A conservative news and views blog.

Location: St. Louis, Missouri, United States

Sunday, April 30, 2006

Mexico to Chemically Pacify Their Citizens

Michael Morrison has discovered that Mexico has decided to take the Illegal situation seriously; they have developed a strategy of chemical pacification to keep their people at home!

Shoot, it worked in China for a hundred years!


Spain`s come a long way; from The Inquisition (in which people were ``sorted out`` based on religion) to animal enfranchisement. Talk about a committment to inclusiveness!

Our old friend Tom Graffagnino has this to say about the Spanish Enfranchisement:

"Monkey, si!"
(No monkey-doo!)

Now in Spain the chimps are marching!
Knuckles drag.....
But heads held high!
Darwinism's come full circle...
The Enlightenment's run dry.


(...No, monkey-doo!)
Liberal voter-registration's
Cranking up down at the zoo!

Cast your ballot, Signor Cheetah!
Follow me, sir....
It's your right!
We'll defeat Mean Market Masters...
J. Fred Muggs, please join The Fight!

Yes, we promise Free Bananas!
We'll expand your liberties!
We'll insure much cleaner cages
And/or longer vines on trees!

You can trust us....Primate Power!
You da MAN!
We will free you from your bondage...
Vote for us!
WE understand!

Here's the platform you'll go ape for...
PETA Principles defined!
Please, come join our Bright Tomorrows...


Lord, the flesh cries...."Liberation!"
As if "freedom's" found in schools...
But The Lie the flesh believes in,
Is a lie believed by fools.

Lord, some say there is 'no purpose'....
But on purpose they rebel.
They reject their Holy Image,
And embrace the Gates of Hell.

*Tim`s note; the Democrats may have the means to win an election for once. I`ve always said that anyone who would vote for them must be barely sentient anyway...

Saturday, April 29, 2006

The Incredible Shrinking Russia

Here is an article in Pravda which strengthens the case I made that Russia (like the U.S.) is being overrun by ``guest workers`` and infertility.

According to the results of the research, the number of migrants residing in Russia reached 12.1 million people in 2005. This number makes up over six percent of the total number of migrants in the whole world. The first place on the list is still taken by the country which was founded by migrants – the USA. There are 38.4 million migrants living in the USA. Germany (10.1 million) and Ukraine (6.8 million) follow the USA and Russia respectively.

Kofi Anna said during his speech that Russia had been the center of a variety of migration flows since the beginning of the nineties. The situation with migration policies was relatively normal in the Russian Federation during the nineties. The number of migrants, so-called guest workers, started growing speedily from the year 2000. In addition to the republics of the former Soviet Union, migrants come to Russia from China, Turkey and Vietnam.

It is worthy of note that the Russian society has quite a negative attitude to those foreigners who come to Russia searching for jobs. A recent opinion poll showed that only five percent of the polled were ready to support the idea of increasing the migration attractiveness of Russia. The majority of Russians approve absolutely different activities: counteraction to illegal migration and struggle against ethnic criminal groups.

Count Putinla

A blood sucking goat killer is on the loose in Russia-at least that`s what our friend BobG reports today at Sweet Spirits of Ammonia.

Finally, The Contra Approach

The United States is FINALLY taking my advice and funding Iranian opposition groups. It`s about time!

Thanks to Aussiegirl.

Friday, April 28, 2006

Forgotten Islands of the Atlantic

This is going to be a different type of post, and it may bore the daylights out of many of you. This won`t be about politics, or current events, nor will it be about science or philosophy. I`m going to talk about lost places; islands in the Atlantic Ocean which have been largely forgotten.

I had a bad week. I was ready to jump on a plane by Wednesday, and ready to jump on a rusty cargo ship by Friday. By the end of the business day on Friday I was in full fantasy-mode. I visualized myself buying a one-way ticket to Port Stanley, or to Eddington-On-The-Seven-Seas, or even to Grtvyken, where I would pass the rest of my days in blissful isolation. Peace! No problems, no headaches, no worries! I could eat penguins and seals, lamb or fish, live in a little cottage and let the world go to Helena (but please stay away from St. Helena!)

Most people dream of tropical volcanic islands in the Pacific, or perhaps even something in the Caribbean; I`ve always feared that these would quickly grow too crowded. I can just see myself settling peacefully on some atoll, only to have the Walmart Corporation descend upon me with a South-Sea distribution center, or Disney opening a South Sea theme park (to show what the ``real`` island life is like-complete with robot islanders and artificial beaches), or have the Environmental Protection Agency kick me off so they can establish a wildlife sanctuary. I want to go someplace where I can be left ALONE! I don`t really like nice weather, either, and would enjoy a cold, stormy wilderness. Fortunately for me, there are many tiny places in the Atlantic which will serve my purposes quite well!

Most people aren`t even aware that there are islands in the Atlantic outside of the European and Caribbean archipelagoes. Most of the islands which would suit our purposes lie in the South, and many have isolated communities which have very little contact with the outside world (or didn`t used to until the internet and other modern tools came along). I`m not interested in the settled places like the Azores, or Canaries, or Cape Verde islands; I`m interested in those places forgotten by time and Man, those Lilliputian rocks in the middle of nowhere. Most of them are relics of the once mighty British Empire, now forgotten. Let`s look at a few:


St. Helena doesn`t really serve my purposes, since it is grossly overpopulated (any place with over a thousand people is elbow to elbow, as far as I`m concerned) and tropical to boot. St. Helena`s claim to fame is that it served as the ``Empire`` of Napoleon Bonaparte. Napoleon was exiled to this ignominious spec of land after his defeat at the hands of Wellington at Waterloo. The British, fearing to execute a king-even a pretender king-and realizing that his first exile on Elba was a mistake, since he was too close to the center of power, shipped his sorry carcass way out into the middle of the Atlantic. His dominion was unhappy, as the British Governor hated him and made his life miserable. Napoleon died in 1821 (about 6 years after coming to this place), and it has often been speculated that he was poisoned.

At any rate, St. Helena was your classic tropical plantation type island, with former slaves imported from Africa to work the fields. You may as well stay in the West Indies (unless you are a Napoleon buff.)


This is, essentially, a rock in the Atlantic. Discovered in 1501, it served no Earthly purpose until the British exiled Napoleon. They occupied it to prevent the rescue of the Little General, actually impressing the poor place into the British Navy as HMS Ascension Island! (The British sometimes classed islands as ships.)

Ascension Island is practically uninhabitable, but does have a small, temporary settlement and air strip. It boasts the longest staircase in the world called ``Jacob`s Ladder``. Not my first choice.


This is one of my favorite lost places! This tiny archipelago has one island worth settling (named Tristan Da Cunha) along with several fairly useless sisters (Nightingale, Inaccessible, Gough) It has no harbors, and one scraggly variety of tree which does not even make good firewood. Tristan is the most remote inhabited place on Earth, lying close to 1300 miles from Capetown, South Africa.

When the British exiled Napoleon, they established a base on Tristan to prevent the French from using the island for a rescue mission. After the death of Napoleon they decomissioned the base, and shipped everybody home-well, almost everybody. A young Lieutenant named John Glass had fallen in love, and married a most socially unacceptable girl. His bride was a ``colored``, one of the mixed race people who lived around Capetown. He couldn`t bring his new wife home, so he asked for permission to stay on the island as a representative of Great Britain. Over time, a number of sailors were shipwrecked and rescued by the Glasses. (Mrs. Glass bore 20 children, by the way!) These men, Italian, American, British, decided to stay in this little lost paradise, but desperately wanted women of their own. A passing sea captain promised to do what he could for them, and he returned with ``colored`` prostitutes who had agreed to come and be their wives. They formed the basis of a tiny outpost of the British Empire, and rarely had contact with the Mother Country.

Lord Eddington once visited their island, and so they named their tiny settlement Eddington-On-The-Seven-Seas. There are about 300 of them living on this island today! Their chief source of income is the sale of the Tristan Da Cunha postage stamp.

The Falkland Islands:

These dreary little islands have an area about the size of the state of Connecticut, but have a population of 2500 (this includes the British garrison left to prevent the Argentinians from invading.) There is one town-Port Stanley-which is said to be more British than modern Britain. Stanley is a place lost in time; whitewashed houses, a bank, a couple of old-fashioned pubs, a grand old English hotel, and the Governor`s Mansion pretty much round the place out. Most of the population of the Falklands live in Port Stanley.

There are a few settlements on the rest of East Falkland; Goose Green, Port San Carlos, Darwin, Douglas Settlement, etc. Most of these settlements contain one or two families, and are basically just a house and a barn or two. East Falkland is attached by a neck (where Goose Green is located) to the swampy, wind swept wilderness called Lafonia. West Falkland (divided from the East island by the Falkland Sound) is virtually uninhabited. There are numerous smaller islands surrounding the main ones.

The Falkland Islands lie in the ``Roaring Forties``, a fierce South Atlantic wind pattern which blows east from the tip of South America. The wind is so severe that there are no flying insects, and trees are unable to grow. The island is a great prairie/swampland with few trees or shrubs, great patches of tussock grass, and sheepherding is the principle industry (Falkland Island wool sweaters are famous). The people who live outside of Stanley (in what they call ``the Camp``) are extremely isolated.

The last war of the 19th Century was fought here, not in the 1800`s but in 1981; Argentina seized the islands and, in a final gasp of glory, the British sent a decrepit armada across the Atlantic to fight. This was old-fashioned warfare, fought ``for Queen and Country`` by Ship and Marine soldier. It was a throwback to a by-gone era.

The Argentinians have always claimed these islands, based on their originally being part of the Spanish dominion which became Argentina. Spain was the first to plant a settlement here, establishing a colony at Port Soledad. The British, coveting these islands as a resupply station for ships rounding the Horn, attacked and destroyed Port Soledad, driving the Spaniards out and establishing their own colony. They pushed a group of pensioned soldiers to come and settle.

The problem is that Britain has never had many willing settlers. The Falklands never get very warm, with hot summer days being in the high 60`s/low 70`s. Granted, it never gets far below freezing in the winter, still it is not a farmer`s paradise. The Falklands are one of the rainiest places on Earth, with 260 some odd days of rain a year. Couple that with the incessant wind, and you have something out of a Gothic or sword-and-sorcery novel, but not a place many people want to settle. The only source of fuel for the settlers was peat (which they have to dig out of bogs) and building material is scarce. The Falkland Island development Corporation controls most of the land on the Islands, and there are few independent farm holdings. This quasi-socialist setup has kept these islands from being developed, although the FIDC has been selling out to small farmers lately. There is a solid fishing industry.

The Falklands have often been described as a Scottish bog, with Scotsmen. It`s a dark, dour place

Perfect! Just be careful not to trip over any land mines from the war.

South Georgia

This rugged, alpine jewell of the sub-Antarctic was once home to Norwegian whalers who came to hunt the great beasts for their oil. The Norwegians established a couple of stations on the island-the principles being Grtvyken and Stromness. At the heighth of whaling season Grtvyken`s population would soar to 800. The demise of the whaling industry put an end to the South Georgia colony, and the island is inhabited only by British soldiers who occupy it against Argentinian invasion.

There had been attempts to colonize the Island for other purposes, but these all failed. Sheep died too easily, farming wasn`t very productive, etc. Herds of reindeer roam the island today-the results of a failed experiment in reindeer farming. Feral dogs and Cats are also there. Otherwise, the island is the dominion of penguins, seals, and the other creatures who have wandered it`s jagged shores for millennia.

You see, South Georgia is far too difficult to reach to make it worth settling, and is south of the Antarctic Convergence so it is enclosed by pack ice during the winter. Although it is completely habitable, it is just too difficult to settle profitably. There are no trees (although there is plenty of tussock grass) and it never warms much beyond 60 degrees Fahrenheit.

South Georgia has one claim to fame; it is the final resting place of Lord Shackleton.

Shackleton`s expedition was one of the most fabled, epic failures in history. Shackleton (who was not a professional explorer, but a wealthy thrill-seeker) led an expedition to Antarctica in 1915, but his ship (the Endurance) became trapped in pack ice on the Weddell Sea. The pack ice was grinding the ship to splinters, and Shackleton realized he had to get his men to dry land, or they would drown when the ice broke. He and his men dragged their lifeboats across 250 miles of pack ice to Elephant Island, a tiny mound off the Antarctic coast.

Elephant Island is, essentially, a rock, and the crew of the Endurance had only the supplies which they could bring with them. They built a shelter out of most of the lifeboats and old barrels, and hunkered down to await rescue.

When the ice broke, it became obvious to Shackleton that he was going to have to go for help. This was a daunting challenge; Port Stanley was the nearest inhabited place, and it was 540 miles away, against the winds, across the roughest seas on Earth. It wasn`t possible. Shackleton decided to try for South Georgia; the winds would be with him, and Stromness was a permanent settlement which lay on the eastern side of the Island. Of course, this added 260 miles to his journey...

These are truly the roughest waters on the Planet; swells can reach to 90 feet or higher! Shackelton set out with some of his men in the James Caird, a fishing dingy/lifeboat, to cross 800 miles during the stormy season!

The James Caird was buffeted continually by storms, and was on the point of sinking the entire trip. Shackleton`s men spent their time bailing water, and praying they wouldn`t founder. The tiny boat was alternately blasted by wind and spray on the wave crests, or was down in the ``canyons`` of the trough, imperiled by the next crest. It was a scene from a nightmare.

Finally, out of water for several days, the tiny craft reached the reef of South Georgia. They made landfall and found a cave for shelter from the raging storm which had been buffeting them, and a clean brook to drink from. The men were totally exhausted. The next morning Shackleton set out with just two of his crew for Stromness. There was a problem; They had made landfall on the on the wrong side of the Island, and would have to cross the unexplored hinterland of South Georgia to reach the whaling station. South Georgia has 3000 foot peaks of jagged rock and ice which Shackleton would have to cross! They climbed these peaks, often having to find their way across massive crevasses to make any headway. But Shackleton was fearless and strong, and he drove them ruthlessly to Stromness. All of his men were saved!

Shackleton requested that he be buried on South Georgia, and there is a monument to his expedition (and his remains) there today.

South Georgia would be a great place to spend my days; no crowds, no voices, no aggravations. Ahhhhh!

Bouvet Island

The most isolated spot on Earth, Bouvet Island lies almost 3000 miles from the nearest inhabited place. Completely uninhabited, Bouvet Island was referred to as ``the child of the mist`` because people kept finding it, then losing it. Administered by Norway, nobody ever visits, and nobody would dream of staying.

Now THAT`S my kind of place!

I had toyed with including the island of Madeira, since it is a place I wouldn`t mind visiting; Madeira was discovered by Vasco Da Gama, who ordered the entire island burned, for some strange reason. Settlers found that the ash, mixed with the volcanic soil, produced a tremendous, unique wine. Fortification (adding Cane Spirits, first cousin to Rum), heat and a sea voyage performed magic on Madeira wine. Madeira is the longest-lived wine on Earth, and was a favorite of the Founding Fathers. New sources of wine and changes in the mode of transportation led Madeira into a permanent decline, and it`s more of a novelty now.

There are far too many people on Madeira for it to be considered a serious permanent escape, but I would like to sample the wines on the island itself someday!

Anyway, I hope my little tour of the forgotten isles of the Atlantic was enjoyable to you, or at least not too painful. Whenever life becomes too complicated I can take comfort in the fact that these places are real and still exist, that there really are places a man can flee to for solitude and peace. Unfortunately, civilization is encroaching on these forgotten nooks and crannies (the Falklands are becoming a tourist destination for environmental wackos) and the days of isolation may soon be over. This makes me sad.

Just knowing there are still such places helps.

Forget the Alamo

The Southern Agrarian has a list of comments by Mexican leaders/advocates calling for the Reconquista.

This should scare any person who knows history.

It`s Not Easy Being Green (and Pro-Nuclear)

Maybe there`s hope for some liberals yet:

"In the early 1970s when I helped found Greenpeace, I believed that nuclear energy was synonymous with nuclear holocaust, as did most of my compatriots... Thirty years on, my views have changed, and the rest of the environmental movement needs to update its views, too, because nuclear energy may just be the energy source that can save our planet from another possible disaster: catastrophic climate change... The 600-plus coal-fired plants emit nearly two billion tons of CO2 annually the equivalent of the exhaust from about 300-million automobiles. In addition, the Clean Air Council reports that coal plants are responsible for 64 percent of sulfur-dioxide emissions, 26 percent of nitrous oxides and 33 percent of mercury emissions. These pollutants are eroding the health of our environment, producing acid rain, smog, respiratory illness and mercury contamination. Meanwhile, the 103 nuclear plants operating in the United States effectively avoid the release of 700 million tons of CO2 emissions annually—the equivalent of the exhaust from more than 100-million automobiles. Imagine if the ratio of coal to nuclear were reversed so that only 20 percent of our electricity were generated from coal and 60 percent from nuclear. This would go a long way toward cleaning the air and reducing greenhouse-gas emissions. Every responsible environmentalist should support a move in that direction."

Patrick Moore, Ph.D., co-founder of Greenpeace

(Hat tip to the Federalist Patriot)

Going Ape

Tom Graffagnino sent me this article about a proposed new law in Spain which would grant human rights to monkeys. They put the Ape in April!

When you believe ``a cat is a boy is a dog is a fish is a tree``, when paganism or it`s flip side (atheism) rules the day, one shouldn`t be surprised at this kind of nonsense. Spain put the Socialists in power-clearly an irrational act. It should surprise no-one that the forces of unreason should act unreasonably.

If Simians and other creatures are to be given human rights, will they be forced to adhere to human standards? Will they be arrested for public urination or public nudity? Will they have to pay taxes? (Kind of a pyrric victory, that!)

Perhaps this is a blessing in disguise; surely the apes won`t be so foolish as to vote for the Socialists when they receive their human right to the franchise! Maybe the world will do better if ruled by those damn dirty apes!

Taking a Hot Baath

New documents from Iraq show that the Insurgency was planned in advance by Saddam and his Baathist allies in Syria.

Syria continues to be the prime mover in this. I`ve argued from the beginning that we cannot stabilize Iraq without dealing with Syria and Iran. I`ve always believed that, and these documents prove I`ve been right all along!

Until we deal with the foreign enemies of the new Iraq, our forces will continue to take a Baath


Christopher Adamo argues along the same lines as Thomas Lifson that the remnants of the Clinton Administration are betraying the Republic and the President they serve:

Is it actually possible that those on the left, in their consuming quest for power, would willingly sacrifice the nation's defenses against terrorist attack? Perhaps, in consideration of the facts, it would be more appropriate to ask if their consistent actions could be construed as anything else.

The latest revelation, that Mary McCarthy has been leaking top-secret information from within the Inspector General's office of the CIA, illustrates how insidious the problem has become. It is noteworthy that McCarthy's base of operations resided within the very institution charged with ensuring CIA integrity against subversive activity. Where better to undermine serious investigation of seditious activity than on the inside of the investigative body itself?

Yet McCarthy's case is by no means an aberration. Who can forget the spectacle known as the "9-11 Commission," ostensibly established for the expressed purpose of identifying failures within the United States Government that left the nation vulnerable to that attack?

Does anyone remember who Dante Allighieri placed in Antenora (the lowest circle of Hell)?

Heat Wave

The weather in D.C. is odd these days; Snow followed by a lot of heat!

Can`t they at least let the guy unpack his boxes first?

Thursday, April 27, 2006

Punishment Should Fit the Crime

A circuit judge in Milwaukee has thrown out a plea agreement to keep Democrat election sabateurs out of jail. These sabateurs, the children of high ranking Democrats, slashed tires and engaged in other destructive acts to prevent Republican voters from getting to the polls. Thanks to Judge Michael Brennan they will be going where they belong-to jail!

For a nation that prides itself on Democracy and the Rule of Law, America has a terribly cavalier attitude towards vote fraud. Democrat political machines in places like Chicago and New Orleans have elevated vote fraud to an art form, and people just snicker at the adage ``vote early, vote often``.

Here in St. Louis we regularly have serious vote fraud (in the `04 elections we had a deceased President of the Board of Alderman cast a ballot, among other dead or missing people) and there is always an investigation after the election to determine ``what happened``. This investigation always fizzles out and then reopens after the next election. The reason is simple; St. Louis is controlled by a Democrat Party machine, and they control the City so thoroughly (with the complicity of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch and other media) that they can act with impunity. (Why else would the Bill Clay dynasty remain?)

The fact is, vote fraud and manipulation strike at the very heart of our system. This is an attempt to thwart the will of the people, and the stakes in any election are high. It`s time we took this seriously.

The ancient Greeks used capital punishment to deal with this problem, and I can`t say I blame them; direct democracy requires integrity at the polls. America, on the other hand, laughs at vote fraud. It`s time to get tough. Perhaps a denial of citizenship should be employed against those guilty of vote fraud or intimidation. Maybe we could swap those guilty of this crime for a willing Mexican immigrant, expatriating the criminal?

Putting these punks in the slammer is a good start, anyway!

Promises, Promises

Thomas Lifson, editor of the American Thinker, has a fascinating piece today in which he theorizes a Clinton plot against the Bush Administration (probably true, considering the huge number of holdovers), and points out that the President was a consumate poker player in his youth, and may well be suckering his opponents now. One can hope so, at least!

President Bush seems to be morphing into Jimmuh Catuh, and his second term has been extraordinarily lame. Mr. Lifson could well be right about Bush`s political strategy, but it doesn`t change the fact that the President has failed to accomplish very much-which is the only reason WE put him there. (He did give us a more conservative Supreme Court!) Time will tell. The President (and Congress) has cut it mighty fine, and his base is most unhappy with him. We need more than campaign promises.

A good start would be to move to eliminate federal gas taxes for the summer, and shelve his ``guest invader`` program. That might bring some people home.

Wednesday, April 26, 2006

Il Presidente` Malaise Part Dos

Readers of Birdblog know that our current gas inflation is the result of a number of terrible governmental policies including excessive taxation from the well to the pump, draconian environmental regulations which will not allow for new exploration and development, gas formulation requirements which demand ``designer blends`` for different areas, and poor handling of foreign suppliers. The tired accusation of ``price gouging`` by the Left is the ultimate in the pot calling the Kettle black, and were I in control of a major oil company I would hit back hard with information and statistics illustrating how Big Government is the real gouger here.

Our old friend Static Noise has identified another reason for the rise in oil prices; President Malaise (er, Bush) pushed forward a disastrous ``energy policy which, thanks to his pandering to Archer Daniels Midland and ``Big Ethanol`` has caused prices to spike.

President Bush is resembling former President Carter more all of the time; soon he`ll be telling people to set their thermostats at 55* and walk around in sweaters. I suppose he expects America will keep warm from Global Warming and the influx of Mexicans which will lead the Republic to change to spicier foods. Perhaps he can import ponchos from south of the border to help in this crisis or maybe we could use burrows to replace cars as grocery-getters?

We import oil from Mexico. If the President is on such good terms with Vicente Fox that he is willing to shill for Greater Mexico, he should at least get oil concessions.

Tuesday, April 25, 2006

Jihadi U.

Christopher Orlet has a piece on terrorist penetration of Universities. This confirms what Always on Watch has been telling us, and should be cause for alarm.

Liberals have always dominated the University system, and the anti-Americanism prevalent on campus makes them ripe terrorist recruiting grounds. We should hardly be surprised.

General Confusion

This from the Federalist:

"In a phone conversation last week, Lt. General John Bruce Blount—former chief of staff of Allied Forces Southern Europe—told me that criticism from the ranks of retired generals is not a new phenomenon. 'But it's a very bad idea for these six to politicize their complaining at this time,' Blount, a retired U.S. Army three-star, said. 'Frankly, their complaints are much ado about nothing. I haven't heard one of them come up with any clear example of what Rumsfeld did that was so onerous.' He added, 'I can tell you, the troops aren't happy about this.' What rises to the level of sedition is debatable. What is irrefutable, however, is that the aforementioned anti-Bush, anti-Rumsfeld rhetoric inflames the passions of those who do not understand the big picture of the war on terror (including operations in Iraq). And inflaming, not debating, is exactly what that rhetoric is intended to do. Worse, that same rhetoric also encourages the likes of Osama bin Laden and Abu Musab al Zarqawi. I can't say for sure if such rhetoric is spewed to deliberately encourage terrorists, but it doesn't take much to realize it does encourage our enemies."

—W. Thomas Smith, Jr.

Monday, April 24, 2006

Anniversary of a Forgotten Genocide

Today marks the anniversary of the forgotten genocide; on April 24, 1915 Turkish soldiers began a campaign of extermination against the Christian Armenian people who inhabited Ottoman controlled land in the Caucuses. This shameful slaughter of approximately 1.5 million people was carried out with little protest from the West (this would embolden Adolf Hitler to execute his ``final solution`` 20 some-odd years later) and stopped only because the Ottoman state collapsed at the end of the ``War to end all Wars``.

The horror of this attempted genocide must never be forgotten, and should act as a warning to those who would dismiss the threats made against Israel and the Jewish people; an Islamic state has attempted this kind of thing before.

Let us not allow the Armenian deaths be in vain! We must remember them, pray for them, and keep them in our consciousness, lest this dreadful act of hatred be repeated!

Traitors and Slumbering Giants

I have argued repeatedly that we have been playing at this war as if it were a game of Stratego. We have allowed ourselves to be infiltrated by spies and betrayed by traitors, all the while shrugging our shoulders and bemoaning ``what can we do`` while allowing anyone who wants to stroll in unfettered access. We have been busy with our childish partisan games and gotcha politics, while a hate-filled enemy has been at our gate. The fact is, this is a death struggle between two cultures-one we are going to lose unless we sober up and take things seriously.

The ever brilliant Always On Watch has documented an example; there is a professor at Kent State who is bragging about his terrorist connections on the internet, and AOW has linked to a petition to have this scumbag removed (in America`s vigorous days, he would have been shot). Take a moment to visit AOW`s site, and sign the petition.

America is a sleeping giant, a giant who awakened for one moment, then returned to his slumber. What is it going to take to bring the giant to his senses?

Saturday, April 22, 2006

America`s Duty to Die

"Go back to Plymouth Rock, Pilgrims! Get out! We are the future. You are old and tired. Leave like beaten rats, you old white people. It is your duty to die... We are going to take over."

—Augustin Cebada

Still believe ``guest workers`` will leave voluntarily? Is cheap lawn care and maid service worth this?

Only the Strong Survive

Jihad Watch makes the case against the neo-Wilsonian vision which has been guiding the Administration in Iraq; the concept of democratization. As Jihad Watch points out, the only largely Islamic nation which has been successful with democracy has been Turkey, and their success is due, in large part, to the conscious restriction of the influence of Islam. The neo-Wilsonians think that it is possible to create an Islamic democracy, and I believe they are dead wrong.

The question must be asked; why do the neo-Wilsonians see democratization as the panacea for all ills? To hear these advocates tell it, democracy will invest people everywhere in peace, freedom, capitalism, and proper oral hygiene. Democracy is a sort of grab bag of societal virtues, guaranteed to melt the hardest hearts and de-boot the worst steely-toed thug. This erroneous concept stems from the liberal worldview that Man is inherently good, and that, by ordering the social and political structure properly, evil and oppression will wither away (didn`t Marx make the same claim?) If we can develop a working democracy in the Middle East, the thinking goes, we can awaken the human spirit and stoke the fires of freedom! We can create a revolution, which will spread throughout the Islamic World, mellowing an otherwise bellicose people and taking away support for terrorism. Democracy, the thinking goes, gives people a stake in society.

This is true to a certain point; a democratic system can allow the redress of grievances peaceably. It is equally true that a democratic system often stokes the fires of division. James Madison said of democracy in Federalist #10:

``..democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."

Granted, Madison was referring to true democracy, as opposed to a democratic republic. (He believed that republicanism would restrain the passions of factionalism.) Still, many of the Founding Fathers had trepidations about the benefits of unenlightened democracy. They believed that only a moral people could maintain one.

Benjamin Franklin, when asked if America would have a monarchy or republic, was said to have replied:

``A Republic, Madam, if you can keep it.``

He clearly understood the dangers of unrestrained democratic government. This is the reason for the College of Electors.

I would like to challenge those proponents of democratization to defend their argument with historical examples. The fact is, with a few exceptions, the history of democratization is bleak.

Athens was the light of the ancient world, the vanguard of democracy and philosophical enlightenment, yet the rest of the Greek city-states sided with tyrannical Sparta against her. Why? Because Athens had become repressive and corrupt.

Consider the American Civil War; tensions mounted in the United States for decades over competing visions for the future of the Republic. Would America be an industrial, small-holding free Nation, or an agrarian, aristocratic, slave system? The Kansas-Nebraska Act opened the door to Bleeding Kansas, with the two systems trying to win the State by ballot and intimidation. This, as much as anything, ignited the bloodiest conflict in American history. Note that it was the election of 1860, the free election of Abraham Lincoln, which finally ignited this horrific war. Democracy certainly didn`t prevent passions from boiling over.

Consider Latin America; experiments with democracy throughout Central and South America had, at best, lukewarm results. Mexico had dictators, emperors, and socialists. Chile had communists and military dictators, ditto Argentina, Peru, Bolivia, etc. Latin America has suffered through countless revolution and counter-revolution.

Today, we have the democratically elected government of Hugo Chavez.

After throwing off the yoke of King Louis, France had the Jacobins, the Guillotine, and eventually, Napoleon. Much later, Italy would have Mussolini.

One of the prime examples of the failure of democracy is Weimar Germany. No one can argue credibly that, whatever their faults, the Hohenzollerens of Prussia provided poorer government than the democracy which followed the Kaiser`s abdication. Weimar was weak and corrupt, and, as a result, the door was left open for a silly looking corporal with monstrous ambitions. (The Nazi party was duly elected, after all!) That this could happen in one of the most educated, cultured nations on Earth should prove that democracy is not the panacea the neo-Wilsonians claim.

The only success the neo-Wilsonians can claim is the democratization of Germany, Italy, and Japan after WWII. These are special conditions; we occupied those nations for decades (to make sure they didn`t get out of line) and they faced a worse fate if they fell under the heel of the Soviet Union. Failure was simply not an option for them, and they knew it.

So, there must be something unique about the American experiment with democracy. Why is it that the English-speaking peoples have, by and large, found democracy to be such a civilizing force?

Alexis De Toqueville, that keen observer of all things American, gives us a clue;

"America is great because she is good. If America ceases to be good, America will cease to be great."


``Christianity is the companion of liberty in all it`s conflicts-the cradle of it`s infancy, and the divine source of it`s claims.``

It`s the religion, stupid!

We have been greatly blessed by our Judeo-Christian heritage; such concepts as forgiveness, mercy, forbearance, and justice have been handed down by our ancestors, men and women who carved the Kingdom into a wilderness for the greater glory of the Almighty. We can agree to disagree because of the Biblical injunctions. We can see the other person as valid and precious because God said so. As a result, we can compromise, work out our differences without beheadings.

As the Bible says; ``righteousness exulteth a Nation``; righteousness is necessary to maintain a democratic system. As Jack Kemp put it;

``Democracy without morality is impossible``.

Not so the Islamic world; if Islam is a religion of peace, it offers peace through total surrender-or death. Church and State are indivisible, and conversion from Islam is a crime punishable by death. Just ask that fellow in Afghanistan! (The word Islam means, in fact, submission. It is sometimes translated as ``peace``, which means peace through submission.) The sword is the principle tool for social change, and the average Moslem understands first and foremost strength.

Consider these quotes from the Quaran:

Qur'an 8:12 I shall terrorize the infidels. So wound their bodies and incapacitate them because they oppose Allah and His Apostle.

Ishaq:327 Allah said, 'A prophet must slaughter before collecting captives. A slaughtered enemy is driven from the land. Muhammad, you craved the desires of this world, its goods and the ransom captives would bring. But Allah desires killing them to manifest the religion.

Qur'an 8:57 If you gain mastery over them in battle, inflict such a defeat as would terrorize them, so that they would learn a lesson and be warned.

Ishaq:406 Among us was Allah's Apostle whose command we obey. When he gives an order we do not examine it. The spirit descends on him from his Lord. We tell him about our wishes and our desires which is to obey him in all that he wants. Cast off fear of death and desire it. Be the one who barters his life. Take your swords and trust Allah. With a compact force holding lances and spears we plunged into a sea of men. and all were made to get their fill of evil. We are men who see no blame in him who kills.

THAT, my dear neo-Wilsonians, is the reason that ``winning hearts and minds`` is destined to fail! Such militarism means that those in the Islamic world maintain different values than those of us in America. This ``yearning of the human spirit`` is just one competing value with this respect for strength and warfare. It is a matter of strongly held faith. Victory must come first, then we can win all of the hearts and minds we want.

That`s not to say that we shouldn`t do all we can to show the populace-especially the disenfranchised-that we mean to improve their lives. We should be unfailingly kind to the average oppressed Muslim. We should try to build decent, stable, democratic governments. We should encourage the building of schools, hospitals, roads, etc. We should do this because it is the right thing to do. But our first goal must be victory, and it must be obvious to all that resistance is more than futile-it`s a total waste of time! We need to win the war first.

The ultimate problem in the Islamic world is not political or social-it`s far, far deeper. Sharia law warps these societies. Polygamy, for example, leaves numerous young man without the civilizing influence of women (the wealthy and powerful are allowed four wives and numerous concubines) and acts as a Jihadist factory, promising these poor kids 70 virgins and a mule in paradise if they blow themselves up. Fear of the religious police and Fatwas keep everyone in their place (how many revolutions occur against Islamic despots?), keeps women veiled, ignorant, barefoot, and pregnant, and keeps the rich rich and the poor poor. Total control of the media keeps the populace enraged at Israel and America, and everyone is happy-everyone in charge, that is.

Islam has dominated that corner of the world for 1400 years, and a thinly veneered application of democracy isn`t going to make the changes we hope for. Those changes must come, like all worthwhile things, through pain and suffering. The Bush doctrine needs to be employed diligently-any nation assisting terrorism in any way must be dealt with severely. These nations will not act out of love for us. They will only change when they realize the option is far worse.

The first war the newly independent United States waged was against the pirates of Tripoli. The much more powerful nations of Europe hid under their beds when the pirates raided, and they gladly paid ransom for ``protection``. America would have none of this; we invaded the source of the pirates, their sanctuary, and put a stop to the nonsense. Terrorism works in much the same way as large-scale piracy; hidden predators attack the unsuspecting innocents. Much like terrorists, pirates needed the help of state-sponsors; they needed provisions, repairs, safe harbors, etc. Terrorists need financing, money laundering, training facilities, fake documentation, intelligence, help with communication. It would be extraordinarily difficult for terrorist organizations to operate without some friendly territory giving them material aid. Rid the world of state sponsors of terrorism, and Al-Quaida`s international reach shrinks. How long can they function without the help of a Billion Muslims?

Declassified documents from Vietnam show that the Tet Offensive was the last hurrah; much like the Battle of the Bulge, the Viet Cong launched a final, desperate attack in the hopes of breaking the American Stranglehold. It worked; the American media portrayed it as a catastrophe, and We turned tail and ran. Had we instead launched a counter-offensive, we would have smashed them for good. Had we invaded North Vietnam we would have ended the war years before. Contrary to what many neo-Wilsonians claim, ``winning the hearts and minds`` was not the successful strategy there. It was a counterproductive strategy then, and it is likewise a failing strategy now. Strength counts for too much in the Islamic world, and what we see as winning hearts and minds they see as weakness.

This is a titanic struggle. Such struggles are won by those who have the greatest determination. Our enemy is absolutely determined. Are we?

Friday, April 21, 2006

Green Cats on a Hot Tin Roof

The Doomsayers are backpeddling, now that their predictions of Ragnarok have come to naught:

(From the Washington Times)

Global warming may not be as dramatic as some scientists have predicted.
Using temperature readings from the past 100 years, 1,000 computer simulations and the evidence left in ancient tree rings, Duke University scientists announced yesterday that "the magnitude of future global warming will likely fall well short of current highest predictions."
Supported by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Department of Energy and the National Science Foundation, the Duke researchers noted that some observational studies predicted that the Earth's temperature could rise as much as 16 degrees in this century because of an increase in carbon dioxide or other so-called greenhouse gases.
The Duke estimates show the chances that the planet's temperature will rise even by 11 degrees is only 5 percent, which falls in line with previous, less-alarming predictions that meteorologists made almost three decades ago.
In recent years, much academic research has indicated otherwise, often in colorful terms and citing the United States as the biggest contributor to global warming. This month, a University of Toronto scientist predicted that a quarter of the planet's plants and animals would be extinct by 2050 because of rising temperatures. On Wednesday, two geophysics professors at the University of Chicago warned those who eat red meat that their increased flatulence contributes to greenhouse gases.
Last year, Oregon State University research linked future "societal disruptions" with global warming, while the Carnegie Institution reported that the insulating influence of northern forests alone would raise the Earth's temperature by 6 degrees. In 2004, Harvard University scientists informed Congress that warming had doomed the planet to climatic "shocks and surprises."
The Duke research, however, found substantial ups and downs in the Earth's temperature before modern times, countering other studies that confine noticeable temperature increases to the industrialized era. Marked climate change in other centuries resulted from "external forcing," said the Duke findings, citing volcanic eruptions and other influences.
"Our reconstruction supports a lot of variability in the past," said research director Gabriele Hegerl of Duke's Nicholas School of the Environment and Earth Sciences.
Although her study found that the Earth is, indeed, warming, Ms. Hegerl discounts dire predictions of skyrocketing temperatures. The probability that the climate's "sensitivity" to greenhouse-gas levels would result in drastically higher temperatures is "substantially" reduced, she said.
Ms. Hegerl and her four-member team based their conclusions on thermometer readings over the past century, along with "ancient climate records," including tree-ring studies and ice-core samples that revealed hot and cold spells and airborne particulates over a 700-year period. In addition, they created 1,000 computer-based weather simulations for the past 1,000 years.
"Ancient and modern evidence suggest limits to future global warming," the study concluded. It was published in the journal Nature.
The topic of global warming, meanwhile, will be framed dramatically in "An Inconvenient Truth," a 94-minute documentary featuring former Vice President Al Gore, who has deemed rising temperatures "a planetary emergency." The Hollywood production will be released to theaters in May and is billed by producer Davis Guggenheim as "the most terrifying film you will ever see."
The production also recommends that viewers take "political action." On Tuesday, Mr. Gore paid Roy Neel, a longtime Democratic adviser, $40,000 to help him create a public outreach program on global warming, the New York Daily News reported.
The American Spectator and columnist Jonah Goldberg have accused Mr. Gore of "green" scaremongering

If You Want Something Done...

Washington has failed to enforce border security, so the Minutemen have taken matters into their own hands!

Hooray for them! This shows that there are still people in this country who can act for the general welfare without the aid of the government.

Maybe all is not lost here in America, after all!

What is Truth?

Here is a terrific piece by the Chairman of the History/Poli-Sci Departments of Hillsdale College on the demise of objective truth in the universities. This bolsters the point I made in ``God in the Details`` that Academia has been politicized by Leftists and Atheists, and that the search for truth is no longer the guiding principle among scholars.

But then, the modern universities are merely echoing the confusion in the mind of a jaded, agnostic political administrator who knowingly sent an innocent man to his death; ``What is truth?``

Iraq May Have Tested a Nuclear Device

American Thinker contributer Ray Robinson is reporting credible (but hard to believe) evidence that Saddam Hussein tested a nuclear device in 1989.

I find it hard to believe that he could keep THAT hidden from view, but it may explain why every intelligence agency on Earth thought he was a stone`s throw away from obtaining nukes.

Decide for yourself.

Attrition, Not Amnesty

Mark Krikorian at the Center for Immigration Studies shows that amnesty for illegal aliens is not our only option:

Government's Own Data Show Point to a Cost-Effective Strategy

Contact: Jessica Vaughan, (202) 466-8185

WASHINGTON (April 2006) -- Proponents of mass legalization of the illegal alien population often justify this radical step by suggesting that the only alternative a broad campaign to remove illegal aliens by force is unworkable. One study fancifully suggested that the cost of such a deportation strategy would be $206 billion over the next five years.

But mass forced removal is not the only alternative to mass legalization. A third way is to seek attrition of the illegal population through law enforcement, encouraging illegal aliens to give up and leave of their own accord.

A new analysis from the Center for Immigration Studies uses a variety of federal government data to demonstrate that such a strategy of attrition, combined with a stronger border security effort such as the administration's Secure Border Initiative (SBI), can significantly reduce the size of the illegal alien population at a reasonable cost.

The report, by CIS Senior Policy Analyst Jessica Vaughan, finds that, according to the government's own cost estimates, an attrition strategy could cut the illegal population by nearly half in five years, with an additional investment of less than $2 billion, or $400 million per year an increase of less than 1 percent of the President's 2007 budget request for the Department of Homeland Security ($42.7 billion).

The report, ''Attrition Through Enforcement: A Cost-Effective Strategy to Shrink the Illegal Population,'' is on line at and includes the following additional findings:

* Elements of an attrition strategy would include: mandatory workplace verification of immigration status; measures to curb misuse of Social Security and IRS identification numbers; partnerships with state and local law enforcement officials; expanded entry-exit recording under US-VISIT; increased non-criminal removals; and state and local laws to discourage illegal settlement.

* An attrition strategy could reduce the illegal population by as many as 1.5 million illegal aliens each year. Currently, only about 183,000 illegal aliens per year depart without the intervention of immigration officials, according to DHS statistics.

* Persuading illegals to leave of their own accord works faster and is cheaper than a borders-only approach to immigration law enforcement. For example, under the controversial NSEERS program launched after 9/11, DHS removed roughly 1,500 illegally-resident Pakistanis; over the same time period, in response to the registration requirements, about 15,000 illegal Pakistani immigrants left the country on their own.

* Requiring employers to verify the status of workers could deny jobs to about three million illegal workers in three years, affecting at least one-third of the illegal population. This measure is a central feature of H.R. 4437, the enforcement measure passed by the House of Representatives in December, and is estimated to cost just over $400 million over five years.

* The Internal Revenue Service knows the name, address, and place of employment of millions of illegal aliens, and issues hundreds of millions of dollars in tax refunds and tax credits to illegal aliens. Changing the laws to provide for information-sharing would help boost immigration law enforcement at minimal cost.

* US-VISIT border registration program is a critical tool in curbing illegal immigration. Screening must be expanded to include Mexicans and Canadians, and DHS must move forward to deploy an exit-recording system. These steps should be a prerequisite to adding or expanding any visa program.

* Less than 10 percent of the investigative resources of the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) are devoted to fraud, workplace violations, and overstayers. DHS could double non-criminal removals at a cost of roughly $120 million per year, balancing a ''broken windows'' approach with its current triage approach to interior enforcement.

* Laws enacted by the state governments of Florida and New York to prevent illegal immigrants from obtaining driver's licenses have induced more illegal aliens to leave than have federal enforcement efforts against certain illegal populations in those states, and have come at virtually no cost to the federal government.

By the way, I think we need to quit calling these people immigrants or workers; both bring to mind stereotypes of our forefathers. We should be calling them aliens, or invaders. These terms are more accurate, and change the tenor of the debate.

Thursday, April 20, 2006

No More Abortions In Louisiana?

It looks like the Roberts Court will have it`s test case if the Louisiana Legislature passes this bill banning almost all abortions.

First South Dakota, now possibly Louisiana; the days of Roe appear to be numbered!

Wednesday, April 19, 2006

God in the Details

Aussiegirl has a terrific piece about Faith and physics over at Ultima Thule.

Throughout history, numerous great men of science were also extraordinarily pious; Copernicus was quite probably a priest in his later life, Kepler was known as a pius believer, Newton actually wrote more on theology than physics, Einstein argued against Quantum Physics because of his belief in a rational God. Francis Bacon, Robert Boyle, William Hershell, Humphrey Davey, Lord Kelvin, Louis Pasteur, etc. were all men of faith(or at least believed in God).

Galileo is the posterboy for atheism, and is put forward as a martyr to science at the hands of an oppressive Church. In reality, the martyrdom of Galileo is largely
myth, and Galileo himself was a religious man, although he didn`t get along with the Catholic Church.

Consider this from his ``Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina``:

I hope to show that I proceed with much greater piety than they do, when I argue not against condemning this book, but against condemning it in the way they suggest-that is, without under standing it, weighing it, or so much as reading it.

And if not, let my book be torn and burnt, as I neither intend nor pretend to gain from it any fruit that is not pious and Catholic.

With regard to this argument, I think in the first place that it is very pious to say and prudent to affirm that the holy Bible can never speak untruth-whenever its true meaning is understood. But I believe nobody will deny that it is often very abstruse, and may say things which are quite different from what its bare words signify. Hence in expounding the Bible if one were always to confine oneself to the unadorned grammatical meaning, one might fall into error. Not only contradictions and propositions far from true might thus be made to appear in the Bible, but even grave heresies and follies. Thus it would be necessary to assign to God feet, hands and eyes, as well as corporeal and human affections, such as anger, repentance, hatred, and sometimes even the forgetting of things past and ignorance of those to come. These propositions uttered by the Holy Ghost were set down in that manner by the sacred scribes in order to accommodate them to the capacities, Of the common people, who are rude and unlearned. For the sake of those who deserve to be separated from the herd, it is necessary that wise expositors should produce the true senses of such passages, together with the special reasons for which they were set down in these words. This doctrine is so widespread and so definite with all theologians that it would be superfluous to adduce evidence for it.

Hence I think that I may reasonably conclude that whenever the Bible has occasion to speak of any physical conclusion (especially those which are very abstruse and hard to understand), the rule has been observed of avoiding confusion in the minds of the common people which would render them contumacious toward the higher mysteries. Now the Bible, merely to condescend to popular capacity, has not hesitated to obscure some very important pronouncements, attributing to God himself some qualities extremely remote from (and even contrary to) His essence. Who, then, would positively declare that this principle has been set aside, and the Bible has confined itself rigorously to the bare and restricted sense of its words, when speaking but casually of the earth, of water, of the sun, or of any other created thing? Especially in view of the fact that these things in no way concern the primary purpose of the sacred writings, which is the service of God and the salvation of souls - matters infinitely beyond the comprehension of the common people.

Even today (in the current anti-religious climate of the modern University and science establishment) there are a great many men of science who believe in God.

According to

About two-thirds of scientists believe in God, according to a new survey that uncovered stark differences based on the type of research they do.

Nearly 38 percent of natural scientists -- people in disciplines like physics, chemistry and biology -- said they do not believe in God. Only 31 percent of the social scientists do not believe.

Even if you wish to use the more conservative numbers from the study done by Nature Magazine, you will find that, although only one third believe, only 5% more scientists disbelieve, and this number has not risen in over 80 years. For a good analysis of this, see this article.

When one considers the militancy of the atheists in the scientific establishment-particularly the biological sciences, it should be obvious that believers aren`t welcome. Who is going to study biology and be continuously insulted by the establishment for their beliefs? Who is willing to take the kind of abuse that a Michael Behe, say, has to take for going against the Orthodox, atheistic view?

Yet we still see many believers in all fields of science. Why? Because the Heavens declare the Glory of the most High! It`s very hard to see the overwhelming complexity of the Universe-both great and small-and not see a grand design, not see the hand of a Creator.

The great minds of history have understood that!

Bush Soup

My recent post on taxes began with a quote from the Marx Brothers` ``Duck Soup`` (I knew you`d catch it, Michael!) To make sure I had the quote right, I read through a script of the movie (one of the all-time classic comedies) which is loaded with puns (groan!) That is what made me appreciate this piece by Jay Homnick at the Reform Club; he does ``Duck Soup`` with President Bush. This is great work; you could change the name from Bush to Firefly and slip this into the original script seamlessly! Don`t miss it; it`s hilarious!

Tax Season Bumper Sticker

Don at Current Observations has the perfect bumber sticker for tax season.

Dumb and Dumber

Will the Democrats retake Congress? Not likely, according to the Evans-Novak report:

Republicans continue to suffer badly in opinion polls, and so it is appropriate to revisit the now-common comparison to 1994, when they wrested power from complacent Democrats who had held their House majority for too long. Is the same dynamic at work this year, and can we reasonably expect a Democratic House after the mid-term elections of 2006?

Despite continued bad news for Republicans in Congress on their failure to accomplish much in the first few months of the year, a series of electoral mishaps has dealt a serious blow to Democrats' chances of regaining the majority. In fact, it has now become difficult to make the case that Democrats can pick up 15 seats in this election, let alone the net 15 seats they will need to claim a majority.

First, Democrats appear to be at the whim of fate with respect to the 6th District of Ohio, where their only serious candidate, by his own fault, failed to make the primary ballot. If Charlie Wilson (D) cannot, through write-ins, defeat two other unserious candidates (both of them on the ballot), then Republicans win this open seat easily. If Wilson wins but has to spend all of his money convincing voters to write in his name, Democrats may well lose the seat anyway.

In Texas, Democrats suffered a serious setback when Rep. Tom DeLay (R) dropped out. The Democratic strategy here was to turn the race into a referendum on DeLay. But with the former majority leader out of the race, the 22nd District's inherently Republican leaning should ensure that any Republican not too close to DeLay will win.

In North Carolina, Democrats' formidable-looking candidate Timothy Dunn suddenly dropped out of the race against Rep. Robin Hayes (R), whose swing 8th District is always a Democratic target. Hayes now likely gets a free pass.

In Pennsylvania's 8th District, Rep. Mike Fitzpatrick (R) has raised enough money to run a respectable Senate campaign in many states, and he has a relatively moderate record to hide behind in what is a moderate suburban Republican district. His Democratic opponents, currently in a spirited primary, languish in the six-digit range behind his $1.3-million cash total.

To be sure, Democrats have several pickup opportunities this year. Among Arizona, Indiana, Iowa, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, Kentucky, and Connecticut, they have a realistic shot at picking up nine or 10 seats. They have just a fair chance of picking up three more in Colorado, Florida and New Mexico. Even making room for a few unexpected upsets (assuming that all upsets consist of Democrats' beating Republicans), Democrats appear to be out of range of the 19 pickups they will probably need to offset Republican pickups and end with a net gain of 15.

Of course, that does not mean that it is impossible, but it is hard to see how the political environment could get much better for Democrats than it already is. They certainly wish they could have the election next week, because they could be peaking early.

Republicans hope to avoid an election that turns into a national referendum on GOP control of Congress. The key, they claim, is for candidates to campaign on local issues in a decentralized way. This idea was a loser in 2002, when Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) articulated a similar strategy and her party was wiped out. But then again, other factors may have turned that election into a Republican rout, particularly terrrorism. Democrats have no such uniting issue to campaign on this time. House Democrats, perhaps on the verge of seeing two of their own indicted, may have gotten all the mileage they possibly can out of the earlier "culture of corruption"theme.

Republicans, meanwhile, will count on pork projects -- particularly highway projects from last year's transportation bill -- and gerrymandering to keep their majority, despite the ill political wind in their faces. The possibility also exists that the wind will change, which could result in disappointingly small Democratic gains.

Tuesday, April 18, 2006

Death by Multiculturalism

Christopher Orlet had a terrific piece in the American Spectator Online yesterday about the slow death of multiculturalism in Europe. It dovetails nicely with my Plantation America piece, and warns us of the dangers of a ``guest worker`` program. Chris argues that MC is dying in Europe, but is alive and well here in the melting pot. He hits the nail on the head!

I Have an Uncle Who Lives in Taxes...

``War would mean a prohibitive increase in our taxes.``
``Hey, I have an uncle who lives in Taxes``
``No, I`m talking taxes, money, dollars.``
``Dollars, that`s a where my uncle lives, Dollars Taxes``..

I hope everyone had a safe and enjoyable tax day! In the spirit of this giving season, I thought you`d all enjoy seeing where your money is being spent.

Did you know that you work on average 77 days just to pay your federal taxes? That`s 15 days more than you work to pay for housing, and 25 days more than you work to pay for health care. If health care is a terrible crisis (as Saint Hillary and her posse keeps telling us) what does that make taxation? How about letting me withold 52 days worth of taxes for a Medical Savings Account? That would solve the problem.

Eastern Europe has proven that by minimizing taxes (10-15 percent) and making them less complicated (a flat tax) you stoke the economy and take in more revenue than with a higher, progressive system. The United States is employing a neo-Marxian taxation system, one developed in the late 19th/early 20th Centuries, and since completely discredited.

But the system isn`t going to change; too many people have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, and most of the populace is doing well so there is no public demand for reform. This short-sightedness will ultimately hurt us down the road; eventually we will face an economic competitor with low taxes, and we will find ourselves slipping behind. Furthermore, high taxes mean big government, and these feed each-other (big government means higher taxes, which means we can increase government.) How long before the old joke becomes true and America becomes the land of the fee and home of the slave?

Happy taxes, everyone!

Sunday, April 16, 2006

He Is Not Here, For He Is Risen

In the end of the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the Week,came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the Sepulchre.
And, behold, there was a great earthquake; for the angel of the Lord descended from Heaven and came and rolled back the stone from the door and sat upon it.
His countenance was like lightening, and his rainment white as snow:
And for fear of him the keepers did shake, and became as dead men.
And the angel answered, and said unto the women, fear not ye; for I know ye seek Jesus, which was crucified.
He is not here, for he is risen as he said.


And when the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene and Mary, mother of James, and Sa-lo-me, had brought sweet spices that they might come and anoint Him.
And very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came to the sepulchre at the rising of the sun.
And they said among themselves, who shall roll away the stone from the door of the sepulchre?
And when they looked they saw that the stone was rolled away; for it was very great.
And entering into the Sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment, and they were afrighted.
And he saith unto them, BE not afrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: He is risen: He is not here; behold the place where they laid Him.


Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulchre, bringing the spices they had prepared and others with them.
And they found the stone rolled away from the sepulchre.
And they entered in, and found not the body of the Lord Jesus.
And it came to pass, as they were much perplexed thereabout, behold, two men stood by them in shining garments.
And as they were afraid, and bowed down their faces to the earth, they said unto them, Why seek ye the living among the dead?
He is not here, but is risen: remember how He spake unto you when He was yet in Galilee,
Saying the Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again.


But Mary stood without the sepulchre weeping, and as she wept she stooped down and looked within the sepulchre.
And seeth two angels in white sitting, one at the head, the other at the feet of where the body of Jesus had lain.
And they say unto her, woman, why weepeth thou? She saith unto them, because they have taken away my Lord, and I know not where they have laid him.
And when she had thus said, she turned herself back, and saw Jesus standing, and knew not that it was Jesus.
Jesus saith unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? Whom seekest thou? She, supposing him to be the gardener, saith unto him, Sir, if thou have borne Him hence, tell me where thou has laid Him, and I will take Him away.
Jesus saith unto her Mary. She turned herself and saith unto Him Rab-bo-ni: which is to say, master.


This is the Word of the Lord.


Home Grown Feedback on Plantation America

I`ve had some excellent feedback on Plantation America, and I thought I`d share it with you, my brilliant and loyal readers:

I received this e-mail from reader P.G., which shows I`m merely stating something which suggests itself:

Tim, this is a wierd coincidence. I sent this commentary to Lawrence Auster last night on the Ilegal Alien situation.

Lawrence, there's an 1859 feel to much of the liberal media's rhetoric on the illegal alien situation. You have to really step back to measure to scope of moral depravity being indulged in here. The context makes it clear, as arguments are always made in favour of IA with reference to our typical indulgences - golfing, dining out, pool cleaning etc. Bottom line, these people are the new indentured servants, as their status has prevented them from exerting the rights ordinary citizens could exercise. This would be impossible to do if the border was controlled and new citizens were processed with full confidence in exercising their rights as Americans.

So, the true darkness of liberalism is exposed, human exploitation can be rationalized - as long as our desires are satisfied. Reference to the historically idealized immigrant experience of pursuing the American dream is a sick and twisted bromide in relation to the current situation.

The IA's presence in America is the avatar of a callous, selfish and willfully ignorant mindset regarding the neo-enslavement of other human beings. This is what makes support for IA so deeply immoral.

Plantation politics, plain and simple. Who other than an exploiter would want to enter into a morally unequal relationship with his fellow man? Only the slavemaster; the very idea is so repulsive I think anyone with a sense of decency would unceasingly resist it.

What's an appropriate motto for Liberal Supremist Bigotry? "Let them pick cotton".

Also, I had some great comments (and my responses) to my piece under the ``How You Gonna Keep `Em Down on the Farm`` post;

Michael Morrison said...
People who claim to support the concept of freedom are being horribly inconsistent, at best, when they oppose the right of consenting adults to engage in capitalist acts.

11:24 AM

PacRim Jim said...
The important point is that by importing 18th-century labor we prevent companies from developing 21st-century technology that would do the same work more efficiently. It dumbs down America and ensures America's children won't have access to these high-tech jobs.

11:30 AM

Arthur Dent said...
I think you are confusing migrant workers with illegal aliens.

Bird said:
Government can encourage this by making college tuition grants contingent upon employment, say, or offering tax credits to the parents of employed minors.

Add more rules to the current tax laws?

Why would our kids pick lettuce for $5.00 per hour when they can work anywhere else for that much or more?
(Read mall, fast food or supermarket).

We need legal workers, possibly at less than minimum wage, and legal immigration. I would deny citizenship to illegals.

6:11 PM

Timothy Birdnow said...
Michael, I generally agree-provided people are not coming here illegally or in such numbers they can be exploited. My argument is that the massive flood of illegals (as opposed to a much smaller legal immigration) will destroy this nation in years to come (as, indeed, unenforced borders would destroy any nation-look what it did to Rome!) People who have come here illegally have no rights to engage in ANY acts (except maybe breathing)-they don`t belong here. They are here taking jobs Americans should be doing!

These people are trespassers; would these employers be willing to allow them to walk uninvited into their own homes and stay during the term of their employment here in America? America is ours, and they have no right to stroll in just because some cheapskate doesn`t want to pay market rate for services.

Thanks Pacrim Jim! I couldn`t agree more!

Hi Arthur Dent!

I have no problem with legal, permanent resident migrant workers-especially if they are trying to enculturate. Most of the people taking these ``jobs Americans won`t do`` are illegal aliens who are not here to enculturate but to profit off of America. (Can`t say I blame them.) This hardly invalidates my argument.

About adding more layers to the tax code; we may as well, since Congress and the President have not lifted a finger to remove a single line of the code; at least this would be doing something useful, instead of merely shafting us further. My point is that there are ways to encourage hard work (It needn`t be through taxes) and that America needs the dignity of doing her own labor.

Your point about kids not being willing to pick lettuce at $5 per hour proves my point; lettuce farmers need to pay more if they can`t find decent, legal help,or they need to find new ways of doing things. Invent a lettuce picker (or buy one, if such a thing exists). That is why American grain feeds the world, after all!

Your point;

We need legal workers, possibly at less than minimum wage, and legal immigration. I would deny citizenship to illegals.

missed the entire point of my piece; this cheap labor hurts us as a people. It`s a crutch. We start by using it because it`s convenient, then we can`t do without it. It`s a highly addictive drug. We become dependent on an endless supply of plantation labor. We become incapable of doing this work ourselves. We should just say no.

5:50 AM

Timothy Birdnow said...
Oh, and another point for both Michael and Arthur to consider; would we have this situation were it not for government interference with things? Government run schools, government financed higher education, the Job Corps, welfare programs, etc. have all conspired to rob employers of part of the labor pool. The people who traditionally took some of the less desirable jobs are no longer compelled-thanks to the welfare state taking care of their needs. Kids who would have paid their way through college no longer have to take these jobs, those on the margins find it easier to accept welfare than to take these jobs, etc.

Also, abortion has reduced the ``surplus population`` as one would-be employer of illegal labor once told a certain Mr. Dickens. This is a government policy which was originally created for that very purpose; Margaret Sanger founded Planned Parenthood as a tool for Eugenics, and they were the driving force behind abortion. We now reap what we have sewn. We are forced to bring in aliens (the types of people old Maggie S. wanted to eliminate) to work for us, since we`ve killed off our own workforce here in America.

Saturday, April 15, 2006

Down On The Farm

I have a new piece entitled Plantation America at the American Thinker today.

``How you gonna keep `em down on the farm`` was an old lament from the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The industrialization of America sucked all of the labor out of rural areas, and the agricultural sector found itself with a terrible labor shortage as young people flocked to the cities. This forced the farm industry to mechanize and otherwise streamline their techniques, and this gave us an explosion in agricultural production. America now feeds the world thanks to urbanization.

This is one of the straw arguments being offered up by the ``jobs Americans won`t do`` lobby; they say we need illegal immigrants to maintain our standard of living, and that we face dire economic woe if we begin enforcing our borders. I argue in my latest at the American Thinker that this low paying substitute for the plantation system will work to our detriment in years to come for the same reasons that slavery and sharecropping weakened the antebellum South. The plantation system destroyed the initiative and enterprising spirit of the ruling class, and an economy steeped in cheap immigrant labor will, I believe, have the same effect.

Had illegal labor been available in Kansas or Iowa during the age of the Robber Barons, we would still be farming manually. Necessity IS the mother of invention, and a society supported by slave or serf (or migrant) labor has no need for enterprise or invention. This leads to decay.

The point is, America cannot afford illegal immigration.

The Long Arm of Bill Clinton

Bill Clinton has a long arm (hopefully those are the only appendages of Clinton`s we`ll see!), and he is ultimately responsible for the ``revolt of the generals`` according to Clarice Feldman at the American Thinker.

Friday, April 14, 2006

The Passion

From the Gospel of John, Chapter 19:

Then Pilate therefore took Jesus, and scourged [him].

And the soldiers platted a crown of thorns, and put [it] on his head, and they put on him a purple robe,

And said, Hail, King of the Jews! and they smote him with their hands.
Pilate therefore went forth again, and saith unto them, Behold, I bring him forth to you, that ye may know that I find no fault in him.

Then came Jesus forth, wearing the crown of thorns, and the purple robe. And [Pilate] saith unto them, Behold the man!

When the chief priests therefore and officers saw him, they cried out, saying, Crucify [him], crucify [him]. Pilate saith unto them, Take ye him, and crucify [him]: for I find no fault in him.

The Jews answered him, We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God.

When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he was the more afraid;

And went again into the judgment hall, and saith unto Jesus, Whence art thou? But Jesus gave him no answer.

Then saith Pilate unto him, Speakest thou not unto me? knowest thou not that I have power to crucify thee, and have power to release thee?

Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power [at all] against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin.

And from thenceforth Pilate sought to release him: but the Jews cried out, saying, If thou let this man go, thou art not Caesar's friend: whosoever maketh himself a king speaketh against Caesar.

When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he brought Jesus forth, and sat down in the judgment seat in a place that is called the Pavement, but in the Hebrew, Gabbatha.

And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King!

But they cried out, Away with [him], away with [him], crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King? The chief priests answered, We have no king but Caesar.

Then delivered he him therefore unto them to be crucified. And they took Jesus, and led [him] away.

And he bearing his cross went forth into a place called [the place] of a skull, which is called in the Hebrew Golgotha:

Where they crucified him, and two other with him, on either side one, and Jesus in the midst.

And Pilate wrote a title, and put [it] on the cross. And the writing was, JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS.

This title then read many of the Jews: for the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city: and it was written in Hebrew, [and] Greek, [and] Latin.

Then said the chief priests of the Jews to Pilate, Write not, The King of the Jews; but that he said, I am King of the Jews.

Pilate answered, What I have written I have written.

Then the soldiers, when they had crucified Jesus, took his garments, and made four parts, to every soldier a part; and also [his] coat: now the coat was without seam, woven from the top throughout.

They said therefore among themselves, Let us not rend it, but cast lots for it, whose it shall be: that the scripture might be fulfilled, which saith, They parted my raiment among them, and for my vesture they did cast lots. These things therefore the soldiers did.

Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the [wife] of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene.

When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son!

Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own [home].

After this, Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the scripture might be fulfilled, saith, I thirst.

Now there was set a vessel full of vinegar: and they filled a spunge with vinegar, and put [it] upon hyssop, and put [it] to his mouth.

When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.

The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the sabbath day, (for that sabbath day was an high day,) besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and [that] they might be taken away.

Then came the soldiers, and brake the legs of the first, and of the other which was crucified with him.

But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs:

But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water.

And he that saw [it] bare record, and his record is true: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe.

For these things were done, that the scripture should be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken.

And again another scripture saith, They shall look on him whom they pierced.

And after this Joseph of Arimathaea, being a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews, besought Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus: and Pilate gave [him] leave. He came therefore, and took the body of Jesus.

And there came also Nicodemus, which at the first came to Jesus by night, and brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about an hundred pound [weight].

Then took they the body of Jesus, and wound it in linen clothes with the spices, as the manner of the Jews is to bury.

Now in the place where he was crucified there was a garden; and in the garden a new sepulchre, wherein was never man yet laid.

There laid they Jesus therefore because of the Jews' preparation [day]; for the sepulchre was nigh at hand.

The Gospel of the Lord

True Freedom

From the Federalist Patriot:

Resurrection Day 2006—Hidden Liberty
Easter arrives each year as we turn from winter's darkness to springtime's renewal and is often acknowledged as the holiday of hope. Yet this commemoration is incomplete. When we Christians contemplate the crucifixion of Jesus Christ each Good Friday and His resurrection on Easter morning, we are reminded of the singular nature of these events. In addition, we are reminded that there is not only hope within these events—but something well beyond hope.

Scholars variously attribute the name "Easter" to a derivation from Eostra (a Scandinavian goddess of dawn or spring) or Ostern (a Teutonic fertility goddess), both pagan figures honored at festivals celebrating the vernal equinox. Eostra is one of many similar names of Euro-Mediterranean pagan goddesses, with the form Ishtar most often associated with the region around the Euphrates River in Mesopotamia. Traditions associated with these festivals include the Easter rabbit, a symbol of fertility; and Easter eggs, painted with the bright colors of spring, signifying growth and new life.

The Christian holiday builds on the traditions of the Jewish festival of Passover, or Pesach (the derivation of Pascha, another name for Easter), celebrating deliverance of the Israelites from bondage in Egypt. This week, Passover begins on Thursday, when we're reminded that Jesus traveled with His followers to Jerusalem in observation of the feast He came to fulfill.

Victor I (c.189-198 A.D.) standardized Easter as a Sunday holiday, and in 325 A.D. the Council of Nicaea set Easter's date in relation to the paschal moon. The Gregorian calendar correction of 1582 placed Easter as the first Sunday after the full moon following the vernal equinox, falling between 22 March and 25 April.

Hope without object is for Good Friday—an inchoate yearning. Hope that is intransitive can be ephemeral, evanescent. Christ's followers were frightened and demoralized at His death. Lasting hope, however, is transitive. Just as faith is no mere sentiment or loose conviction, the resurrection of Easter is about liberty—liberty from sin and bondage—and a freedom almost beyond comprehension.

From the beginning of His earthly ministry, Jesus claimed His mission as Deliverer: "So He came to Nazareth, where He had been brought up. And as His custom was, He went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and stood up to read. And He was handed the book of Isaiah. And when He had opened the book, He found the place where it was written:

'The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me,
Because He has anointed Me to preach the gospel to the poor.
He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted,
To preach deliverance to the captives
And recovery of sight to the blind,
To set at liberty those who are oppressed,
To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.'

Then He closed the book, and gave it back to the attendant and sat down. And the eyes of all who were in the synagogue were fixed on Him. And He began to say to them, 'Today this Scripture is fulfilled in your hearing'." (Luke 4:16-21) While the Jews anticipated a Messiah coming in glory to vanquish their enemies, restore political rights and usher in a kingdom of justice, Jesus Himself provided a different, fuller and more heavenly explanation.

The liberty He brought was, for the time being, a hidden liberty: "Then Jesus said to those Jews who believed Him, 'If you abide in My word, you are My disciples indeed. And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.' They answered Him, 'We are Abraham's descendants, and have never been in bondage to anyone. How can you say, "You will be made free?"' Jesus answered them, 'Most assuredly, I say to you, whoever commits sin is a slave of sin. And a slave does not abide in the house forever, but a son abides forever. Therefore if the Son makes you free, you shall be free indeed'." (John 8:31-36)

God created us as beings of liberty; but in our fallen state we are neither fit nor fitted for freedom. Misunderstanding of liberty abounds. The inability of the human mind to wrap itself around the concept of real freedom is manifest, with tyranny often offered up in the guise of false freedom. Man is forever fashioning prisons, failing to note that the warden is as confined as his charges.

Indeed, consider the political conflicts raging across our nation, threatening to destroy the very liberty permitting their expression.

We see it in the Catholic Charities adoption controversy in Boston, and in the demand from the state of Massachusetts that this Christian organization disobey its Catholic principles and kowtow to state government beliefs about homosexuality. Here, religious liberty itself is at the mercy of government edict—on the claim that state-coerced normalization of homosexuality trumps freedom to believe that homosexual conduct is a wrongful act of sinful will. As Matthew Spalding of the Heritage Foundation warns: "If religious institutions are forced by the new regime of laws to withdraw from the adoption business in order to preserve and protect their liberty and religious faith, what about marriage itself? What about the tax-exempt status, or free-speech protections, of religious institutions that advance teachings contrary to the new regime? I think we have entered a new phase of the battle, in which the larger implications of the heretofore abstract debate about marriage are becoming disturbingly clear."

A year ago, we recounted the contention over San Diego's Mt. Soledad War Memorial, where a 43-foot cross graces the center of a 170-acre parcel dedicated for public use in 1916 as "Mt. Soledad Natural Park." A redwood cross first stood at this site from 1913 until 1924. A wood and stucco cross replaced the first in 1934, but windstorms took it down in 1952. The War Memorial Cross currently standing (the third such emplacement there) dates to 18 April 1954, when the monument was rededicated to World War I, World War II and Korean War veterans during an Easter Sunday ceremony.

Since 1989, atheist Philip K. Paulson has endeavored to cut down this War Memorial Cross, using litigation to further his objective. The lawsuits have traversed the courts for a decade and a half, while voters have repeatedly approved maintaining the veterans' memorial site and cross intact. In the latest public mandate, more than three-fourths of voters last summer affirmed transfer of the memorial into federal jurisdiction as a national war monument. Alas, Superior Court Judge Patricia Cowett soon thereafter issued her imperial edict that the people of San Diego may not preserve the memorial but must instead bow before government-enforced atheism. The appeals are ongoing, with defenders of religious liberty maintaining that the cross is a veterans' memorial symbol—and a veritable symbol of the liberty for which our servicemen have risked, and too often sacrificed, their lives.

Finally, let us consider another event—the recent threatened execution of Abdul Rahman, the Afghani Christian who had converted from Islam. Rahman was promised by Islamic lawyers and religious leaders that his life would be spared if he recanted his conversion. Here we're reminded of a similar episode: While praying in Gethsemane after Passover dinner, Jesus was seized and taken before Caiaphas, the Jewish high priest, and condemned as a blasphemer, too.

Though each of these instances may discourage us, take hope because our liberty—true liberty—is hidden in the richness of Christ's resurrection. Indeed, has not Abdul Rahman traveled that same road from humiliation to exaltation, humbling himself before death that he might live with Christ? Abdul, you see, understands this hiddenness.

Why is liberty so difficult for us to comprehend? It is because of its hidden qualities. As Jesus lived through the days leading to the first Easter, even those closest to Him failed to grasp the import of His foretelling of coming events. They feared that Good Friday was the end of the story. They should have known better—but would we? When Lazarus lay dead and Jesus said he'd rise again, his sister Martha said to Jesus, "I know that he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day." Jesus replied, "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live. And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die." (John 11:24-26)

The Resurrection is the central event and tenet that distinguishes Christianity from all other faiths. Only God Himself could ransom us from our sin-slavery through His sacrifice on the cross, fulfilling the requirements of the Law—we can do nothing to aid Him. All other faiths add human works into the equation. Our Risen Lord then returned to deliver unto His followers the very freedom He'd paid His life to secure.

Do we yet comprehend liberty? The rising, after death, of the physical body bearing the personal soul conveys eternal liberation. We have this liberty even now, though it is still not yet fully revealed. In truth, this liberty is too great for anyone to comprehend. What we do know, though, is that on Easter Sunday, our hope is realized. Death has died, and we are free forever. Consider the words of the Apostle Paul to the Colossians: "If then you were raised with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ is, sitting at the right hand of God. Set your mind on things above, not on things on the earth. For you died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God. When Christ who is our life appears, then you also will appear with Him in glory."

Hidden with Christ, appearing with Christ. This is our liberty.

The Roots of Liberty

(This from The Federalist):

The very idea of freedom presupposes some objective moral law which overarches rulers and ruled alike. Subjectivism about values is eternally incompatible with democracy. We and our rulers are of one kind only so long as we are subject to one law. But if there is no Law of Nature, the ethos of any society is the creation of its rulers, educators and conditioners; and every creator stands above and outside his own creation.``

C.S. Lewis

Weblog Commenting and Trackback by