It doesn't get worse than this - the grassroots candidate that raised $20 million this quarter, more than the next closet Republican in the field by $9 million, has been snubbed from their debates this upcoming weekend.

Liberty Letters suggests that you email Fox News and respectfully voice your disappointment, even outrage. Tell them that you believe in free elections, free speech, and the democratic process, and that you thought they did too.

Just what are they afraid of when it comes to Ron Paul? Read the story here: Newsmax.com - Ron Paul Furious over Fox Debate Snub

Powered by ScribeFire.

 Print This Post | Other posts by Steve Farrell

Why are questions about Communist China asked only in the Democratic
presidential debates? We want to know what the Republican candidates
plan to do about China sending us poisoned foods and toys.

All presidential candidates should be asked what they plan to do
about the fact that free trade with China means acquiescing in gross
discrimination against U.S. products and jobs. The Chinese avoid a
level trading field by artificially undervaluing their currency up to
40 percent, subsidizing their products, and imposing import duties
against U.S. products that are ten times higher than tariffs on their
products in U.S. stores.

Our free-trade negotiators routinely accept trade agreements
that give other countries the right to charge higher tariffs than we
charge for similar products. For example, the Chinese Chery car will
face a 2.5 percent tariff when sold in the U.S., but U.S. autos
entering China will be taxed at 25 percent.

Foreign countries get by with this discrimination by calling
it a Value Added Tax (VAT) instead of a tariff, but it amounts to just
as high a barrier against free trade. The result is that millions of
American jobs have moved overseas.

All presidential candidates ought to be asked what they plan
to do about China's organized theft of our intellectual property and
counterfeiting of our products. Communist China is the world's top
producer of illegal copies of music, movies, software, designer
clothes, and medicines.

All candidates should be asked what they plan to do about
China putting its billion dollars of profits from U.S. trade into
military weaponry to threaten, not only Taiwan, but the United States,
especially our communication satellites.

The toy advertised by Wal-Mart as the top toy of the season
had to be recalled after it was discovered that children in Texas,
Delaware, New Hampshire, Illinois and Utah fell sick and were
hospitalized because of swallowing the toy's bead-like parts. After 4.2
million were recalled, China finally admitted that the beads in this
toy, called Aqua Dots, contained a substance that can turn into the
"date-rape" drug after children swallow them.

That drug, gamma-hydroxy butyrate, causes breathing problems,
loss of consciousness, seizures, drowsiness, coma, and death. Aqua Dots
were supposed to have been coated with a nontoxic chemical, but that
chemical costs three or four times the price of the poisonous compound,
so the Chinese manufacturer couldn't resist using the cheaper product.

According to the Consumer Product Safety Commission's website,
26 million toys and other products made in China have been recalled by
U.S. companies since August. Even the Boy Scouts of America had to
recall a million Chinese-made plastic badges that contained unsafe
amounts of lead.

Chinese products for children found to contain unacceptable
levels of lead include vinyl baby bibs, Thomas the Tank Engine sets,
Baby Einstein Discover & Play Color Blocks, Pirates of the
Caribbean medallion squeeze lights, Totally Me! Funky Room Decor Sets,
Hannah Montana handbags, and Barbie doll accessories.

Australia recalled hundreds of blankets imported from China in
October because they contained formaldehyde up to ten times the level
permissible under international standards. The World Heath Organization
has classified formaldehyde as a known human carcinogen.

Seafood from China is a potentially more dangerous import.
About 80 percent of seafood consumed by Americans is imported, and the
Food and Drug Administration inspects and tests only one percent.

Lab tests show that China uses antibiotics to treat fish
raised in filthy waters where bacteria, viruses and parasites breed.
Lab testers say that when seafood is rejected for an illegal chemical,
the Chinese simply switch to another harmful chemical.

Often found in imported fish is a fungicide called malachite
green, which is illegal to use in food in the U.S. because studies show
it can cause cancer and birth defects.

Alabama has its own tests and rejects 50 to 60 percent of all
fish imports. Alabama Commissioner of Agriculture Ron Sparks personally
visited Asia to witness seafood farmed in sewage.

Chinese products are so cheap because the workers in
Guangdong, where most of the Chinese toys are made, are primarily
females age 17 to 25 who work an average of 16 hours a day, 6 or 7 days
a week, for about $50 per month. They live in unhealthy, overcrowded
dormitories, where a bed is all they have of their own.

With the 2008 Olympic games coming soon, Communist China is
stepping up its censorship under the official slogan "constructing a
harmonious society." Visitors who click on China's largest Internet
site, called Sina.com, are greeted by two cute cartoon police figures,
one male and one female, who pop up on their screens every 30 minutes.

These images link to the Communist internet police in order
to report any information the government might deem illegal. It's
important for Americans to realize that China is still a very Communist
and anti-American country.

Used with permission.

Liberty Letters Comments: I know, I know, there is an economic "miracle" going on on Red China - that's what the media left and right keep telling us. Freedom is on the way, and well, this is the early stages of Capitalism; you can't really expect these guys to play by 21st Century rules, can you? Hmmm … let's see, we send over our dollars, our industry, our technology, our private industries hard earned patents, give them absolute veto power in the U.N. Security Council, turn a blind eye to their true involvement with terrorist groups and North Korea, and they hate us - but we need to make special rules for them so that they can have the money, technology, military might, and political control to bury us. Makes perfect sense to me.

Powered by ScribeFire.

 Print This Post | Other posts by Steve Farrell

Lew Rockwell makes the argument that Ron Paul is the candidate for a return to honest money under the gold standard.

Easy Money, Easy Lies - Mises Institute

Powered by ScribeFire.

 Print This Post | Other posts by Steve Farrell

Here's a look into some of the gimmicktry being used by interventionists and social planners. Thanks to Lew Rockwell.

The Mirage of the Mortgage Fix - Mises Institute

Powered by ScribeFire.

 Print This Post | Other posts by Steve Farrell

Men will not accept truth at the hands of their enemies, and truth is seldom offered to them by their friends: for this reason I have spoken it. I was persuaded that many would take upon themselves to announce the new blessings which the principle of equality promises to mankind, but that few would dare to point out from afar the dangers with which it threatens them. To those perils therefore I have turned my chief attention, and believing that I had discovered them clearly, I have not had the cowardice to leave them untold.

I trust that my readers will find in this Second Part that impartiality which seems to have been remarked in the former work. Placed as I am in the midst of the conflicting opinions between which we are divided, I have endeavored to suppress within me for a time the favorable sympathies or the adverse emotions with which each of them inspires me. If those who read this book can find a single sentence intended to flatter any of the great parties which have agitated my country, or any of those petty factions which now harass and weaken it, let such readers raise their voices to accuse me. - Alexis de Toqueville, "Democracy In America, Volume II."

Liberty Letters Comment: Which are we? The party coward focused on the blessings of being a Republican, Democrat, or Libertarian, or that statesmen who searches out and stands by right and wrong, good and better, and has vision enough to be more concerned with the long view than expediency and the "crisis" of the moment?

 Print This Post | Other posts by Steve Farrell

Not that the writing wasn't on the wall: From my May 2000 archives, eight months before Bush took the oath of office. 

If one's works do not within reason match one's faith, the Good Book says, then that man's faith is vain. After all, one can take a masquerade only so far, and no further.

Eventually, the face makeup is smeared by the heat of the day, uncovered by poor acting, unmasked by a perfect judge, or washed away by that rare individual who recognizes that the time for self-cleansing is now, and so forthwith gets about the business of surrendering selfish-self to higher duty.

In Melville's "Moby Dick," the chapter "The Sermon" recounts an adaptation to the Biblical story of one Jonah - a prophet of God, who after being called to preach to a hard-hearted people balked at that opportunity, disobeyed the command of his Maker, fled Nineva and bordered a boat bound for Tarshish, thinking "that a ship made by men, will carry him into countries where God does not reign but only the Captains of this earth."

But from the moment Jonah applied for passage on the ship, all the crew that eyed him sensed that Jonah bore some dark and loathsome secret.

Jonah's transparency aided them. Melville records: "So disordered, self-condemning [is] his look, that had there been a policeman in those days, Jonah, on the mere suspicion of something wrong, had been arrested ere he touched a deck. How plainly he's a fugitive!"

The captain, who decides who boards and who does not, perceived that Jonah was a marked passenger; however, we read: "Now Jonah's Captain . . . was one whose discernment detects crime in any, but whose cupidity exposes it only in the penniless. In this world . . . sin that pays its way can travel free and without a passport; whereas Virtue, if a pauper, is stopped at all frontiers."

The captain convinced the wayward soul to pay three times the regular fare, which Jonah willingly did, and that was that! Money, not the safety of crew, passengers and cargo, was the bottom line for this captain.

Such disregard for the higher duties to which captains are bound, wrecked havoc on the captain's winnings.

God found Jonah, and "the sea rebelled" and refused "to bear the wicked burden." The ship was caught in a tumultuous storm. All lives were imperiled. Jonah, sensing he had brought this calamity upon his shipmates, confessed the connection between he and the tempest, and begged they throw him overboard to save their lives.

Even so, the captain and shipmates pridefully decided to stand by their great error and keep the man (who did not belong) on board, thinking their paltry efforts could safely deliver the ship from the storm.

Man would bare the sin. Nature would not. All attempts to mask the truth failed. At last, the storm unlashed its full fury and Jonah was enthusiastically cast into the billowing deep and swallowed by the whale God had prepared.

In the end, a fugitive prophet, a greedy captain and a prideful crew all learned severe lessons.

Foreshadowing Ahab

"The Sermon" foreshadowed, by way of contrast, the more modern and far more wicked Ahab; that is, a false prophet who unlike Jonah failed to confess and repent as the signs of danger mounted, and by way of contrast again, a crew, which seeing a man foreign and antagonistic to the assigned task of the whalers, failed to cast him overboard, where he truly belonged.

Instead, they fell into a frenzy of emotion, delirium and false prophecy which persuaded them that abandonment of duty, family and God, in favor of murderous revenge upon a dumb beast, was just. This blind confidence cost all who engaged in it their lives, and the ship went down with them.

Fugitive Liberal

Now, George W. Bush, mind you, is certainly no great but temporarily squeamish Jonah. Agreed. Nor does he, or any other Bush family member, offer the dramatic flare of an evil Ahab. Agreed again. The Bushes are soft-spoken enough. But there are strong similarities to the sermon, and to the evil contrast Ahab provides, nonetheless, and we had better beware.

George W. Bush was plainly marked FUGITIVE LIBERAL from the moment he applied for passage to the White House. The man's liberalism is transparent. He, like Jonah, can not hide who he is. He also, like Ahab, provides leadership, which if blindly obeyed will bring woe upon the Republican ship.

Being the third-generation member of a family entrenched in the pro New World Order, Council of Foreign Relations; in Yale's secretive Skull and Bones; in Compassionate Conservatism; in Third Way public/private partnerships; and in fascist national service schemes; it should have been known from the start by Republican captains and shipmates that George W. Bush, whatever his virtues in comparison to the blasphemous beast Bill Clinton, was no prophet of conservatism.

So marked was he that even the liberal Washington Post branded Bush "The New Democrat," someone every bit as liberal as an Al Gore or a Bill Clinton.

The electronic scanner at the dock should have sounded alarm! The talk radio watchmen should have raised a rebellion! The Republican National Committee should have insisted, "Cast the traitor overboard!"

But Bush's fund-raising ability and his establishment credentials (which may be one and the same) spoke louder than his works, and the Republican captains decided that "sin that pays its way travels free" and overrules the imperative for a passport stamped "conservative." They even promoted him to captain elect.

Party faithfuls, such as Bauer, Buchanan and Keyes, who were certainly more virtuous to conservative ideals, but paupers in comparison, earned for their good behavior a "STOP" and a "DO NOT GO."

Unhappy Signs of the Truth

Since that fateful mistake, more signs of who George W. Bush really is emerge everywhere, but prideful men ignore the signs of the coming demise of freedom under such a captain as this. They had rather, like Ahab’s followers, stick to the emotion-filled argument that “We must slay Bill Clinton and Al Gore, at any cost!”

But the captain is unworthy and uncredentialed for such a high call.

Here is a captain who in one breath speaks of charter schools and educational choice, but in the next breath demands more federal education money and stricter federal educational standards.

Here is a captain who in one breath defends gun manufacturers from lawsuits, but who in the next breath demands federal gun standards for schools (state rights be damned), the outlaw of automatic weapons (the Second Amendment be damned), mandatory gun locks on all weapons (safety from criminals be damned), and who rebukes those who wonder if an above-the-law-Clinton precipitates more crime than any neutral weapon (free speech, common sense, and open political debate be damned).

Here is a captain who in one breath says he opposes abortion, but in the next breath owns up that there will be "no litmus test" in his appointment of federal judges, because he is "not a lawyer," and “fidelity to the law” is all that matters. Apparently, the greatest crime, "shedding innocent blood," has no place in his law.

Here is a captain who in one breath says he's pro-religion, but who in his next breath condemns the "Slouching Toward Gomorrah" wing of the Republican Party for its pessimism. He boasts he will solve what “few” problems do exist with MORE GOVERNMENT! An $8 billion first-year budget expenditure dedicated to a merge of church and state in joint public service ventures. A fools' lure, destined to first addict and then enslave every church in the nation.

Here is a captain who promises "no U.S. troops under foreign command," in one breath; but who in the next breath calls for a "New American Internationalism," whose only criticism of Clinton's unconstitutional and unjust war in Kosovo was Clinton’s failure to send in ground troops, and whose only limit upon future global cop duties is that he will better define what America's vital interests are; which definition he fails to provide, and which sales pitch we’ve heard before.

Here is a captain, who in one breath questions Janet Reno's and President Clinton's tyrannical and illegal display of power in their handling of the Elian Gonzalez affair, and who in the next breath asked the Republican Party to withdraw its investigation because it would cost him the female vote.

Here is a captain who in one breath brags that he will restore dignity to the White House, but in the next breath condemns those few members of the Republican Party who have valiantly fought to preserve that dignity from the king, as "relentlessly partisan" and guilty of perpetuating "a cycle of bitterness, an arms race of anger, a legacy of cynicism, and a generic distrust."

Here is a captain who in one breath speaks of privatizing Social Security, and who in the next breath states "only trusted investments" (i.e. whoever plays by the governments ‘rules’) will be permitted, and who, when addressing a Republican proposed change to a forced wealth redistribution plan (earned income credit), accuses his fellow Republicans, Ted Kennedy-like, of "balancing the budget on the backs of the poor."

Here is a captain who in one breath is so devoutly a free trader that he daringly states: "Never will food be used as a diplomatic weapon again” (tying human rights to China MFN), and who in his next breath declares that much harsher economic sanctions imposed by Daddy upon Iraq, sanctions that have claimed hundreds of thousands of lives, will not be removed.

Here is a captain who ranks the bestowal of economic advantages to a fixed and diabolic enemy as no risk at all, for "time is on our side," but who in the next breath fails to consider the flip side to his blind boast, that time is on the side of the Communists too. That it is they who claim the advantage in a game of waiting, because they are not subject to frequent fluctuations of public opinion, as we are.

Here is a captain who in one breath blames the American farmers plight on failure of the government to open up the "free" market to China, but who in the next breath calls on Clinton to increase the amount of emergency aid to farmers (a socialist input that distorts market realities and encourages farmers to prepare inadequately for future disasters), and who hid from these same farmers the real cause of their troubles, that socialist-inspired “free” trade has equated to government price supports which close out foreign markets, and unfairly low import taxes which dry up domestic markets. Nor that this is part and parcel to a domestic program that used government loans, grants, advertising, money for not farming, and anti-hoarding laws to undermine fiercely independent farmers and ranchers. No mention of that!

Finally, here is a captain who said of his fellow Republicans: "too often they confuse the need for limited government with a disdain for government itself."

Yes, indeed! The hallmark of George W. Bush's message and future administration is this aim of making it socially and legally unacceptable to criticize one's government. It is part of a Third Way agenda that throws to the wind the founders' belief that government is but a necessary evil to be jealously guarded, and prefers the Communist-perpetuated belief that government is the greatest of all goods.

Abandon Ship or Perish!

Such a captain is George W. Bush! Look and see! How plainly he is a fugitive! Had there been honest policemen guarding the Republican Party, ere they would arrest him, and cast him overboard into the mouth of a demonic Democratic Party whale!

But there are no such honest watchmen, no noble captains and shipmates bound to higher duty. Rather, with "sin that pays its way" they sacrifice their souls, their party and their country for the spoils of victory!

Who should be surprised, then, that common sense leads others, in the face of an established pattern, to no longer play the fool to blind calls for victory, at any price, over "four more years of Clinton and Gore." They know the price will be great. Nature will not bear the sin.

They look elsewhere for the salvation of this country.

 Print This Post | Other posts by Steve Farrell

Now that Hillary Clinton is publicly embracing the importance of faith in a politician's life, the New York Times has evidently forgotten all about the separation of church and state. A feature article on Ms. Clinton speaks fawningly of her teaching adult Sunday school classes and of how her Methodist faith has "guided her" as she has "struggled to fulfill the Biblical commandment to love they neighbor in the bare-knuckles world of politics." The Times notes with approval that she "has been alluding to her spiritual life with increasing regularity in recent years," and quotes a religion expert who says that she "appears to be a person of deep and sincere faith." Says Sen. Clinton herself about her faith, "It has certainly been a huge part of who I am, and how I have seen the world and what I believe in." On the campaign trail, she now can be found "increasingly speaking of her personal piety" and "sprinkling in references to inspiring Biblical verses." The Times gushes over the fact that "she carries a Bible on her campaign travels" and "reads commentaries on Scripture." The bottom line is that as long as a candidate's Christianity disposes them to support abortion, special rights for homosexuals, and the involuntary redistribution of wealth, the Times is all for it. The Times does not really believe in the "separation of church and state," it believes in the "separation of conservative Christians and the state." (Clinton Dwells on Faith as a Central Part of Her Life - New York Times)

Liberty Letters Comment: Thank you to our friends at the Idaho Values Alliance for digging up this tidbit.

 Print This Post | Other posts by Steve Farrell

An interesting read on the causes of Islamic extremism and of the consequences of the west's "War on Terrorism.":

http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=61942

Maybe Ron Paul was right after all–"they are over here because we are over there."

 Print This Post | Other posts by Steve Montgomery

Just a little 'fun' with the Hamas Kiddie Network Educational series promoting holocaustic genocide…

Click here to first read the IsraelInsider.com article: "Despite PA promises, Hamas screens new episode of "Mickey Mouse" hate show"

Mickey's Lookin' More Like Molech

Mickey's Ma-jihad-ic Kingdom
Is where children's dreams come true!
It's where Minnie sports a burka,
And where you won't find a Jew!

Yasser!….Little Furry Farfur's
Got a lesson for the kids:
"You'll be headin' for some Virgins…
…After you've beheaded Yids!"

Come on in!…The Kingdom's waiting!
Come on in…Enjoy your stay!
Share in Tinkerbell's excitement
Blowing Zionists away!

Just line up and take a number…
Have it tatooed on your arm!
Haunted House of Hebrew Horror
Such a gas!
And, Oh what charm!

You'll find family attractions…
Fatwah thrills not for the meek!
Keep your scimitars well-sharpened…
Goofy's handing out plastique.

We've got macho rides for 'martyrs',
Plus we keep our women veiled!
If they protest….
We just stone 'em
Or we toss 'em all in jail.

Watch al-Pooh-Bear rig explosives!
Watch al-Piglet strap 'em on….
You'll see Ruthless Roo applauding
And Jews going, going….
Gone!

Look!…There's Huey, Dewey, Louie!
Check that bloodlust in their eyes.
Unca Donald promised virgins
Once they've entered Paradise.

Chip 'n' Dale?…
They're armed 'n' ready
Home now from Afghanistan.
Seven dwarfs?…
Just mining roadsides
With their friends The Taliban.

Fluffy Farfur's primed and loaded,
And Pinnocchio as well…
Both are psyched!…
They're just exploding!
Right on through the Gates of Hell.

Peter Pan's gone undercover…
Trigger-happy Tigger, too!
Even Bambi's teaching Thumper
To 'annihilate the Jew'.

Dumbo's flying into buildings…
Pluto keeps his saber keen!
"Headless" isn't just for "Horsemen"…
(If you know, friend, what I mean!)

******

Mickey's lookin' more like Molech
Here in Theme Park Middle East.
Armageddon's loomin' larger
Now that Beauty kissed The Beast.

Liberty Letters comment: Read more of Liberty Letters resident poet, Tom Graffagnino's essays and poems at WithoutExcuseCreations.com

 Print This Post | Other posts by Tom Graffagnino

Just a light-hearted poem to commemorate Jimmy Carter's Gravy Train….

"Jimmy's Mullah-Moolah Rules!"

Welcome to the Carter Center…
Jimmy's Nobel Prize is here!
Well-financed by Saudi money,
Jimmy's grinnin' ear to ear!

Jimmy's clutchin' mullah-moolah…
Mullah-moolah's in the bank!
Mullah-moolah makes him happy,
And he knows just whom to thank!

He's got mullah-moolah stashes.
He knows mullahs'-moolah rules!
Man, you have to give him credit….
Jimmy Carter's no one's fool!

That ain't peanuts in his pocket;
Mullah-moolah's talkin', y'all!
Mullah-moolah speaks to Jimmy
With a mullah-moolah drawl.

Jimmy counts on Sugar-Daddy,
Saudi princes,
Oil reserves;
Zayed's fav'rite "Hubba-Bubba"!
What a pay-off…
What a nerve.

****

Watch the mullah-moolah rulers,
Dance with Jimmy…
"Desert Chic".
Watch 'em out there on the dance floor…
Jimmy's swayin' sheikh-to-cheek.

Looks like Jimmy hit the jackpot…
Arab Rainbow pot-of-gold!
Anti-Semites well-invested;
Peace Prize Jimmy
Bought and sold.

Jimmy knows now:
Jews are guilty!
Zayed says so,
So it's true!
Money talks and Jimmy hears it…
Rakin' in the revenue!

Y'all Aboard Mohammed's "Peace Train"!
(Jimmy got his ticket free)
Now his coffer's overflowing
With jihad gratuities.

Jimmy shops Wahabbi-Lobby…
Jewish-Prudence he extends…
Israel?….Apartheid nation!
(Mullah-moolah's dividend!)

Liberty Letters Comment: Read more of Liberty Letters' resident poet, Tom Graffagnino's, poetry and essays - so often filled with inspiration, humor, and penetrating insight; and/or take a tour of Tom's fine Christian artwork at WithoutExcuseCreations.com.

 Print This Post | Other posts by Tom Graffagnino

An adjunct professor at Emmanuel College was fired last week following a classroom discussion about the Virginia Tech shootings that included him pointing a marker at some students and saying "pow."

Nicholas Winset, a professor of financial accounting, said the Catholic liberal arts college was stifling free discussion about a controversial topic and the move would have a "chilling effect" on open debate.

"A classroom is supposed to be a place for academic exploration," Winset told the Boston Herald.

The five-minute demonstration last Wednesday included a discussion of gun control, whether to respond to violence with violence, and the public's "celebration of victimhood," he said.

Winset pretended to shoot some students in the class. Then one student pretended to shoot Winset to illustrate his point that Virginia Tech gunman Seung-Hui Cho may have been stopped had another student or faculty member been armed.

Winset, 37, has posted an 18-minute video defending his actions on YouTube.com under the title "Fired Professor Speaks Out!"

Winset said administrators had asked faculty members to engage students on the issue. Instead, he got a letter Friday saying he was fired and ordering him to stay off campus.

Continue.

Liberty Letters Comment. Contact the President of Emmanuel College, Sister Janet Eisner, at pres@emmanuel.edu, or call her office at 617-735-9825, to express your disappointment for her misunderstanding of both the first and second amendments, and her oversensitivity to political correctness, rather than loyalty to a professor making a valid point, namely, had one or more of the students been armed, very few would have perished. Watch the professor's video defense, about prissiness, lack of due process, even lack of a courtesy discussion or contact in person by the college, crushing of free speech, etc., at youtube.com.

 Print This Post | Other posts by Steve Farrell

Many of those in the so-called “Constitutionalist“ or “Patriot” community strongly criticize and vehemently condemn former President John Adams as a dictator (or worse) for his role in the passage of the Alien and Sedition Acts. While I consider myself both a Constitutionalist and a Patriot (having been involved in the fight for over thirty years), don’t count me in as one of John Adam’s accusers. While not necessarily agreeing with everything John Adams did, at least he got the Alien and Sedition Act right–at least in part. Let me explain.

In John Adam's defense, the Alien and Sedition Acts actually consist of four separate acts:

1. The Naturalization Act, which extended the residency requirements for aliens to become citizens from five years to fourteen. A power that resides clearly with Congress. Of the four separate parts, this is the only act that was later repealed by Jefferson.
2. The Alien Friends Act, which authorized the executive branch to deport aliens considered "dangerous to the peace and safety of the United States." I don't see anything necessarily unconstitutional about this power. This act expired in 1800. Maybe we ought to bring it back.
3. The Alien Enemies Act, which gave the President the power to deport aliens if their home country was at war with the United States. I don't see anything necessarily unconstitutional here either. In fact, this one remains in force today. Known as 50 USC Sections 21-24.
4. The Sedition Act, which made it a crime to publish "false, scandalous, and malicious writing" against the government or its officials. Of the four powers, this is the only one with questionable constitutionality. Maybe Constitutional. Maybe not. The freedom of speech is not absolute and might not “false, scandalous, and malicious writing” be a proper subject of legislation? Especially if such writings were written and directed to foment national insurrection or revolution? Congress clearly has power to call up the militia to suppress insurrections and repeal invaders. I’m not sure that the founders foresaw a war of words. Might not a propaganda attack be just as deadly as a physical invasion? At any rate, this act expired the day before Jefferson (Adams major opponent of the acts) took office.

While not necessarily agreeing with the wisdom involved in passing these acts, they were understandable in light of the threat posed by Citizen Genet and the Jacobin or "Democratic Clubs." Genet was the embodiment of the Bavarian Illuminati transplanted to the United States, and the actions of Genet and these “Democratic clubs” severely threatened the newly born United States. The Illuminati had been key players in fomenting the French Revolution and they appeared to be hard at work to undermine the newly formed United States.

President Washington wrote that the democratic clubs, if allowed to continue, would "shake the government to its foundations," and Adams, in a letter to Jefferson chastised, “You certainly never felt the terrorism excited by Genet, in 1793 … when ten thousand people in the streets of Philadelphia, day after day threatened to drag Washington out of his house, and effect a revolution … nothing but (a miracle) … could have saved the United States from a fatal revolution of government.”

Washington also wrote in 1798 regarding this seditious influence that, “It was not my intention to doubt that the doctrines of the Illuminati and the principles of Jacobinism had not spread in the United States. On the contrary, no one is more satisfied of this fact than I am. The idea I meant to convey, was, that I did not believe that the lodges of Freemasons in this country had, as societies, endeavored to propagate the diabolical tenets of the first, or pernicious principles of the latter. That individuals of them may have done it, or that the founder or instruments employed to have found the democratic societies in the United States may have had this object, and actually had a separation of the people from their government in view, is too evident to be questioned [in other words he didn't believe the freemasons as a whole were involved but that individual members of the Illuminati and the Jacobins were].”

John Quincy Adams, probably the best educated and best prepared U.S. President, remarked years later, that these "democratic clubs" were “so perfectly affiliated with the Parisian Jacobins that their origin from a common parent cannot possibly be mistaken.”

Several Churchmen and Pastors at the time became aware of the danger and so began a preaching campaign. One pastor, Jedediah Morse, warned in a Jeremiad preached in 1798, “Practically all of the civil and ecclesiastical establishments of Europe have already been shaken to their foundations by this terrible organization; the French Revolution itself is doubtless to be traced to its machinations; the successes of the French armies are to be explained on the same ground. The Jacobins are nothing more nor less than the open manifestation of the hidden system of the Illuminati. The Order has its branches established and its emissaries at work in America. The affiliated Jacobin Societies in America have doubtless had as the object of their establishment the propagation of the principles of the illuminated mother club in France … I hold it a duty, my brethren, which I owe to God, to the cause of religion, to my country and to you, at this time, to declare to you, thus honestly and faithfully, these truths. My only aim is to awaken you and myself a due attention, at this alarming period, to our dearest interests. As a faithful watchman I would give you warning of your present danger.”

Presidents of Universities also became involved. The President of Yale University, Timothy Dwight, warned about the danger and influence of the Illuminati in a political sermon (given on July 4, 1798) entitled, “The Duty of Americans, at the Present Crisis. “ Joseph Willard, the President of Harvard, a while after, also warned of the danger, writing that the Illuminati was “secretly striving to undermine all our ancient institutions, civil and sacred.”

No. Adams was not a dictator, he was just rightly concerned about protecting the freedom and liberty of our newly born Republic, and I think we need to cut him a little slack.

—-

Steven Montgomery

graymada@gmail.com

 Print This Post | Other posts by Steve Montgomery

It was a weekend of shameless pandering. In Selma Alabama, the forty-second anniversary of the famous voting rights march was commemorated in a most ignoble manner. Pandering shamelessly, Democrat presidential hopefuls Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton attempted to relate to largely black church congregations by speaking with what they obviously hoped would be interpreted as convincing southern drawls.

In the end, they came off sounding like second-rate impersonations of Foghorn Leghorn and Aunt Jemima respectively. Such transparent posturing proves that the speakers regard their audiences as ignorant and backward chattel, who are easily impressed by a little effort at forced "down home" talk.

Fortunately for Clinton and Obama, their latest antics, while generating a good deal of dismay and disgust among their political opposition, are not likely to exact any political cost from the liberal base. Liberalism is what it is, and few if any among the "faithful" are really surprised by it.

Those on the left know full well that their presumed leaders are not genuine, nor are they ever expected to be. Rather, they need merely to toe the party line and, when in a position to do so, dole out pork barrel "goodies" to their favored constituencies. Even in the all-too-common situation where they are required to support disparate and competing causes, the end result will be satisfaction of both constituencies, if they are provided their desired portions from the public trough.

Thus, aside from occasional issues such as the Iraq War in which leftists do indeed subscribe to an ideological agenda, all other topics and concerns can be effectively addressed monetarily. And with the annual federal budget soon to top three trillion dollars, the nation's coffers contain plenty of money to go around.

But across the aisle on the Republican side, fundamental differences in the workings of the Party render it completely counterproductive to try to mimic the Democrats. As a result, Republican "moderates" (read: liberals) look longingly at their Democrat counterparts, wishing always that they could reform the GOP into an insipid likeness of them. Sadly, the "moderate" wing of the Republican Party currently finds itself in a position where it believes it can accomplish just that.

In reality however, it will have no more success this time around than it ever has. For in stark contrast to the Democrats, the bulk of the Republican base is comprised of individuals who are driven by a guiding philosophy that had been derived from a set of principles. And, those principles are ultimately much higher and more immutable than any party platform.

Worse yet from the perspective of the RINO crowd, true conservatives scorn the very nature of governmental handouts by which Democrat constituencies are bought off and their leaders empowered. Thus are "moderates" deprived of the sort of inducements that might lure individuals at the grassroots into compromise with the Party elite. These circumstances present GOP "moderates" with a particular dilemma going into the next presidential election.

It is incredible that, out of an inordinate fear of Hillary, Republicans are attempting in vain to rally around John McCain, Mitt Romney, and Rudy Guiliani, three presumed "frontrunners" even though the first primary is almost a year in the future.

Despite fervent efforts to put a positive "spin" on this abysmal situation, none of the three can lay claim to a past performance that is even remotely "conservative." In fact, their track records all reflect nothing short of an ardent and enduring disdain for conservative principles. The lack of a true conservative among the currently anointed Republican "frontrunners" means that each must work to portray himself as the rightful bearer of Ronald Reagan's torch.

As a sad counterpart to the charade at Selma, the other episode of shameless pandering this past weekend takes on a much greater significance than that of Hillary or Obama.

For while those Democrat presidential wannabes were attempting to court the black vote by relishing the glory days of the civil rights movement in the South, the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Washington presented Republican Presidential hopefuls with an opportunity to do their own tap-dancing and conservative impersonations for those on the right.

John McCain was a "no show" at the conference, to nobody's real surprise. Mitt Romney "talked the conservative talk" rather admirably, considering that such rhetoric constitutes a complete departure from his governing actions of even the very recent past.

Worse yet is Rudy Guiliani, whose defenders attempted to laud as a far better choice for conservatives on the ludicrous grounds of his frank "honesty" when expressing his unwavering devotion to a flaming liberal ideology. Out of this, we are happily promised the appointment of pro-constitution judges.

Some speakers, such as former Virginia Governor James Gilmore, enthusiastically trumpeted their conservative pedigree, and their proven loyalty to the conservative agenda on all fronts. Yet they currently lag in the crucial areas of fundraising and name recognition.

With the primaries looming, the hurdles facing candidates such as Gilmore are admittedly great. Yet he represents a burgeoning dissatisfaction among real conservatives at the grassroots who feel disenchanted over the possibility that the Republican ticket has already been predetermined for them.

Nevertheless, many within the RINO camp are hopeful that the CPAC spotlight, along with the South Carolina straw poll, will sufficiently cement the leads of the three presumed "frontrunners," thus ensuring that the party must move to the political "center" in order to accommodate its prospective leader.

Sadly, the election of McCain, Romney, or Guiliani might indeed serve as capstone of this effort. But any jubilation over such a victory would be short lived. For even in the unlikely event that they prevail in the short term, they will deal a setback to Reagan conservatism of unfathomable proportions.

Attempts at broadening Republican Party appeal among northeastern liberals by abandoning or diluting its core conservative principles have never worked, and never will. A party-wide move to the political center is a move towards irrelevancy.

———-

Liberty Letters Contributor, Christopher G. Adamo, is a freelance writer and staff writer for the New Media Alliance. He lives in southeastern Wyoming. He has been active in local and state politics for many years. His contact information and archives can be found at www.chrisadamo.com

 Print This Post | Other posts by Chris Adamo

John F. Kennedy's assistant, Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., in an article in the "Partisan Review" in 1947, gave an insight into the morals of liberalism. He said that liberalism …

…dispensed with the absurd Christian myths of sin and damnation and believed that what shortcomings man might have were to be redeemed, not by Jesus on the cross, but by the benevolent unfolding of history. Tolerance, free inquiry, and technology, operating in the framework of human perfectibility, would in the end create a heaven on earth, a goal accounted much, more sensible and wholesome than a heaven in heaven.

Liberal standards of morality, as enumerated by Schlesinger in 1947 [a truly Marxist/Leninist outlook], were reiterated by another high government official in 1962. Assistant Secretary of State for International Organizational Affairs, Harlan Cleveland, on a TV interview said:

… we find in trying to figure out what to do next, that general codes of ethics, prescriptions that is to say, that have been written down by someone else, by our church, by our parents, or the books we read, or scripture, that these general prescriptions really aren't useful in deciding what to do next.

William Penn warned early Americans of the pitfalls in such a policy. He said:

The nation which refuses to be governed by God will surely be governed by tyrants.

 Print This Post | Other posts by Steve Farrell

I've seen/read/heard so many people just flat out getting this wrong. Even talk show hosts/commentators are just not getting it and are either knowingly or unknowingly spreading this misinformation. I hope Romney clears the air on this one soon. Until he does, I'm on a mission to get the word out. Please join me and link to this explanation . . . email your friends. The mis-information must stop!People are insinuating from some of Romney's 1994 comments that Romney was saying he was more "pro-gay rights" than Teddy Kennedy. The insidious implication of many authors/commentators is that Romney was effectively saying that he was "to the left" of Kennedy on gay-rights issues. That is simply not the case and everyone who knows their records knows this.

I've covered before that Romney, as of yet, has not "flip-flopped" on any gay-rights issues.

This whole hullabaloo comes mainly from the letter Romney sent to the Log Cabin Republicans about 4 weeks before the 1994 general election (for the context of that situation, please read this from Hugh Hewitt's Townhall.com blog). In the letter Romney stated " . . . I will provide MORE EFFECTIVE leadership than my opponent." and also promises to make "equality" for homosexuals "a mainstream concern. My opponent cannot do this. I can and will."

Romney's point was that Teddy was such a left-wing figure that his advocacy COULD NOT make ANY of the "gay rights" issues "a MAINSTREAM concern." Romney could have, because he is not and was not a part of the liberal establishment.

Also, as our co-blogger, Thomas Alan, wrote here a few days ago (addendum by him at end of piece):

Also of note is that the New York Times doesn't say that Gov. Romney is to the left of Sen. Kennedy on gay rights (as many websites have stated in error), merely that he would be a "stronger advocate". Looking through the 1994 Bay Windows interview the Boston Globe bases its article upon we see this:

When Ted Kennedy speaks on gay rights, he’s seen as an extremist. When Mitt Romney speaks on gay rights he’s seen as a centrist and a moderate. It’s a little like if Eugene McCarthy was arguing in favor of recognizing China, people would have called him a nut. But when Richard Nixon does it, it becomes reasonable. When Ted says it, it’s extreme; when I say it, it’s mainstream.

The theory being that Sen. Kennedy was such a left-wing fringe cartoon character that no matter what legislation he proposes on certain issues, it discredits itself. I wouldn't be surprised if Gov. Romney's reasoning in the NYT letter is the same as it is in the interview.
Also, as a case in point . . . Romney was on the record in 1994, in 2004 and today as being against Gay Marriage. Teddy Kennedy is/was for Gay Marriage. Teddy argued in Senate debates:

Little support was expressed in the Senate for gay marriage. Only Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, delivered an impassioned speech defending the right of same-sex couples to enjoy the same legal protections as heterosexual couples.

"The decision to bring up this divisive, discriminatory, and completely unnecessary amendment . . . shows the Senate at its worst," Kennedy added on the floor yesterday. Earlier, Kennedy invoked the recent anniversary of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and accused Bush administration and the Republican congressional leadership of seeking "to write bigotry back into the Constitution, by denying gays and lesbians the right to marry."

Again, help get this message out.

Jeff

 Print This Post | Other posts by Steve Farrell

It’s a long-forgotten moment, but it was a poignant and revealing one. In the wake of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court’s discovery of a right to gay marriage that had been long–hidden in the Commonwealth’s John Adams penned constitution, Governor Mitt Romney had vigorously protested both the substantive result and the judicial arrogance that led to the result.

On the day the decision went into effect, dozens of gay couples descended on Massachusetts’ city and town halls to get married. The TV cameras sought out Governor Romney for his response to the day’s events. The media no doubt expected him to toss some red meat to the knuckle-dragging conservatives that Romney was courting in anticipation of a presidential bid. Instead, Romney pleaded that the public and gay marriage critics in particular bear in mind that this was a happy and joyous day for many individuals, and act respectfully and accordingly.

If you saw him deliver that sentiment on the news, you could see it was heartfelt. You could also see that Mitt Romney would not square with the stereotypical (and of course mistaken) view of a gay marriage opponent. He was not a hater and not a homophobe. Rather, he was a decent man who thought the policy of gay marriage was an unwise one and, regardless of the policy’s wisdom, was disappointed in the judicial overreach that brought it into being.

I’VE BEEN THINKING ABOUT THAT MOMENT in recent Romney history while assorted pundits have been trying to sort through the Romney record when it comes to gay rights issues. Of special interest this week is a 1994 interview Romney gave where he was extremely generous on matters of interest to the gay community. Because I was volunteering for him in 1994 and spent considerable time with him, I think I can help shed some light on this latest “scandal.”

When he ran for Senate in ’94 against Ted Kennedy, the opinions of Mitt Romney’s church was a recurring subject of discussion, thanks largely to the efforts of the Boston Globe. One of the things that the theologians at the Globe noticed is that the tenets of Mormonism regarding homosexuality weren’t particularly accepting or tolerant. The Globe kept implicitly pressuring Romney to make the choice – gays or his church. (Oddly, Ted Kennedy’s Catholic faith didn’t trigger any similar demands or curiosity on the Globe’s part.)

Romney spent a solid chunk of the ’94 campaign expressing his tolerance and acceptance for homosexuals. Naturally, nothing he could say in this regard would satisfy his critics. If he didn’t explicitly condemn the teachings of his church, his critics would continue to bray. And bray they did, from practically the first day of his campaign until the last.

It was in this context that Romney made his now-famous comments in a 1994 interview with Bay Windows, a Boston newspaper that caters to the gay community. Among his observations were these:

I feel that as a society and for me as an individual, it’s incumbent on all of us to respect one another, regardless of our differences and beliefs, our differences in sexual orientation, in race and that America has always been a place, and should be a place, to welcome and tolerate people’s differences.

I personally feel and one of my core beliefs is that we should accept people of all backgrounds and recognize everyone as a brother and a sister because we are all part of the family of man.

Fueling the current controversy is the question, How could so vocal a supporter of gay rights in 1994 be such a prominent opponent of gay marriage in 2006?

FORGET THE PART that in the same interview, Romney also said, “Bill Weld does not feel at this time that he wishes to extend legalized marriage on a same-sex basis, and I support his position.” Those looking for a scandal here certainly have.

The question itself regarding Romney’s putatively shifting views suggests Romney has a penchant for flip-flopping with such audacity that John Kerry should be envious. There is, however, an answer to the question and it’s not a particularly complex one. I spent a decent amount of time with Romney in ’94, and got to know him reasonably well. He’s not a hater. He’s not a bigot. He’s not a homophobe. No one who has worked with him or who actually has known him in any capacity says otherwise. And this is a man who has led a prominent and powerful business life.

Romney is also a traditionalist. He does not believe that institutions such as marriage should be mucked with. And he certainly doesn’t believe that such institutions should be playthings for a gaggle of unelected officials who happen to wear black robes for a living.

In other words, his opposition to gay marriage is based on good faith differences with gay marriage proponents regarding where a particular legal line should be drawn. And by good faith, I mean that he arrives at his position not out of hate, bigotry or political calculation, but out of a true sense of moral conviction regarding what is best and noblest for our society.

On where the legal line should be drawn on gay marriage, he and I happen to differ. Unlike Romney, and unlike most of the readers of this site, I have no problem with legalizing gay marriage. But unlike Romney’s critics, I know that the difference is a good faith one, and not the result of those I disagree with making venal calculations or indulging their prejudiced natures.

The preceding is the part that some narrow-minded gay marriage proponents just can’t get. They think that if you’re against gay marriage, you are necessarily a hater and by definition a homophobe. That’s just not so.

Another thing regarding Romney and gay marriage warrants mentioning: This was not a fight he sought. Even given the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court’s prior reckless disregard for precedent and the democratic process, no one foresaw the SJC discovering a pre-existing right to gay marriage in the Commonwealth’s 220 year old Constitution. Even by the SJC’s own lofty standards for such things, it was a stunning piece of judicial arrogance. In short, it was not part of a Romney master-plan to be the anti-gay marriage candidate.

Critics of Evangelicals and Fundamentalists think the key to winning their support is to be the most-narrow minded and hate-filled candidate in the field. These critics chronically lament the bigotry of these specifically identifiable communities while crudely and cruelly caricaturizing them; it is a perverse credit to these critics that they never betray any sense of irony while doing so.

One of the reasons Mitt Romney will be increasingly successful as more people get to know him is because he is the real deal – Mitt is a good, honest and decent man. And those are far from his only virtues. But those are the virtues that Republicans of all religious and ethnic affiliations hunger for most in their ’08 standard bearer.

Compliments? Complaints? Contact me at Soxblog@aol.com.

 Print This Post | Other posts by Steve Farrell

Prominent grassroots conservatives were dismayed this week to learn of a 1994 letter written by Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney when running for the U.S. Senate, in which he voiced his support of “gay rights,” to the point of claiming to be a stronger ally than Ted Kennedy. His stance on abortion was little better, assuring pro-aborts that he would do nothing to infringe on current Massachusetts law.

While not as thoroughly indicting as John McCain’s tirades against the Christian right back in 2000, this information represents a clear disconnect with the constituency Romney now seeks to court.

Ever since the mid-term elections, he has sounded like a citadel of traditional values. But as the details of his past are revealed, conservatives around the nation find it increasingly difficult to join the Romney camp. In truth, none of this is really new. Certainly those conservatives living in Massachusetts, few in number though they may be, are not surprised.

The Bay State has been at the epicenter of such movements as the establishment of same-sex “marriage” and public school “sex education” programs designed by the homosexual advocacy. To ensure that little Johnny arrives at adulthood properly pre-programmed to accept this countercultural ideology, schools have presumed the authority to teach on such subjects without parental knowledge or consent.

In none of these circumstances has Romney led the charge to return to traditional values. Nevertheless, he recognizes the necessity to garner support from the vaunted “values voters” whose antipathy towards the Republican Party proved decisive in this past election. So now Romney is presuming to carry the torch for faith, family, mom, and apple pie.

Far from being outraged at the recent revelations of Romney’s moral and philosophical inconsistencies, conservative movers and shakers ought to be extremely thankful this information came to light long before the 2008 primaries. The timing of this controversy affords them the opportunity to find another, more worthwhile candidate around whom they can rally. And some such individuals may indeed be entering the presidential fray.

In the meantime, it is critically important that conservatives do not entrap themselves with their own version of John Kerry. In 2004, Kerry was the presumptive winner of the Democrat nomination early on, despite being unable to muster any voter enthusiasm other than being an alternative to President Bush. The ploy did not work.

Nor has such an approach ever proven successful for the Republican ticket, especially in recent decades, after social/moral issues had risen to prominence. Any Republican candidate, who does not possess a clear track record of actively and enthusiastically championing such causes, can be virtually guaranteed to lose in the ‘08 general election.

The real lesson of the ‘06 elections, despite the incessant “spin” being put on them, is that the conservative base will not support liberalism from either party. But while Democrats can appeal to their leftist fringe as a suitable substitute, Republicans who lose conservative support will ultimately be hung out to dry.

Those latecomers to the conservative bandwagon, who then seek to ingratiate themselves among the conservative camp by talking the talk, despite not having “walked the walk” over the years, can count on being exposed at some point. The press will see to it.

In Romney’s case, his cover was blown by conservatives such as Paul Weyrich, who primarily operate at the grassroots. Ideally, old-media types would have preferred to keep the lid on such revelations until just prior to the general election. At that point they could be stridently exposed and conservative voters disenfranchised, but with no alternative available. Thus the liberal/Democrat would win by default.

Despite the disturbing 2006 election results, the constituency known as “values voters” is not going to disappear from electoral politics. Furthermore, their presence severely complicates the political scene since their numbers are great and their interests are comparatively inflexible.

Those who have either undermined or dismissed them in the past will find it extremely difficult to gain their trust, now that the pivotal nature of their support has become inarguably obvious. If mere “spiritual” sounding verbiage could qualify a candidate, Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, and even John Kerry would be in the fold, since all have occasionally dabbled in pious rhetoric.

Until recently, the field of Republican candidates has appeared devoid of any real conservative who could rally the grassroots and generate true enthusiasm. So the “fall back” position among Republicans has been to attempt to generate momentum for one of the presumed “moderates” already in the race.

In only the past few days, Senator Sam Brownback (R.-KS) has announced that he is considering a run for the Presidency. Admittedly, Brownback has much catching up to do. In the areas of fund-raising and name recognition, he is far behind those whose names have been bandied about by party insiders for some time. Yet he possesses the sort of long-standing conservative pedigree that can inspire the grassroots.

It is abundantly clear from all of the contrived media hype over Barak Obama in the past few weeks that the Democrats intend to run an eminently capable, experienced and invincible candidate in ’08. This is not to say that Obama actually qualifies on any of these fronts, but only that the media/Democrat political cabal incessantly tells us that he does.

Against such fabricated stardom, any “business as usual” Republican will be obliterated at the ballot box. If the GOP hopes to compete, it cannot afford to settle for anything less than a true Reagan Conservative who carries no baggage and makes no excuses for past liberalism.

Whether the Republican nominee is indeed Senator Brownback, or some other individual who has not yet announced, conservatives had better begin immediately to define the 2008 race by endorsing only to a candidate whom they can enthusiastically support as a champion of true conservatism. Anything less will set the stage for a Democrat in the White House in 2009.

 Print This Post | Other posts by Steve Farrell

FamilyLeader.net. Abstinence education is in peril-not only the money that funds it, but the very definition of what kind of sex education youth are taught in school.  Will they be taught to abstain from sex-or that sexual expression is a expected-and the most important thing teens can learn is "safe-sex"?

The allocation of funds for Title V Abstinence Education expires on December 31, 2006.  Reauthorization of this program is critical because not only does this govern and provide the Title V Abstinence Education grants ($50 million annually), but the guidelines under this program require that abstinence education programs have an exclusive purpose of teaching the social, psychological, and health gains to be realized by abstaining from sexual activity.  Guidelines also require programs to teach young people how to reject sexual advances and how alcohol and drug use increases vulnerability to sexual advances.These definitions also govern the Community Based Abstinence Education program (over $100 million annually) and the Adolescent and Family Life program (about $13 million annually).  Without reauthorization of the Title V program, all of these funding streams are vulnerable to elimination.

The perils of teen pregnancy and the spread of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) should be reason enough for the federal government to allocate millions of dollars a year into Abstinence Education.  Three million American teens contract an STD each year-many incurable and leading to infertility or cancer.

The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) found that the increase in abstinence among teenagers is substantially more responsible for the drop in teenage pregnancy rates than any increased contraception use.  An analysis of the Best Friends program, an abstinence education program that began in the District of Columbia in 1987 and is now used in over 100 schools nationwide, found that the program participants were nearly seven times more likely than the control group to abstain from sexual activity.

We understand that senatorial staff members are already drafting new definitions to ensure federal funding only goes to "safe sex" programs that led to decades of high teen birth rates and an epidemic of STDs

During this season of gift giving, we urgently need to remind some federal lawmakers to keep giving money to programs that work and not let them be replaced by safe-sex programs!  Abstinence Education programs are worth every dollar spent.  These programs help teens stay healthy, develop strong self-esteem, and improve their future prospects.  Our youth live in a sex saturated culture and desperately need information on why they should avoid the pitfalls of risky sexual behavior.

Take Action: Contact Key Lawmakers ASAP Contact the Energy and Commerce Committee which oversees Title V funding.  Click here for contact information. To send an email to the entire committee, scroll down until you see "Sending Comments or Requesting Information." Click on "Sending Comments." Copy and paste the sample message below and add your own sentence at the beginning to make it personal.Contact the Committee Chairman, Joe Barton of Texas, by phone at (202) 225-2002 or by fax at (202) 225-3052.  He only accepts emails from his constituents. Contact the House Majority Leader, John Boehner of Ohio, by phone at (202) 225-4000 or by fax at (202) 225-5117.  He only accepts emails from his constituents. Contact your Representative by clicking here. Sample Message: Reauthorizing the Title V Abstinence Education program before it expires on December 31, 2006 should be a top priority.  Abstinence education grants are critical for the health and well-being of America's youth.  The perils of teen pregnancy and the spread of sexually transmitted diseases should be reason enough for the federal government to allocate $50 million a year into Abstinence Education.

Abstinence curricula must contain all eight of these components. 1.  teaches the social, psychological, and health gains to be realized by abstaining from sexual activity;2.  teaches abstinence from sexual activity outside marriage as the expected standard for all school age children; 3.  teaches that abstinence from sexual activity is the only certain way to avoid out-of-wedlock pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, and other associated health problems; 4.  teaches that a mutually faithful monogamous relationship in context of marriage is the expected standard of human sexual activity; 5.  teaches that sexual activity outside of the context of marriage is likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects; 6.  teaches that bearing children out-of-wedlock is likely to have harmful consequences for the child, the child's parents, and society; 7.  teaches young people how to reject sexual advances and how alcohol and drug use increases vulnerability to sexual advances; and 8.  teaches the importance of attaining self-sufficiency before engaging in sexual activity. Commonly Used Abstinence Programs: Choosing the Best  http://www.choosingthebest.org/ Wait Training  http://www.waittraining.com/ Game Plan http://www.acgreen.com/ Project Reality http://www.projectreality.org//

Abstinence vs. Comprehensive

The availability of federal funds ensures that communities have the opportunity to debate the merits of abstinence education over comprehensive sex education. Who pushes for comprehensive sex education? The Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS).  Click here for their websiteWhat "Comprehensive" Really Means

"Comprehensive" means teaching children and youth that homosexual behavior is normal and that adolescents should explore their sexuality to determine their sexual orientation.  The "comprehensive" approach teaches children as young as 5th grade how to use condoms and recommends them for all sexual activity including homosexuality activity.

Liberty Letters Comment: The federal government should not be involved in state education in the first place, for that is where all the trouble started. On the other hand, things being as they are, fighting for this may make sense to some of you in the short run. In the long run, better answers include shutting down the U.S. Department of Education, as Reagan promised to do, cutting off all federal education grants to the states (by the states refusing them, or by complete elimination of these grants), and by drafting and passing legislation that will limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court from ruling on matters of public education on the state and local level.  Again, the trouble with Family Leader's solution, as I see it, is that it is the kind of stuff Republicans too often do to solve the socialism crisis, via more socialism that is (right of center). It doesn't work. Why not? For even if the current administration is with you, the ACLU lawyers won't be, nor will the NEXT administration, which may use the same power to radically attack the same values, leaving us all with less options of defense. Think about it. Federal grants always, always, always come with strings attached, sooner or later. Leviathan is the puppeteer - and the puppet, yes, the puppet is us. As for abstinence education, I'm all for it, for a variety of reasons. Common sense, common morality, health risks, even fiscal reasons - but let's control it locally, with parent input.

 Print This Post | Other posts by Steve Farrell

Democrats In Drag: Third Way Fall From Grace, Part 6

Read Foreword, Part 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

On the steps of the U.S. Capitol on September 27, 1994, more than 300 candidates for the U.S. House of Representatives stood under an unusually warm, sun-filled sky and made history. All of them were there, joining hands and rubbing shoulders, with one goal in mind: To help launch a new revolution; the Republican revolution.

This catapult into a new order of things for the U.S. Congress began with the reading and then the signing of a Contract With America, a contract which committed its 357 signatories to a bold 10-point program promising a "return to the wisdom and brilliance of the Founding Fathers." Included in that context was a promise to return to limited government, individual liberty, free markets, personal responsibility, and the protection of American sovereignty. (1)

What a refreshing vow! And it seemed just in time. For two years American citizens had suffered under the shock wave of a radical new approach to politics under the Clinton administration.

President Clinton had, in short order, authorized the installment of gays in the military; stood behind a surgeon general who sought to legalize illicit drugs and teach sex education to 5-year-olds; ordered and then publicly justified the police-state-like tactic of warrantless gun sweeps and immigration sweeps of public housing units; filled traditionally non-gun- toting federal agencies, like the FDA, with armed agents who then began conducting raids on such enemies of the state as garlic researchers; condoned the tank-led assault on a church filled with men, women and children in Waco, Texas; zealously promoted socialist medicine even while the celebration over the 'fall' of communism was still echoing in our ears; and aggressively launched America's soldiers into several New World Order commitments, transforming the U.S. military into a busybody welfare agency that was, for the first time in history, subservient to U.N. command.

And then there were the scandals …

Who shouldn't have been alarmed? Conservative action groups flourished, Democratic faithful ran for cover, and the Republican Party leadership seized the moment.

The Contract With America was the result. The overall goals, already alluded to, sounded good. They were "to limit and hold government accountable, to promote economic opportunity and individual responsibility to families and businesses, and to maintain security both at home and abroad."

Who could argue with that? These goals sounded vaguely conservative, and vagueness sells.

Just as vague were the Contract's 10 planks or bills, which the signers promised to introduce and vote on within the first 100 days, each bill having a catchy conservative title. They were: The Fiscal Responsibility Act, The Taking Back Our Streets Act, The Personal Responsibility Act, The Family Reinforcement Act, The American Dream Restoration Act, The National Security Restoration Act, The Senior Citizens Fairness Act, The Job Creation and Wage Enhancement Act, The Common Sense Legal Reforms Act, and The Citizen Legislature Act. (2)

With all those commitments to restoration, American dreams and security one would think the millennium had arrived, and finally everything would be as it used to be, and as it should be. But when vagueness gave way to specifics and fine-print legislation followed, it became clear enough that this was not to be so. At almost every turn – despite a few noteworthy concessions to conservatives – the proposed and/or passed legislation centralized power from the individual to the state, from the states to the federal government, from Congress to the president, and from the United States to the United Nations - the antithesis of what the founders stood for.

More devastatingly, consistent with the Third Way call to radically overhaul or overthrow the U.S. Constitution, the Contract was the genesis for 18 Gingrich-proposed constitutional amendments in the first six months of the Republican Revolution. (3) Considering the fact that there were only 16 amendments added to the Constitution following the ratification of the Bill of Rights in 1791, one can confidently say that the Republican Revolution was in fact a revolution, an assault, a revocation of the political wisdom of our forefathers.

Consider some of the Contract's more subtle betrayals:

The Personal Responsibility Act

The Personal Responsibility Act promised to "reduce government dependency, attack illegitimacy, require welfare recipients to work, and cut welfare spending. The legislation's main thrust was to give states greater control over the benefits programs, work programs, and Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) payments and requirements." (4)

Remembering that the Third Way employs double talk to sway both left and right to the "safe" center, observe:

1. The Personal Responsibility Act denied increased welfare benefits to parents on AFDC (Aid to Families With Dependent Children) who have another child. Denying money to "irresponsible" welfare mothers sounds conservative enough, since it saves money and teaches a lesson – but to return to the Founders, one would have had to question the legitimacy of federal welfare and move toward its elimination. This bill did neither. Instead, it added a socially provocative, inherently coercive proviso.

Think about it. A woman already on welfare gets pregnant with another child. The state won't pay additional money for the new baby. The doctor won't deliver the baby. The state will pay for an abortion – its cheaper! Thus, the state and the doctor pressure the mother to take the life of the child. The taxpayer rejoices over the decrease in the surplus population and the money saved. Legitimacy for government efficiency, government coercion, and government genocide – in the hearts of conservatives – is won.

Moreover, extend the principle to a nation edging ever closer to socialized medicine, and the question arises, "How soon till tomorrow's "balance sheet bloodletting" of welfare babies spreads its carnage to middle-class babies?

2. The Personal Responsibility Act promised to curb drug and alcohol abuse. Conservative sounding, indeed. The solution? A Clinton-like (5) demand for random drug and alcohol testing for welfare recipients identified as abusers. (6) Again, targeted for an abrogation of their rights are the poor, who apparently, by way of their accepting welfare, are no longer full-fledged citizens with all the protections thereof. Moreover, extend the precedent broadly to a nation where more and more people work for the government, are paid by government contracts, and receive government aid (including free education, subsidized loans, and grants of all varieties) and we must ask, who will be next and how might such tactics be used by unscrupulous individuals in the future?

3. The Personal Responsibility Act promised to deny various forms of welfare to immigrants, legal and illegal. Conservative sounding? Yes. But, as the previous law already denied the right, (7) this legislation denied a non-existent right and then, audaciously, granted the same "right" in fine-print exceptions, exceptions wide enough for an invading army to stroll through in broad daylight.

Who were excepted?

• Refugees – including Castro's worst criminals and agitators.

• Temporary (migrant) agricultural workers (which makes Bush's immigrant benefit plan, but part 2 of the same).

• Any who apply for selective housing assistance programs.

• Any who apply for emergency aid programs.

• Any who apply for non-means tested programs.

• The biggy of all biggies: any and all who have "physical, developmental, or mental impairment." In fact, ever since, thousands upon thousands of immigrants are arriving in America with notes from doctors back home declaring them unfit to work and thus eligible for every American handout – including SSI benefits.

• To top it off, for any illegal and legal immigrants who might have been "left behind" – throw in the Contract With America's faith-based subsidy program, a program which permits "privately" run welfare agencies to hand out public tax dollars with absolutely no check on immigrants. Bush is working to open this door even more. (8)

If all of this sounds like a Third Way bread and circus/no national boundaries/dregs recruitment scheme to increase minority power, tear down capitalism and raise up a communist welfare state, you're catching on.

4. The Personal Responsibility Act's boast that Republicans intended to transfer control of welfare to the states and peg the distribution of welfare funds to a market-based approach – that is, to a performance-based model akin to free market competition – was ludicrous.

First and foremost, grants, no matter how loose the strings hang initially – equal control, iron chord, iron-clad control. Period. To claim otherwise was to perpetrate one of the greatest frauds of all time. This was fraud.

Second, rewards and punishments in a free market operate upon private companies according to their ability to provide a product or a service that the people like in competition with others. A private company, if it is wise, finds a niche and provides superior service or an unbeatable price in order to prosper, but regardless is free to walk its own path. But a federal incentive/disincentive that feeds money into programs that are anti-free enterprise, anti-private property, anti-constitutional means only one thing – the state, which does the best job at being efficient socialists, wins the crown.

Further, one has to marvel at the idea that "winners" may take 20 percent of their block grants and use them as they please. (9) An interesting proposition. That is, let the states trickle the money into other state programs formerly free from federal dollars, so that they might get addicted too. Furthermore, narrowly tailored individual grants might be more easily forsaken if federal abuses arise. Those which come in one great block, and impact the state broadly, cannot. What a grand idea to increase the iron grip hold of federal over state power.

5. The Personal Responsibility Act, though it helped to move millions of welfare recipients (among legal citizens) out of dependency and into productive jobs, strangely it did so by creating financial incentives to the states to force hard-working, middle class families into the welfare net (so much for achieving conservative ends via liberal tactics, that is via federal block grants). Eagle Forum Founder Phyllis Schlafly in a March 29, 2006 editorial, unveiled how this works:

The major goal of the 1996 Welfare Reform was to reduce the budget deficit by, among other things, recovering welfare costs from absentee fathers. Without justification or public debate, the rules to accomplish this were then applied to middle-class "never welfare" families.

Formerly, to receive welfare benefits, recipients had to demonstrate eligibility by "need" (i.e., a test measured by income level), but the new policy omitted income eligibility requirements. Without a means test, a high-income mother with custody can use the power of the state to collect from a low-income father.

The federal government annually provides $4.2 billion in block grants to states to serve as collection agencies. States are reimbursed for 66 percent of their costs of child support enforcement activities, 80 percent of their costs for technology, and 66 percent of their costs of DNA testing for paternity.

The more cases the states can create and the more operational expenses they incur, the more federal funding states receive