in their life can switch sides after brainwashing, especially during the process itself. When you were expecting fascistic propaganda when you visited ProtestWarrior.com to see the videos reinfoces how the message about conservatism and conservative sites being racist and fascist is pinned to the brains of public school students until it sticks.

The public school teachers program students like robots to immediately think of 'war criminal' whenever President Bush's name is said etc. Since, I think you also agree with this from your experience, most students are unfortunately ignorant about political issues at this time, the public school teachers use this as an opportunity to let liberalism sink into their heads when they don't even understand most of the things their instructors are ranting about. I was especially intrigued for this reason, your story of becoming a conservative. I would like to compliment you on not being ignorant and actually checking what your instructors were talking about (even if it was for the wrong goal :). For this reason you probably became a conservative, as you found out for yourself what liberalism really is. How did you become so interested in politics and obviously not ignorant of the political issues?

I remember getting interested in politics during the 2000 elections when I started watching all of the news coverage on the recount fiasco. After 9/11 I became a true Republican and became an admirer of President Bush. Afterwards, I got involved in the 2002 campaign for Governor, working for Mitt Romney (I was 9 then and in a private school :) The 2002 elections made me truly politically informed as I started studying the issues, participating in online political forums like yourself and eventually starting a blog in January 2003.

Often liberals write blog posts and opinion pieces that I have been indoctrinated by my parents and shame on them. I wish there was a way to prove them wrong but unless I want to reveal my identity, I shall have to wait. I think they perfectly understand that I write my columns and became a conservative myself but the fact itself scares them to death :).

Getting to business. I appreciate you sending me your sample column, picture and political biography. After reading your e-mail and column I have no reason as to not immediately offer you to join the Republican Voices staff! I believe that you are an excellent writer with very original perspectives and school indoctrination stories which you can share with our readers. It looks like you may be on of our best writers!

Before I officially post you on the site which should be very easy since you have already sent me all the necessary information to post you on the staff page, I would like to find out how the position of Public School Battleline Correspondent (something along those lines) would suit you. Do I understand correctly that you go to Wayland High?

I would like to have a chance to talk to you and discuss more of our stories stories of experiencing liberal indoctrination and your prospective position
at Republican Voices. What is your phone number? Do you have a cell phone number or AOL/Yahoo Messenger screen name?

Sincerely,
Emil Levitin
President, Editor in Chief and Founder
www.republicanvoices.org

REPUBLICAN VOICES welcomes all Letters to the Editor. However, we reserve the right to edit them for length or content. Please try to keep your messages under 400 words. Send LTEs to letters@republicanvoices.org.

Eating Crow

Eat up, liberals!

Jon Stewart, the hilarious host of Comedy Central's "The Daily Show," perhaps best sums up teh anxiety that has developed in liberal circles in the past month.

"What if Bush ... has been right about this all along? I feel like my world view will not sustain itself and I may ... implode."

Only three years since the world was introduced to The Bush Doctrine and and history is already proving the theory correct. If you're looking for evidence, look no further than Afghanistan. Since September 11, the Taliban Regime is no more and we have witnesed historic elections within its borders. Shrugging off worldwide declarations of "no blood for oil," Saddam's brutal dictatorship is merely a memory and millions of Iraqis risked their lives to elect a new government. The list continues with the Palestinians who responded to Arafat's death by defying his memory, held elections and chose a moderate for their leader. Saudi Arabia, home of 15 of the 19 hijackers held municipal elections recently, again writing history. Even in Egypt, demonstrations for democracy and ongoing pressure from the Bush Administration have prompted Egyptian "President" Hosni Mubarak to announce free contested presidential elections. Even the New York Times, whose editors are consistently critical of the Bush Administration, were astonished, claiming that the old order was "cracking" in the Arab Word.

So, what is going on here? The dreaded neocon philosophy, which drives the White House's foreign policy, is working. The central theme of that philosophy is so straightforward and steadfast, liberal and paleocon detractors alike balk at its "simplicity" and "narrow-mindedness." Essentially, the neocons observed that democracies, regardless of how they were formed, rarely go to war with each other. Spread democracy across the globe and we may the numbers of war, tyrannies, and dictatorships reduced to a level never before imagined. The President went one step further in his Second Inagural Address, envisioning an end to tyranny itself.

For those of you who are skeptical, consider the historical example of World War II. The US was in a similar situation, fighting Japen, an enemy who made suicide bombings famous. Kamikazee pilots petrified Allies' civilians as they took glee in purposely flying their planes into civilian and military targets. In fact, the US not only went to war with Japan, but also went to war with not one, but two countries that did not attack it, Germany and Italy. Several decades and millions dead later, the idea of a war between the US and any of the Axis countries is preposterous, not counting the economic war ovber who makes better beer or cars. An average American is probably more afraid of an Arab male flying into a New York building rather than a Japanese one. The fighting was brutal and nightmarish, but in the end, all the countries became democracies - and more important - friends in the end.

Fast forward to today and witness the same trend unfolding before us. The President understands that what fuels terrorism is not US foreign policy as the liberals contend or Islamic fundamentalism as the paleocons argue, but the unequal distribution of democracy (and may I add, capitalism). The question remains, can the US accomplish such a daunting task? Hey, if Alexander the Great can conquer the world, then America democratizing the world is hardly a stretch. The real question is are Americans ready to make the sacrifices necessary to achieve that goal, namely in casualities, money, and the temporary backlash in world opinion? That question will be answered when we look back fifty years from now. For now, Americans have the mettle to work on that goal for four more years and after that time, I believe most Americans will be happy they chose Bush.

-Gerard Balan

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Massachusetts vs. New Hampshire

Our friends over at mASS backwards compiled these following statistics that brings more stats to the question of where quality of life is higher, the Bay State or the Granite State. I doubt these stats will answer that question, but they may put to rest the question of which state is cheaper.

STATE TAXATION

State Individual Income Taxes (2004)
MA = 5.3%
NH = State Income Tax is Limited to Dividends and Interest Income Only

State Sales Tax Rates - January 1, 2004
MA = 5.0%
NH = none

Motor Fuel Excise Tax Rates
MA = 21.0%
NH = 19.5%

State Excise Tax Rates on Cigarettes
NH = $0.52/pack
MA = $1.51/pack

State Tax Rates on Other Tobacco Products
MA = 90% Wholesale Price on Smokeless Tobacco (30% Wholesale Price on cigars)
NH = 19% Wholesale Price

State Liquor Excise Tax Rates
MA = $4.05/gallon (under 15% alc. - $1.10/gallon)
NH is one of 18 states in which the government directly controls the sales of distilled spirits. Revenue in these states is generated from various taxes, fees and net liquor profits.

State Wine Excise Tax Rates
MA = $0.55/gallon (sparkling wine = $0.70/gallon)
NH - All wine sales are through state stores. Revenue in these states is generated from various taxes, fees and net profits

Note: I don't have the numbers for the taxes levied on liquor and wine sales in New Hampshire, but there's a reason why there are massive liquor stores just over the border from Massachusetts. If you can't figure that one out, then I'm surprised you have the brains to be able to read this in the first place.

State Beer Excise Tax Rates
MA $0.11/gallon
NH $0.30/gallon (Yikes, a HIGHER tax than Massachusetts!)

2003 State Tax Revenue
Per capita:
MA $2,427 (rank #7)
NH $1,521 (rank #44)

As a percent of personal income:
MA 6.2% (rank #29)
NH 4.5 (rank #49)

INCOME vs. HOUSING COSTS

I'll look up some more current numbers for this, but here's where things stood as of 2000:

"At first glance it might appear as if high housing prices go with high incomes, and states with high incomes will have high housing prices and vice-versa. Yet, when we look at the incomes and housing prices in each of the fifty states, we see that is not always the case. Some states have high incomes, but comparatively low housing costs and, as a consequence, are more affordable places to buy homes. Consider that Massachusetts has the 7th highest income, and it ranks as the state with the 3rd highest housing burden. (A rank of 1st indicates the least affordable state or the state with the greatest housing burden, and a rank of 50th indicates the most affordable state.) New Hampshire has the 6th highest income, but it ranks as the state with the 26th highest housing burden."

From the US Census Bureau:

New Hampshire
Median value of owner-occupied housing units, 2000 $133,300
Median household income, 1999 $49,467

Massachusetts
Median value of owner-occupied housing units, 2000 $185,700
Median household income, 1999 $50,502

Median income in MA was 2% higher than in NH, but the median housing value was 39% higher.

UNEMPLOYMENT

Unemployment Rates by State (May 2004)

MA 5.2%
NH 4.0%

CRIME and CRIME PREVENTION

Violent Crime Rates by State (2001)

MA = 479.5 per 100,000 (rank #21)
NH = 170.3 per 100,000 (rank #48)

State Firearm Laws

New Hampshire 2-1/2 pages
Massachusetts 18 pages

EDUCATION

Average SAT I results (2002)

MA = 1028
NH = 1038

Public School Spending Per Pupil, (1999-2000 school year)

MA = $8,444
National Average = $6,835
NH = $6,742

Saved the best for last:

Base Salaries of State Senators (2003):

Massachusetts $50,123
New Hampshire $100 (that's not a typo)

Guess you don't always get what you pay for.

Submitted By: Gerard Balan

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

National ID Cards On the Way?

Why do congressmen keep thinking the year is 1984?

Just because we're the REPUBLICAN VOICES does not mean we will not take the Party to task for abandoning its principles for votes. Illegal immigration is the most notorious example, but their National ID card scheme is their most recent, and perhaps, egregious. Knowing that public support for National ID cards has dwindled since the shock of September 11 subsided, Republican lawmakers are pushing to convert driver's licenses into new National ID cards. The Real ID Act, or H.R. 418, would compel states to design their driver's licenses by 2008 to comply with federal antiterrorist standards, but what exactly does that mean? The bill would establish a federally-coordinated database of personal information on American citizens with Canada and Mexico, track American citizens when traveling outside and within the U.S., and   define "terrorism" in broader terms to include members of firearms rights and pro-life groups. Finally, the bill would authorize the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security to expand the information included in driver's licenses, such retina scans, DNA information, and radio frequency identification (RFID) tracking technology.

Proponents of the H.R. 418 contend it is necessary to adhere to the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission and will thwart future terrorists and illegal immigrants.

F. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wisc. is quoted as saying "American citizens have the right to know who is in their country, that people are who they say they are, and that the name on the driver's license is the real holder's name, not some alias."

Yet surprisingly, the bill does nothing to control our porous borders with Mexico and Canada, which contributes greatest to the problem of illegal immigration. This bill will merely punish law-abiding citizens, who will pick on the tab for the problem and will be inconvinied with longer lines at airports and train stations. Criminals and illegals will merely ignore the law. That is what criminals do!

The most deceptive argument is the notion that the program is voluntary. Yes, technically, any state can opt out of it, but if they do, their citizens will be unable to do any business with the federal government. Want to vacation overseas? Want to take a flight or a train? Without having this special, new license, Americans would be barred from accessing services from from airplanes to national parks and some courthouses.

This important point is further driver home by Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, one of eight of the principled Republican dissenters of the bill.

"Supporters claim it is not a national ID because it is voluntary. However, any state that opts out will automatically make nonpersons out of its citizens. They will not be able to fly or to take a train."

one Perhaps one day, Congress will learn of the "National ID Card" that already exists: passprts. If passports do not work, new driver's licenses will fail just as miserably. Actually, the federal government is planning already to The State Department currently is evaluating e-passport technology that would embed RFID chips in all U.S. passports and some foreign visitor's documents. So, why the unnecessary cost of putting the technology in driver's licenses? All citizens, including children, have passports, but not everyone has a driver's license. With the current deficit, one can only sit in wonder how the "part of fiscal responsibility" is justifying this one.

Somewhere along the way, Congress confused the terms "federal" and "professional." Hopefully, we will not have to learn the hard way again that the only accomplishment of this bill will be the growth of government at the expense of liberty.

-Gerard Balan

Humor

That Was 72 Virgins, Right?

After getting nailed by a Daisy Cutter, Osama made his way to the pearly gates. There, he is greeted by George Washington. "How dare you attack the nation I helped conceive!" yells Mr. Washington, slapping Osama in the face.

Patrick Henry comes up from behind. "You wanted to end the Americans’ liberty, so they gave you death!" Henry punches Osama on the nose.

James Madison comes up next, and says "This is why I allowed the Federal government to provide for the common defense!" He drops a large weight on Osama’s knee.

Osama is subject to similar beatings from John Randolph of Roanoke, James Monroe, and 65 other people who have the same love for liberty and America.

As he writhes on the ground, Thomas Jefferson picks him up to hurl him back toward the gate where he is to be judged.

As Osama awaits his journey to his final very hot destination, he screams "This is not what I was promised!"

An angel replies "I told you there would be 72 Virginians waiting for you, idiot. What did you think I said?"

-Submitted BY: Gerard Balan

In Depth Articles

How Far Have We Fallen?

Schooling has changed since the "olden days"

John Locke was a man of considerable stature in the late 17th century. His Essay Concerning Human Understanding was sufficiently highly regarded that the French thinkers of the 17th and early 18th century referred to Locke simply as The Philosopher. His 1689 Second Treatise of Civil Government was the philosophical foundation for both the English Glorious Revolution of that year and, ninety years later, for our Declaration of Independence.

Some scholars have described Locke as the father of modern education in England. His 1692 Some Thoughts Concerning Education provides us a base line for assessing present-day educational practices. Harvard at that time was 56 years old. The Pilgrims had landed at Plymouth 72 years earlier.

Locke begins with a child's infancy and lays out an educational path through the child's coming of age. Locke also advises that children's natural curiosity should be used to engage them in learning. He continually admonishes against the use of punishments in education. He brooks no nonsense or bullying by students, however, seeing that as a flaw in teaching morality and decorum.

Several things will surprise today's students.

The first surprise is the order of emphasis Locke assigns to the objects of education. They are virtue, wisdom, breeding (courtesy and decorum), and, last, learning specific subjects.

Of virtue, he writes: "I place virtue as the first and most necessary of those endowments that belong to a man... As for the foundation of this, there ought to be very early imprinted on his mind a true notion of God, as of the independent Supreme Being, Author and Maker of all things, from Whom we receive all our good, Who loves us, and gives us all things. And consequent to this, instill in him a love and reverence of this Supreme Being."

Needless to say, not only God, but also "value judgments" are non-starters today.

Locke continues: "Having laid the foundations of virtue in a true notion of a God, such as the creed wisely teaches, as far as his age is capable, and by accustoming him to pray to Him, the next thing to be taken care of is to keep him exactly to speaking the truth, and by all the ways imaginable inclining him to be good-natured."

Today, of course, Progressive educational doctrine reflects John Dewey's pragmatic philosophy that denies God and timeless principles of morality. The contrasting understanding of Locke's era was that from prayerful immersion in the love of God, individuals absorb benevolence and a desire to emulate the Godly qualities of rectitude and fairness in dealing with their neighbors in the same way that they wish to be dealt with themselves.

Portrait of John Locke

Wisdom follows from the foundation of virtue. Wisdom is knowing how most effectively to manage one's affairs with foresight. Acquiring it is a product of good temper, application of mind, and experience. Wisdom can only be initiated by the teacher, as it is a life-long process of learning from experience how to apply the lessons of virtue. What the teacher can do is to hinder the student from being cunning, what today we call playing the angles, or being street-smart (both of which are end products of John Dewey's pragmatism, now taught as situation ethics, the idea that you make up the rules for each situation that arises).

Closely related to virtue and wisdom is the concept of good breeding, which flows from the love of God. What Locke meant by the term was an Aristotelian mean between extremes: the student should not be too bashful or gauche in dealing with other people, nor should he be prideful and too full of self-importance. He summarizes the aim as "not to think meanly of ourselves, and not to think meanly of others." Ill breeding reveals itself in "too little care of pleasing or showing respect for those we have to do with." The aim is "that general good will and regard for all people, which makes everyone have a care not to show in his carriage any contempt, disrespect, or neglect of them; but to express, according to the fashion and the way of that country, a respect and value for them according to their rank and condition." Students are to be schooled against roughness, fault-finding (denunciation or ridicule), and being contradictory and captious.

Needless to say, this is not the same thing as politically correct, multi-cultural education enforced by the Thought Police. Nor is it what passes as "self-esteem" supposedly arising from sensitivity and diversity in education.

Locke than writes: "You will wonder, perhaps, that I put learning [of academic subjects] last, especially if I tell you I think it the least part... Reading and writing and learning I allow to be necessary, but yet not the chief business. I imagine you would think him a very foolish fellow that should not value a virtuous or a wise man infinitely before a great scholar."

Today's secular education completely reverses this understanding by simply denying the existence of God and virtue. Tolerance, meaning the absence of all standards of behavior and thought, is the guideline for the teacher. In practice it amounts to humiliating Christians and religious Jews and exalting all manners of paganism and liberal-socialist secularity.

Locke opines that a child should begin learning to read as soon as he begins to talk, but it should be approached as a matter of enjoyment for the child. Today, of course, far too many students can't read well, if at all, when they "graduate" from high school.

The young pupil should be given to understand that reading is a special key to gaining the privileges that his older siblings and their friends enjoy, so that the child will be eager to learn. Reading should begin with something children enjoy, like Aesop's Fables.

While Locke supports reverence for God, he counsels against the customary practice of reading the entire Bible, as understanding it requires more experience and wisdom than the student may be expected to possess. Suitable for young students, however, are stories from the Bible, "such as are the story of Joseph and his brethren, of David and Goliath..."

"When he can read English well, it will be seasonable to enter him in writing.... When he can write well and quick, I think it may be convenient not only to continue the exercise of his hand in writing, but also to improve the use of it further in drawing...How many buildings may a man see, how many machines and habits meet with, the ideas whereof would be easily retained and communicated by a little skill in drawing.."

"Shorthand, an art, as I have been told, known only in England, may perhaps be thought worth the learning, both for dispatch in what men may write for their own memory, and concealment of what they would not have lie open to every eye."

"As soon as he can speak English, 'tis time for him to learn some other language. This nobody doubts of, when French is proposed [which Locke thinks should be learned via intensive and extensive conversation and reading with a person fluent in French, rather than learning grammar rules]...When he can speak and read French well.... he should proceed to Latin....For the exercise of his writing, let him sometimes translate Latin into English...."

Locke would gladden the hearts of today's students by downplaying the teaching of grammar rules, which he believes can most effectively be absorbed by association with good reading and with those who speak well. "But more particularly to determine the proper season for grammar, I do not see how it can reasonably be made anyone's study, but as an introduction to rhetoric." The problem today, of course, is finding someone who speaks English well.

"....join as much other real knowledge with it as you can, beginning with that which lies most obvious to the senses, such as is the knowledge of minerals, plants and animals, and particularly timber and fruit trees....but more especially geography, astronomy, and anatomy....At the same time that he is learning French and Latin, a child, as has been said, may also be entered into arithmetic, geography, chronology, history, and geometry too." By chronology, Locke means knowing the principal dates of world history, so that a pattern emerges in the student's mind, against which his study of history will be more understandable.

The student should also acquire a basic knowledge of the laws of the land, which requires studying the documents that collectively make up the English constitution, together with the common law, and reading in what Locke calls natural philosophy. In that regard, he recommends works such as Cicero's Offices and Grotius's Concerning the Law of War and Peace, a study of the application of religious natural-law principles to international relations.

Finally, Locke recommends familiarity with the chemistry of Robert Boyle and the mathematics of Isaac Newton, both of whom were Locke's personal friends.

Secular education today has inverted Locke's approach by assuming the aspect primarily of a trade school to prepare students for high-paying jobs. The question we must ask is whether doing so, without first instilling a respect for God, along with the ideals of virtue, courtesy and civility that flow from that approach, is preserving, let alone creating, a decent and just society.

 

-Thomas Brewton

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

A Worldwide Criminal Enterprise

All hail Allah, who gets me so high...I mean, the most high!

I don’t know when it first dawned on me that the study of history was the study of a worldwide criminal enterprise, but a look back at just the last century reveals that the Nazis had it in mind to control and loot all of Europe, while the Empire of Japan sought to do the same with China and Pacific Basin nations.

If you go back in history, Pax Romana, imposed by the Roman Empire was, in essence, a huge extortion scheme in which the conquered nations paid Rome to “protect” them and provide some good roads. If you come forward to our times, for some seventy years until 1991, the Soviet Union basically plundered its captive nations in the Baltics and elsewhere until it fell apart due to the inability to do anything in a rational and productive manner. The examples are endless and the most recent is the massive United Nations “Oil for Food” rip-off of billions of dollars intended to benefit the people of Iraq, but which Saddam kept or used to bribe the French and others.

I got to thinking about this as I read “Funding Evil” by Rachel Ehrenfeld); an extraordinary book about the way the Islamic Jihad is funded largely through the sale of narcotics and a variety of other criminal schemes. It also derives much of its funding from donations to “charities”, mostly by and from Saudis, the worst perpetrators of Wahabi fundamentalism on the face of the Earth.

Think about this, however. The whole justification for Islam is that it is morally superior to all other religions. The Saudis and their Middle Eastern brethren are forever denouncing America, Israel, and the West in general as dens of iniquity, places of corruption where pornography is rampant, people gather to drink and to dance together, casual sex is the norm, and just about everything else we do needs the curative effects of Sharia (Islamic) law.

May I suggest that any religion that funds worldwide terrorism to advance the destruction of Judaism, Christianity and all other religions, and to attack the citadel of liberty and freedom, the United States of America, is the new criminal enterprise that has replaced those of the past? They do this through the worldwide sales of illegal narcotics and other schemes. Moreover, they are funded as well by the billions Americans, Europeans, and other nations spend to acquire their only legitimate natural resource, oil.

Coke and cash...who's bringin' the chips?

The appalling hypocrisy of this seems to have escaped many otherwise law-abiding Muslims, but it is increasingly clear that the relentless terrorism which they claim is intended to advance Islam is wearing thin. So much of it has been directed against other Muslims that it was only a matter of time before the illogic of this began to set in. In addition, there appears to be evidence that, throughout the Middle East, the universal, human desire to live in freedom, under a system of laws that provide human rights and real justice, is beginning to manifest itself.

If you think about it, Iraq was a criminal enterprise run by the family and cronies of Saddam Hussein. Syria and Lebanon, under the control of the Assad family, is yet another example. Iran, under the control of its mullahs, poses yet another threat as it pours its wealth into various terrorist organizations.

When one looks at the Middle East, one sees nation after nation controlled by oligarchies passing themselves off as monarchs, mullahs, or we see warlords in places like the Sudan and Somalia running the show. Egypt is, for all intents and purposes, a dictatorship, as is, of course, Libya. Under the control of Arafat, the so-called Palestinian cause was little more than a way to line his pockets. Much of Africa is a sinkhole of corruption.

The greatest legacy George W. Bush and the much-maligned “neo-cons” in his administration will leave behind is a transformed Middle East.

Ehrenfeld has provided a detailed look at the billions being spent by the Saudis in particular and the Islamists in general. For anyone who wants to gain an insight to the scope of the Jihadist war, this book is required reading. “A significant portion of the financing of many terrorist organizations stems from the illegal drug trade,” says Ehrenfeld and then she meticulously documents how it stretches from Afghanistan to South America.

Along the way she notes that, “It was bin Laden who had managed the drug profits (from Afghanistan’s production of Heroin) for the Taliban and arranged money laundering operations with the Russian Mafia.” She traces the drug trade, its Islamic producers and distributors, to Uzbekistan, through the Balkans, and to yet another center, South America where a “lawless jungle corner of Argentina, Brazil, and Paraguay is “the heart of Islamist terrorist activity in Latin America, and home to tens of thousands of Muslims, mainly from the Middle East.”

Jihad may be the justification for this criminality that includes every kind imaginable, but the driving force behind it and the on-going threat to peace and stability is traceable to the complete and utter corruption fostered by Saudi billions and the billions derived from the scourge of illegal drugs.

Do not be fooled by the presence of Saudi “charities”, some of which still function openly in the United States, nor the pretensions of groups such as al Qaeda, al Fatah, Hamas and Hizbollah. These are criminal enterprises whose purpose is to line the pockets of those who control them. The war against America, against Israel, and “the crusaders”, i.e., Christianity, is just a subterfuge for the power being exercised by Middle Eastern dictators and others who use Jihad as their excuse and Islam as their instrument.

-Alan Caruba

Alan Caruba writes a weekly column, “Warning Signs”, posted on the Internet site of The National Anxiety Center, www.anxietycenter.com.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Juvenile Justice?

Rather tame, isn't it? I miss "Ol' Sparky"

A few statistics: According to the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Act, adolescents accounted for more than half the arrests for serious crimes in 1974. The statistic fared no better ten years later. Recent trends show an increase in arrests of adolescents for murder, assault, and weapon use. What does this show?

The small number of youth who commit the most serious and violent offenses are becoming more and more violent, while level of punishment still remains the same. This means that juveniles are not learning from their mistakes. I think that there is nothing horrific enough to discourage them from making the same ones repeatedly. They also show that juveniles committing crimes at this time turn out to be the adults in prison for life. What I found to be most disturbing was that statistics present the fact that juveniles are rarely ever completely rehabilitated, which is the number one goal of the Juvenile Justice System.

Some people need more than just a slap on the wrist. Everyone has heard this phrase at least once and it best describes why the Juvenile Justice System needs harsher punishments as a means of deterrence. It is a proven fact that if a person does not get into trouble the first time they do something wrong, they will do it again.

In the Juvenile Justice System, juveniles are not penalized for small-time crimes. Police leave it up to the parents to discipline the child, but in a society that's focused on self-esteem and leniency towards the so-called misguided ones, parents are very limited in what punishments they can impose. In many cases, the offenders are desensitized to whatever punishments are thrown at them. Thus, the violator learns neither lessons nor morals.

Juveniles that are committing crimes now usually commit more severe crimes as adults. My Criminal Justice professor had the chance to tour a maximum security prison in Maryland. At this prison, kids who were on probation were sat down in a circle leaving every other chair empty. Lifetime prisoners were then brought into the same room and were seated in the empty chairs. First, the probation kids explained why they were on probation. Then, the lifers explained how they wound out serving a lifetime sentence. Lastly, the lifers told the probationers what they had been doing while they were juveniles.

Ironically, the probationers and the lifers had done the same things. This particular activity exhibited that adults in the Criminal Justice System were the same "kids" in the Juvenile Justice System. There is no doubt in my mind that this scenario is the norm and not the exception. This fact only enforces my belief that the Juvenile Justice System is not strict enough to deter juveniles from committing another crime. Juveniles are not adults, but they know what is right and wrong.

So, how does a death row inmate die? In his (or her) sleep basically. Too bad Terri Schiavo isn't afforded the same luxury

The Juvenile Justice System originated in 1899 in Illinois because people expected the court to act in a parental role for the children instead of having a disciplinary involvement as in adult criminal courts. It was based on the idea that young people needed care, supervision and discipline without being handled like criminals.

The Juvenile Justice System was created with the goal of rehabilitating the offender. However, there is no perfect way to completely rehabilitate a juvenile. Everything that goes through the court system is confidential and it is all for the best interest of the child. Everyone in the system, both the prosecutors and the defense, are very cooperative in working for the best interest of the juvenile. Corrections range from as mild as foster care to as rigorous as boot camp. The end result is almost always probation.

Juveniles that are put into a corrections facility are not always rehabilitated. The Juvenile Justice System is supposed to help show the juveniles how to function as productive adults in our society. However, very few juveniles learn from the system, much less from their mistakes. Rehabilitation is a hard thing to achieve if the child only has to meet with a probation officer once a week and pass a drug test. Juveniles find ways to bend their probation and trick the drug test, and when the probation expires, are they free to go.

Lifetime prisoners show a gradual development of violent tendencies through committing crimes. Breaking into cars as a juvenile may lead to grand theft auto as an adult. As a juvenile, offenders are not punished for wrongdoings; therefore they have no fear of committing other crimes.

If the Juvenile Justice System treated juveniles like adults, juveniles would be put into prison for the same crimes that adults commit, and there would be no rehabilitation. For their crimes, there would be simply deterrence, retribution, and punishment. Under this method, there will be lower recidivism rates and hopefully it would lead to lower crime rates as well. Inmates who leave the facility would be more productive and reintegrate into society easier.

However as society stands today, it is easy to see that the System is not harsh enough. Crime rates are still high among juveniles; the lifers of today were the probationers of yesterday. Preventative and punitive measures must be taken, and I hope I have convinced you about the flaws of our current justice system. To lower our crime rates among adults, we must first start with the kids.

-James Chang, Guest Columnist

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Some Words about the Supreme Court

The U.S. Supreme Court was founded on a principle of being “above politics.” Alexander Hamilton termed it “the weakest branch of the federal government” in Federalist 78, and its first Chief Justice, John Jay, spent most of his time traveling to Europe and signing treaties instead of sitting in the Fisherman’s market of downtown Manhattan trying cases. During the term of John Marshal as Chief Justice (1801-1835), the court evolved into a very potent force in American policy making. The court affirmed federal supremacy over state laws, introduced the right of judicial review to declare acts of Congress and the president unconstitutional, and protected the contract rights of private businesses. Since the time when Chief Justice Jay and his court ruled that a citizen of one state cannot try a government of another state in federal court, constitutional amendments have occasionally resulted from important Supreme Court rulings. The 11 th and 13 th amendments, to name a few, have directly resulted from the way in which the justices on the court interpreted the US Constitution.

To put history aside and return to the present, the Supreme Court of today wields far greater influence on public policy than ever before. The process of nominating and confirming justices onto the court has developed into a unique tug-of-war between the president and the U.S. Senate. Today’s court uses the power of discretion and the issuance of writs of certiorari to hear only about four percent of cases brought before the justices. The power of judicial clerks and interest groups has grown with respect to cases heard in front of the Supreme Court. The court now has to tackle issues of great controversy, from abortion to the death penalty to religion in the public square. It is, therefore, of utmost importance that the court have a majority of justices who actually interpret and not make law, and interpret it to the benefit of law-abiding citizens and not to that of terrorists and criminals. The present Supreme Court, headed by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, has been somewhat in conflict with the point I have just mentioned. The potential of at least three court vacancies, probably that of Rehnquist, Justice John Stevens, and possibly Justice Sandra Day O’Conner, has unveiled a critical opportunity to ensure America’s future security and societal stability.

In the 1960’s, the court of Chief Justice Earl Warren spent a lot of time making and not strictly interpreting constitutional law. The Warren Court has, therefore, been termed the “ultimate activist” court. Radical groups attempting to subvert societal stability and undermine the national security of the United States were given lower prison terms, greater attorney-client privileges, and stronger protection from federal surveillance. The convictions of communist agitators were overturned to the chagrin of a US government trying to win the Cold War at home. The post-9/11 environment has opened a new chapter in the court flaunting it responsibilities before the American public. Mark Levin, considered one of the most well known conservative radio talk show hosts in America, has recently published a book entitled Men in Black. Levin’s book offers a detailed account of haies in ruling patterns of the Supreme Court over, primarily, the last fifty years. In his presentation of the book on the Hannity and Colmes show, Levin described how the court has recently moved to equate the rights of suspected terrorists to those of civilians accused of committing felonies, forced organizations to comply with affirmative action and gun control laws without the necessary precedent, and has moved to almost rewrite abortion and marriage legislation. The court, according to Levin, simply cannot be trusted with the safety and welfare of the American people.

To give my own opinion on Levin’s harsh interpretation of events, I find myself somewhat at a crossroads. Judicial restraint and not activism is what I deem more desirable, but a good justice must have the nerve and initiative to switch between these two roles. I believe that the states should have the final say on issues concerning marriage, and not the national government. I also believe that abortion, with important restrictions, should nonetheless exist. You could say that I counter Levin’s fears on these two points. On the issue of national security, however, I agree with Mr. Levin completely. Groups such as the International Red Cross, the ACLU, and the always nefarious hard-left wing radio show Air America, have accused the Bush administration of “sponsoring a policy of torture against detainees and other such prisoners of war.” Have there been sporadic acts of humiliation and human rights abuses by American troops? The answer is yes. No army is an army of angels. Abu Ghareib was a despicable example of this. A number of sadistic prison guards, who simply had enough of the boredom and misery of prison duty, decided to terrorize the entire prison population. Two of the ringleaders have been brought before military court, with one being given over ten years in prison. Such unfortunate incidents exist in every war as a consequence of the emotionally dysfunctional states soldiers find themselves in. To say from this, however, that torture and human rights abuses are “regular occurrences” and are “sponsored by the government” is a completely different argument entirely. Just because the national government takes increased steps to protect the American people, doesn’t mean that it has a torture policy. The International Red Cross has attempted to compare the treatment of detainees at Guantanamo Bay to that of Saddam’s prisons!! COME ON! You are telling me that denying a prisoner several hours of sleep a night, putting him in an uncomfortable room with a colder temperature, or putting loud dogs in front of him is anything like pulling his tongue out, applying highly concentrated electric shock, and raping his daughters and wife before his eyes? The comparison does seem ridiculous to say the least, but the left is still living in the fantasy land of “there is no terrorist threat” and simply can’t accept that the United States needs to take extra precautions to defend itself. The Supreme Court, unfortunately, by forcing the government to apply the same legal standards to terrorists as it would apply to civilian felons, is acting just as foolishly.

-Boris Ryvkin

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Simpsons Tackle Gay Marriage

"I now pronounce you man and...d'oh!"

Regardless of one’s opinion of “The Simpsons”, one has to admit the show has no problem tackling controversial material most would rather sweep under the rug. And even though it would have been better had producers left the issue of gay marriage alone, the show was able to inject a degree of its classic subversive wit into what could have been an approach characterized by nothing but a doctrinaire political correctness.

When most heard sodomite matrimony was coming to the quintessential American town of Springfield, most assumed the abomination would be heralded with typical Hollywood applause and accolades. And though I would be uncomfortable with letting younger children view the episode, it was not without humorous aspects exposing the hypocrisy inherent to this social outrage.

For gay nuptials were not ultimately sanctioned in this fictional municipality out of a warped interpretation of love or equity but rather in an attempt to bring back lost tourist dollars after Bart and Milhaus create a bad impression of the town in the mind of a roving travel correspondent. Homer gets into the money making racket by getting ordained and opening a wedding chapel in his garage.

“The Simpsons” is often characterized by a degree of philosophical reflection beneath all of its silliness uncommon to television sitcoms. This episode also sparked additional thought by touching on the point that, if same sex marriage is allowed, on what grounds do we continue to forbid other reprehensible couplings? This point was comically made when brother and sister hillbillies wanted to get married and Homer fantasized about marrying himself (“Homersexual” marriage, eh) with a house full of little Homers.

The most penetrating point of the show centered around the ambivalence exhibited by Marge Simpson. Throughout the early part of the episode, Marge is an enthusiastic supporter of this social perversion.

However, overthrowing the established moral order loses a bit of its appeal when she learns one of her own sisters is a lesbian. Reminds one of the adage that a liberal is a conservative that has not been mugged yet, her revulsion at the prospects of her sister falling into this lifestyle serving as a testament to the disgust many experience to the practice despite their best efforts at being good little radicals and harping the party line.

Though most would be reluctant to admit it, the world depicted on “The Simpsons” is probably one of the most realistic reflections of the American moral climate on television today. If the episode meant to proclaim the joys and beauty of gay marriage to the nation is wracked by as much reluctance to the practice as was able to wiggle its way into the plot, it means --- though tottering on the edge of the abyss --- there is still a sliver of hope provided Americans of principle don’t cower before these boisterous libertines.

-Frederick Meekins

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Hempsteria

Pass some of that "sticky icky icky!"

Last week, my wife and I were invited to eat dinner at the home of some of our more liberal friends. Or, I should more properly say, my wife was invited and I came along because I come with the set. Do not take this the wrong way. I have nothing personally against this couple. They are intelligent, friendly people, and other than the fact that they are a pair of short sighted, pseudo-intellectual, tie dye wearing liberal freaks who hold a burning resentment against me because I am usually right, I can tolerate them for short periods every few weeks.

This week was their turn to host dinner. So, as with most things in life, there is good and bad in all situations. For example, by going to their house I do not have to deal with their critiquing my home’s recycling program, but by going to theirs I am forced to endure whatever collection of sticks, small stones, and berries constitutes a vegetarian meal. This week was no exception as we were treated to yet another half raw meat, cheese, salt and taste free dinner. As I finished eating and my mind was turning to thoughts of what kinds of real food I would eat once I got home, my hosts asked if I would like some chocolate
non-dairy, frozen, naturally sweetened confection. This is close enough to be ice cream for me, so I accepted.

As my host gave me the bowl, he asked me with a smile if I would like some hemp seeds on the top as a garnish. Ah, yes, it was evidently time for yet another of my friends’ attempts to entrap me into a lecture about the evils of something. I knew that if I was to refuse the hemp seeds, then I was guaranteed at least a 45 minute long tirade about the need to legalize marijuana. Willing to avoid this at any cost, and knowing that hemp is the non narcotic form of marijuana, I accepted. My hosts’ crestfallen stares was proof to me that I have managed to spoil their planned entertainment for the evening, so they immediately switched to “Plan B” and began their sermon anyhow about how wonderful hemp is and how if everyone grew it there would no longer be any problems in the world.

Did you know, I was told, that a bunch of people out west just drove a car the entire way around the country powered on nothing but hemp seed oil? How much does hemp seed oil cost? About $160 a gallon… I think I will keep using regular unleaded.

Did you know that another bunch of people out west just built an adobe brick house out of nothing but mud and hemp stems? Hope it does not biodegrade by spring. And so on it went.

Other than the fact that there must be a lot of goofy people “out west” who think they can fly to the moon in a hemp rocket, all I learned is that some people are willing to say and do anything in order to try to make marijuana use culturally acceptable. Up to and including, overstating the benefits of hemp.

Hemp? Eh, we were just going "bowling!"

The fact of the matter is almost any vegetable matter can be processed into some form of fuel. We have been using ethanol for decades in our engines and it is made from corn, and many other types of legal crops can do the same, such as wheat, soy beans, and alfalfa. There is nothing unique in hemp’s ability to modify into fuel that cannot be accomplished with a preexisting farm crop.

The same can be said for fabrics and paper, which the “hemp-maniacs” point to as hemp’s most vital contribution to society by offering us a renewable and biodegradable alternative to cutting down trees and abusing sheep by cutting off their wool. Sorry to say, many other crops can also be used in this capacity, such as rice stalks and corn husks. In fact, other staple crops far exceed hemp in its usefulness in creating environmentally friendly products. Corn and soy beans can actually be processed into biodegradable plastics and polymers that can be used in industries and textiles. But these crops are not illegal and a slightly different variety of them cannot get you high, so liberals just ignore them.

Maybe it is the allure of something almost illegal that attracts the left to hemp. How can society be so short sighted as to overlook the benefits of this great plant just because it is hard to tell apart from a controlled substance? Well, if something almost illegal is what the left likes about hemp, then they should go batty over tobacco. The tobacco plant is known as one of the biotech industry’s “white rats.” It is by far one of the easiest plants to bioengineer, and the fact that an average plants yields over 1 million seeds, makes it an invaluable tool for scientific research. One day very soon, pharmaceutical products in human medication and vaccines may be grown in tobacco plants, as well as the plastics used in consumer products. That is unless liberal politicians do not tax the plant into extinction first.

The hemp seeds on my almost ice cream tasted like dirt, by the way. Or maybe the dust off your television screen would be a better description of what hemp tastes like. My dinner experience is like the entire hemp use issue in a nut shell. Hemp is nothing but an old outdated crop that does not offer society anything that cannot be attained elsewhere much more readily at a far cheaper price. But people still persist in trying over inflate its usefulness because they think that it would make a good cover for the “real” crops they are trying to grow in their gardens. If you are actually concerned about farmers, renewable sources of raw materials, and biodiversity, then why not stop bothering us with your hemp extract hand sanitizers and expend your energies on something that might actually work.

-Justin Darr

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Free Speech or Treason?

Yeah, we went toilet-hopping the other day and see what popped up!

September 11, 2001 will forever be burned into the minds of not just Americans, but people around the world. Many articles, stories and essays have been produced in the aftermath of a tragedy that affected the world. One such essay has caused tremendous controversy within the United States due to the frank matter that ideas are portrayed. Ward Churchill, a professor at the University of Colorado has essentially become the poster child of the First Amendment with his essay entitled “Some People Push Back: On the Justice of Roosting Chickens.” This essay has many Americans upset, calling Ward Churchill a traitor; claiming he committed treason. Churchill argues he exercised his right to freedom of speech. So, who is right?

In his essay, Churchill discussed his feelings about the terrorist attacks that occurred on the World Trade Center in New York City. He appears to sympathize with the airline hijackers. He claimed the hijackers weren’t fundamentalists or cowards, but merely soldiers for their cause and beliefs. In addition to that, the individuals that died in the attack were nowhere near being innocent civilians. In fact, he states that basically, if there is a better punishment to impose on the “Little Eichmanns” that were in the buildings, he’d like to hear about it. Later in the essay, he even suggests the idea of “Nuremburg-style” trials for America’s war criminals; i.e. Bill Clinton, Madeline Albright, Colin Powell and George Bush Senior to name a few. Then, he mumbles on about other areas that might be next on the list such as Grenada, Sudan, Afghanistan, etc. (Didn’t those places already get hit??) He finalizes by saying how guilty the U.S. is of everything he discussed.

In an article written for the Denver Post, the idea of firing Churchill from his position at the University of Colorado was being discussed. The reason? His highly controversial essay, of course. The article went on to quote parts of the essay that have been found the most offensive to a nation at war. One individual quoted in the paper called the essay “disgusting, vulgar (and) repugnant.” The article is great about discussing the bad points of the essay, however, it fails to mention the factual portions of it. (Be it very few, there are factual pieces there.)

Another article, taken from www.insidedenver.com, Rocky Mountain News: Education, discusses similar issues, only with little reference to the possibility of Churchill losing his job. This article, however, mentions some quotes that I did not locate within the actual essay, making me doubt the validity of the site. It said Churchill called the personnel within the Pentagon “military targets” and it also called the terrorists “combat teams.” When comparing the two articles to the actual essay itself, I found the Denver Post article the most accurate. Churchill may have given the impression of the military targets and combat teams, but I do not recall reading those actual words within the essay. However, the Rocky Mountain news article went into more depth regarding the feelings of political opinions from school representatives to even house members of both the Democrat and Republican parties.

Your tax dollars at work...

This has become so controversial because many Americans feel Churchill has committed treason. Let’s look at what exactly that means. The Constitution of the United States, Article III, defines: Treason against the United States to consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason, unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court. (Taken directly from the Constitution.) Article III also discusses the Supreme Court, which has the final say in an issue dealing with constitutional rights. This means that the Supreme Court, provided the issue is petitioned to them and accepted for hearing, then interprets the Constitution and applies it to the issue at hand. Also, the decision is final. So, there are a couple of ways a Justice might look at this issue, considering that if found guilty of Treason, Ward Churchill faces the possibility of execution. There’s the Prosecutions outlook. Churchill is sympathizing with the enemy in a time of war. The whole entire essay is merely an alternative to supplying them with nuclear weapons or money to pay for their methods of fighting with the United States. The definition implies breaching one’s loyalty to their nation and that is what he is doing; he may as well become an Iraqi citizen and join Al-Qaida. He betrayed his fellow Americans by implying that they deserved to perish in the World Trade Center. He even pushed the limits so far as to call several highly political individuals war criminals and suggested that they be hanged for their crimes when in reality he is the one who has committed the crime.

Now, let’s see what the Defending Attorney might argue: Churchill is protected by the first amendment to the Constitution which states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” This means that he can write whatever he wants, say whatever he wants and is entitled to his opinion of the issues at hand. He is not telling citizens to take up arms against the United States government nor is he suggesting that military personnel go against their orders. He is not providing any form of aid to the enemy, be it tangible or intangible. There was no transfer of weapons, money, food, or goods of any sort. If he were to be found guilty of treason for merely writing an essay, then what’s the point of having the first amendment? To do this would make the United States no better than the countries we are at war with. He criticized political entities within the United States and in Hussein’s Iraq, if an individual disagreed, he or she would be executed. Is that what the United States wants to portray to the world considering the fact that many areas already don’t like us? To punish Churchill would go against everything the United States and the Constitution stand for.

To Conclude, I feel it is important to mention my ideas on this issue. Being a soldier, I feel that to punish Churchill for the essay goes against everything I have been taught to fight for. I strongly disagree with EVERYTHING he said. As a matter of fact, reading the essay sickened me. However, he is entitled to his first amendment right just as much as anyone else and it is my duty to defend that right. When I swore in, [to the military] I placed my left hand over the bible, raised my right hand and swore to “preserve and protect the United States Constitution.” To me, this means defending every aspect of it, both the good and the bad. I do feel that the families and victims of 9/11 deserve to be treated with more respect than what Churchill gave them, as well. It comes along with the territory, though. If you’re going to stand up for a right that hardly no one else in the world has, that means standing up even when you completely and totally disagree.

-Jessica Ainley

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Could Mandatory Critical Thinking Classes Drive Leftists into Extinction?

When Ward Churchill is a hero and Larry Summers is a demon, one thing's for sure:  There are a lot of dumb people in our universities.

Churchill, a University of Colorado professor, a/k/a fake Indian grease ball, recently became famous for his remarks that Americans in the World Trade Center deserved to be killed on 9-11 because they were capitalist Nazis.

Summers, the President of Harvard University, recently hypothesized that men and women might differ innately in their aptitudes for math and science. He said this was one factor (among many) that might explain why women don't advance to top-level positions in math and science.

The Left’s response to the comments of these men was predictable. Summers is a sexist pig. Churchill is a courageous hero who dared to speak the truth.

The anti-American, empty-headed zealots came out in droves to support Churchill. About all they could say was, “He has a right to exercise his first amendment right!” (Gee, they just feel so smart when they say this, don’t they?) Others said things like, “Well I don’t agree with him, but he has a right to his opinion.”

A right to his opinion? Huh? Shouldn’t an opinion be formed from real facts? Should we also say that the people who believe that the moon landings were a hoax have a right to their opinion?

Exactly how were the victims of 9-11 Nazis, or “little Eichmanns,” as Churchill called them? Adolph Eichmann is often referred to as the “Chief Executioner” of the Third Reich. He was largely responsible for the logistics of the extermination of millions of people during the Holocaust. Churchill apparently believes that the victims, via their capitalistic practices (i.e. going to work), were willing participants in a vast U.S. conspiracy of ethnic cleansing!

In contrast to Churchill’s statements, Larry Summers did say something worthy of being called an opinion. There is a mountain of scientific evidence that supports his claim. Numerous studies do indeed reveal genetic differences between men and women. Men, on average, have better spatial visualization skills. Women, on average, have better linguistic ability. And – oh no – get ready for this one: On all standardized exams, including IQ tests – regardless of race or culture – men score higher than women on mathematical reasoning sections.

Since these results are irrefutable, many people attribute them to the environment. But the “socialization” excuse simply doesn’t apply in today’s world where boys and girls are exposed to equal curriculums in school.

And speaking of curriculums, how in the world does our educational system churn out irrational kooks like Churchill and his ilk? Maybe some people are just plain crazy, but, surely, anti-American indoctrination in our schools is partly, or even largely, to blame. But would the anti-American instructors succeed if our children were taught critical thinking skills from an early age? It would certainly be easier than trying to censor wacky teachers and professors all around the country.

Critical thinking skills would provide students with the tools to think for themselves. They would be taught to demand facts and apply reason and logic to everything they learn.

Just imagine the consequences, and think of some possible scenarios when a rational student confronts a leftist teacher.

Year: 2005

Teacher : America is an imperialist nation!

Student : Bad America!!

Year: 2015

Teacher : America is an imperialist nation!

Student : Really? Is America taking over other countries? Are there more than 50 states now?

Teacher : Well, not exactly, but we are doing it in a sneaky way. We are setting up corporations and pushing our culture on people all around the globe.

Student : Wow. So we are forcing people in other countries to work in our companies and watch our movies?

Teacher : No, we don’t exactly force them. They love our movies and line up to work in our companies. But it gives America power and control over them, and we know it!

Student : Really? How?

Teacher : Because we are forcing them to depend on us. For example, many people would starve if they didn’t work in American companies.

Student : But isn’t it a good thing – to prevent people from starving?

Teacher : Yes, of course, but it’s immoral to exploit people by paying them one dollar an hour so they can eat!

Student : Does one dollar there buy what one dollar buys here?

Teacher : Well, no, it buys a lot more. Their cost of living is much lower than ours. But still!!

Student : So should we pull out and let them starve?

Teacher : We should leave their countries and give them financial aid so they won’t starve.

Student : But wouldn’t financial aid make them dependent on us, too? And is this a long-term solution? I mean won’t the opportunities presented to people who work in American companies make them more prosperous so they can open their own companies someday? And if more and more companies open up, American or otherwise, wouldn’t the demand for labor increase and therefore lead to wage increases? And won’t the governments of these countries get richer from the tax revenue generated from all these new companies and employees? And with more money, couldn’t these countries build up their military? I’m just not getting how our strategy to take over will work.

Teacher : Uh…

Student : I also don’t understand how watching our movies will give us control over other countries. Will the people cheer as our tanks roll in because Brad Pitt might be in one of them? And one more thing: If you, my teacher, are aware of America’s imperialist plot, don’t those other countries know, too? Why don’t they kick us out? I’m confused. Please help.

Teacher : Wasn’t that the bell?

The Time is Now

Rigorous critical thinking should be taught during a student’s entire education. They should be taught to question and apply reason and logic to everything they learn. With these skills, they will surely reject leftist, anti-American propaganda both in their schools and in the media.

We should all keep in mind the words of the famous philosopher, Ayn Rand: “What do I know, and how do I know it?”

Let’s hope that we look back one day at the Ward Churchill and Larry Summers controversies as dark days in our history. Let’s hope that rational thought is commonplace. Let’s hope that leftists become extinct, or at least end up on the endangered species list, because eradicating the enemies in our own country is the best hope for America’s survival.

-Lorene Leiter

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Atlanta Burns

Atlanta at Night

The city of Atlanta has historically been seen as, “the heart of the south.” It is a metropolis of over 416,000 people and the capital of the sprawling southern state of Georgia. The city was burned to the ground by General Sherman’s forces in the Civil War, memorialized by the epic film Gone with the Wind, and was the sight of major exchanges during the Civil Rights era alongside its neighbors, Alabama and Mississippi. The city has been through a great deal. Today, however, it might appear to some that the city is facing another major challenge. The challenge comes from armed criminals and the lack of firm city action against them. The challenge comes from activist and negligent judges who prevent child-abusers from facing their punishment. Finally, the worst threat of all, at least in the last several months comes from the District Attorney of Fulton County, Paul Howard Jr.

Paul Howard, more so than perhaps any other person, has come to symbolize the problem in both Atlanta and in the entire local system of justice. In an article published by one of Howard’s former assistant district attorney’s, the writer wrote, “Howard is currently under ethics investigation for stonewalling my investigation of Georgia Senator Charles Walker, who was finally indicted by federal investigators on 142 felony counts for stealing from Georgia's poorest citizens, including at Grady hospital. Federal authorities have stated that the co-conspirators of Walker need to be looked at by Fulton. Four years ago, I personally presented Howard with two boxes of evidence regarding the Walker/Grady corruption. Howard refused to investigate, and then finally retaliated against me. Howard now claims to have "lost" the evidence. Howard's office continues to falsely claim they have no knowledge of the Walker/Grady corruption.” These charges, however, have proven to be just the tip of the iceberg for this walking disaster of a prosecutor.

Two recent cases have stunned not just the residents of Atlanta, but the consciences of the entire country. Destiny Ashe was a five week old baby who was beaten to death by her mother, Carisa Ashe, possibly as a result of a drug overdose or a similar circumstance. Carisa has mothered a total of 8 children, including Destiny, by multiple men, none of whom she had any long-term relations with. The children lived under impoverished conditions, often with their grandmother, with Carisa often being absent or indifferent to their condition. Paul Howard was notified of the murder charge against Carisa, but chose to do nothing as a consequence. It took three years after the crime was committed to finally get Howard to move on this case. Even after Howard agreed to bring charges against Carisa, she was neither arrested nor ordered to appear before the county court for formal indictment. Instead, Carisa was allowed to roam free without supervision. At last Judge Barnes of Atlanta’s District Court ordered Carisa to be sterilized in return for not serving a prison term. The decision was reached after pressure from Howard, whose conduct of the case was already under heavy scrutiny. Carisa Ashe, a woman who slaughtered a five week old baby, has not gotten anywhere near the punishment she deserved for this horrendous crime. The tragedy, however, did not end there for Atlanta and its judicial system.

Paul Howard

On March 12 th, Atlanta authorities apprehended Brian Nichols, a man charged with rape and weapons possession, who escaped from a county court house several days prior. Nichols shot and killed four people, including County Superior Judge Rowland and a sheriff’s deputy. It was only through the faith and bravery of a female hostage which he holed for seven hours that Nichols was finally convinced to give himself up. As the manhunt went on, Paul Howard’s negligence emerged again on the nation’s front pages.

Howard, apparently, has a history of backlogging and ignoring rape and child abuse cases. Howard requested that Nichols be accompanied to the Atlanta courthouse, but did not specify the level of security that would be appropriate. He chose to accept the decision to make a fifty year old female deputy Nichol’s security force. Nichols had already been cited for possession of two knives in a previous case and measured over sixty feet in height. Howard, however, ignored both of these facts. The result was absolute tragedy. Following Nichol’s capture, Howard’s office issued a statement that, “we didn’t believe Nichol’s could be violent” and added that the death penalty may not be considered in the case. May not be considered!! Nichols killed four people in cold blood, stole a weapon from the deputy who accompanied him, and has been formally charged with rape. The only people who may not be considered for anything ever again are Howard and his advisors.

What happened in Atlanta is not an isolated incident. Cold-blooded criminals are being aided by negligent and agenda-oriented prosecutors. Atlanta, and particularly Howard’s county, has now achieved a reputation for being one of the most unsafe cities in the country. Will we allow this to continue or will we push for judicial reform? Criminals should be punished for their crimes, and those that betray the public’s safety for personal benefit should also be brought to account.

-Boris Ryvkin

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The Endangered Species Act

Thirty years of Endangering People and Animals is Enough!

Animals and humans have suffered the menace of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) for three long decades. During this span, over 1,300 species have been listed as threatened or endangered under the Act’s guidelines. According the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the ESA is responsible for recovering a mere ten of them.

That amounts to a pitiful recovery rate of less than one percent. When you take into account credible studies that show these ten recoveries had little or nothing to do with the ESA, the “success” rate plummets to zero.

Saving zero of over 1,300 species is hard work and sacrifice under the Endangered Species Act. After all, you don’t achieve a zero percent success rate without breaking a few eggs. When the Northern Spotted Owl was listed under the ESA in 1990, tens of thousands of Americans in the Pacific Northwest lost their jobs and their livelihoods. Billions of dollars were sapped from the regional economy. Private property was taken from landowners. Such is the toil and hardship associated with saving an owl that, as it turns out, isn’t endangered and never needed saving.

Crucial military preparation and training operations have fallen victim to the ESA’s relentless pursuit of imperfection. The Pentagon regards Camp Pendleton in Southern California as one of the best places to train U.S. marines due to its unique terrain and coastline. In fact, Camp Pendleton is the only amphibious training base on the West Coast. Alas, it is also home to the California gnatcatcher, the San Diego fairy shrimp, the tidewater goby, and more than a dozen other species listed as “endangered” or “threatened” under the Endangered Species Act. As such, our men and women in uniform must tread lightly, or not at all, in certain areas that used to be their training ground—lest they find themselves subject to penalties and fines.

Dodging bullets may prove easier than avoiding fairy shrimp “vernal pools,” or “puddles of water” to the layman. An inadequately trained military is a small price to pay when you’ve got a zero-for-1,300 streak on the line. Even during a time of war.

The Endangered Species Act does not discriminate. Just ask the family and friends of the four firefighters who were killed in 2001. Federal bureaucrats fiddled while the inferno around them burned. These four heroes were fighting the infamous Thirty Mile Fire in Washington’s Okanogan National Forest when the blaze bore down on them and encroached on their emergency fire shelters. Their only salvation was the nearby Chewuch River, which could supply water to helicopters for a flame-dousing airdrop. Oh, if it were only that easy.

According to the Endangered Species Act, the Chewuch was home to a several endangered fish and, therefore, ladling water from the river might, could, possibly imperil a few of the little buggers. While paper pushers back East fretted over how to satisfy the ESA’s requirements, these four brave men and women were snuffed out by the deadly fire. The good news is there are plenty of humans to go around. Fish, on the other hand, well, they’re abundant too. But who are we to question the supremacy of the Endangered Species Act?

Congressman Richard Pombo (R-CA) has stated: “It is no secret the ESA has been used by extremists to restrict, seize, and devalue private property rights, as well as halt important government projects. In fact, this is what most ‘green’ obstructionist groups relish most about the Act.”

Whatever intentions were behind the ESA when it was conceived in 1973 are of little consequence. Intended results mean nothing when compared to actual results. The ESA exists solely as a land-use and power tool, whereby radical environmentalists and their allies in government can take property and force their whims on the public. As Rep. Pombo points out, “The ESA has become the preeminent law of the land; in its implementation, it takes precedent over all else.”

Included in that “all else” is common sense. The Endangered Species Act punishes property owners for fostering an environment that is suitable for species habitation. You read that right. The ESA is so backwards that it creates a perverse incentive for landowners to actually rid their property of species and habitat for fear of government confiscation of their land or property rights.

“The incentives are wrong here,” notes biologist and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Southeast Regional Director Sam Hamilton. “If a rare metal is on my property the value of my land goes up. But if a rare bird is on my property the value of my property goes down.”

Stolen property, lost jobs, shattered livelihoods, broken dreams, billions of dollars, and lost lives. This is a pretty steep price for a law that has failed to save species. Can’t America do better? Isn’t it time to repeal the Endangered Species Act and start over?

Peyton Knight is executive director of the American Policy Center. The Center, a grassroots activist think tank, maintains an Internet site at www.americanpolicy.org.

-By Peyton Knight, Guest Columnist

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Social Security As Investment In A Better Future

President Bush has helped to not only focus attention on the need, now, to reform a Social Security system that can pretend to be healthy for another decade or two but also on the issue of how Social Security funds are invested. Yet the latter, investment, issue requires far more attention paid to it. Obviously, “need” to reform and “investment” are connected. Any system that can produce an average rate of return to its beneficiaries of no more than about two and a half percent cannot be characterized as being financially healthy. Two and a half percent is lower than even the unusually low average rates of inflation that we’ve seen over the past decade. Thus, the purchasing power of the Social Security dollar has been steadily and significantly decreasing. Social Security funds are invested in government debt. Though “government” is undeniably “social,” how does such an investment policy provide for the economic security of a working U.S. population rather than peace of mind for federal bondholders and government employees?

What is our major problem on the investment side of the Social Security equation? – It’s a “safety first” assumption -- that the safer and more secure the investment, the safer and more secure will be the Social Security system. Implicit assumptions are dangerous. This one is dangerously wrong. Why? – because it rests on a basic fallacy – that what’s good for the individual is good for the country. If a private individual or business invests in a single risky venture, hoping to earn a higher return, the rosy expectation of a score could turn into a sour song if the venture goes bust. Here, the “safe and secure” rule is investment wisdom.

But what if the “individual” is a country? The “rule” is unwise. Why? – because to the extent that a major portion of the overall investible funds (savings) of a country are reserved for low- or no-risk investments; i.e., to the extent that we as a nation determine that we should “play it safe,” we become less economically secure. We become so to the extent that we fail to invest a significant portion or our national savings in risky ventures, those based on entrepreneurship and innovation. What a paradox!: less risk by assuming more; greater economic security from insecure investments. Social Security funds represent a significant portion of our national savings.

A country or anyone with sufficient funds can invest in a diversified portfolio of companies, including a significant percentage of investment in new or early-stage enterprises, those at the high end of the risk spectrum. A diversified portfolio spreads risks – a basic rule of finance. Some companies may go bust, but losses on these are more than made up from average returns from average companies plus superior returns from superior companies. “Anyone with sufficient funds” does not include you or me, the American retiree or potential retiree who looks to Social Security to provide a large part of retirement income. What about our country via Social Security Trust funds? Here, too, there is an important individual/country divide. As individuals fearing poverty in our old age, we want to minimize risk of losing money set aside for retirement. Our “country,” however, at least as represented by those we elect, wants to maximize returns from public expenditures or investments. So, why not Social Security Trust Fund investments? – Because our individual preferences for safety and security also come into play when we vote. Those seeking our votes are not about to court defeat by advocating anything that does not appear to be safe and secure. Paradoxically, however, we would be able to retire with more income if a significant portion of our Social Security funds were invested in portfolios of high-risk, new and early-stage American enterprises. It’s too bad that those we elect either don’t understand paradox or, if they did, wouldn’t admit to it. Notwithstanding some exceptions, it also appears that Members of Congress don’t understand (to quote the title of an old article from Fortune magazine) “Why Trading Innovation for Predictability Isn’t a Good Thing.”

One of the enduring myths of the American economy is that venture capitalists (VCs) invest most of their investable funds in start-ups. Not true; only a small minority of their investments are in such new enterprises. Yet, these constitute the seed corn for an advanced, dynamic, prosperous, world-competitive American economy, without which we are all poorer, working or retired. By devoting part of our Social Security funds to investment in new, innovative enterprises, we would help our country and ourselves.

How this can be accomplished raises thorny issues of both politics and implementation. It is politics that stands in the way. All the fear-mongers already out front and center on the Social Security reform issue, and then some, will be trying even harder to discredit a good idea by spreading fear and speaking nonsense. Venture capitalists will chime in, too, with some genuine practical concerns. The more open-minded, innovative and less self-interested among them should be invited to help a new Social Security investment policy to work. Members of Congress will be the greatest barriers, but they respond to voters. Will people of the American electorate see where their true financial self-interest lies? Will they then press their representatives to introduce and vote for new legislation enabling investment of Social Security funds in new and early-stage enterprises? These are the questions.

-Peter Bearse, Ph.D.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

San Fran Insanity

San Francisco State University was the site of another outrage last week. Student radicals, waving anti-recruitment banners alongside Palestinian flags, crowded the University’s lobby to protest the arrival of US armed forces representatives. All over the media, from the blue screens of MSNBC and CNN to the red attack machine of Fox News, the protest caused quite a stir. Republican Voices has made it a point to talk about these recurring incidents because we feel they are part and parcel of an emerging threat. The protestors resorted to shouting the recruiters down in an attempt to block any attempts for the representatives to express their message. Shouts of “end the occupation” and “no recruiters in the school” were amplified by the timely arrival of protestor megaphones. Rupert Murdoch wasn’t spared either, as protestors began shouting, “Fox News leave to”! After the incident, students and recruiters alike were given airtime by the major networks. The army recruiters and those who supported them began demanding that the school must give an equal opportunity for both groups to spread their message. The protestors, meanwhile, kept demanding that all vestiges of American “imperialism” be stricken from school grounds.

As Americans, we are a people greatly devoted to our “rights”. The U.S. Constitution would not have been ratified unless a Bill of Rights was attached to it. We have, furthermore, based our foreign policy on certain idealistic principles of equality and individualism. The question is not whether one or the other group is right or wrong, but whether one has the “right” to strip the other of its “right” to express its positions in a public forum. Remember, San Francisco State University is a State university for a reason. The school is funded by the tax dollars of California’s residents. This means that the money the school uses for its financial aid distribution and day-to-day operations comes from a very diverse group of people. Why should one group be allowed to prevent the other from expressing itself! The army recruiters weren’t harassing the students, but only inviting them to hear about what the army can offer. Multiple arguments can be made as to whether they were telling the truth or just engaging in a clever propaganda campaign, but whether they have the right to make their case in a publicly funded college should not be an issue. It should also be noted that the groups who are protesting these recruiters are the same ones who publicly uphold a “progressive agenda”. They don’t want the brave men and women of the United States represented in America’s colleges, but have no problems allowing anti-Semitic and racist groups such as the Palestine Solidarity Movement to hold rallies and lectures on school grounds. I sense a double-standard here, don’t you?

San Fran State!

What is wrong with America’s colleges? From Duke to Berkley, from Seattle Community to San Francisco State, the college administration and student radicals have begun to control the flow of student information. There can be nothing more dangerous than the brainwashing of college youth, particularly in what are considered “top tier” colleges. Ben Shapiro, an orthodox Jewish student who attended UCLA and currently attends Harvard Law School, wrote a book on the brainwashing that both he and other college students are currently experiencing today on college campuses. The threat lies in the lack of balanced information available to students on college grounds. The loss of reasonable and honest debate has vanished in the face of left-wing radicalism. If the soul of America is to be recovered, we must win the Culture War. If its reason is to be recovered, we must win the College War!!

-Boris Ryvkin

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

US Infrastructure: Increasingly Unsafe

Ya think?!

Years ago when I had a full head of hair, I worked for the New Jersey Institute of Technology and gained a great respect for engineers and architects. Without them, nothing gets built, nothing works, and we would all be back rubbing two sticks together to make a fire.

In early March, my local daily newspaper ran a story that was four paragraphs long and buried at the bottom of the page. “Engineers see US Infrastructure Sinking.” It was one of those stories deemed newsworthy enough to include since it cited a report by the American Society of Civil Engineers, but I doubt that anyone at the paper considered the full implications of the story. There was no mention of it on the broadcast news media. After all, how exciting are bad bridges and solid waste management?

Let me tell you how important it is; if some attention and a whole lot of money is not spent on the nation’s infrastructure, i.e., aviation, bridges, dams, drinking water, energy, hazardous waste removal, navigable waterways, parks and recreation, rail travel, roads, schools, security, solid waste, transit, and wastewater, then life in this country as we know it is going to resemble a Third World nation.

How bad is it? The ASCE report, issued every four years, gives the national infrastructure an overall grade of D, down from a D+ in 2001. The Society estimates it would take a total investment of $1.6 trillion dollars over five years to bring these various elements up to acceptable levels. “If we treated our own homes like we treat our infrastructure,” says William Henry, ASCE president, “we’d all live in shacks.”

“The nation’s infrastructure is sliding toward failure and the prospect for any real improvement is grim,” says Henry. One thing I know about civil engineers, they are not prone to exaggeration.

Who shall we blame? Let’s start with Congress which holds the purse strings for many of the improvements needed. Then we can move onto the States, virtually all of which have spent themselves into such debt that finding money to fix bridges and repair roads is going to be put off as long as possible. Many States haven’t been able to support local initiatives to repair schools. In my home State, the New Jersey Supreme Court aggregated power to itself to impose billions in repairs to the worst schools because the legislature wouldn’t. The federal government which effectively controls the nation’s education system, hasn’t assessed the condition of America’s schools since 1999. It was estimated that $127 billion was needed then. Others think that the real cost could be as high as $268 billion.

Of the twelve infrastructure categories, none have improved since 2001. Three new categories were added for the 2005 report. Most Americans haven’t a clue how clean drinking water is delivered to their faucets or sufficient electrical energy moves through an aging grid or how, when the flush the toilet, waste is transported away. And every day, six billion gallons of clean, treated drinking water disappears “mostly due to old, leaky pipes and water mains,” says Henry. “That’s enough to serve the population of California.”

People grumble as they drive over highways that are increasingly filled with potholes and cracks, or a lack of streets add up to 3.5 billion hours stuck in traffic. Poor road conditions cost each American $257 a year in repairs and operat