Rockaway Park NY 11694 * January 1 2011 * * in the 39th year of the Society "For God Republic and Society
Michael Burch:
Debate with HA ANDREWS

"Does any country have the right to invade another and impose its values on it?"

Michael Burch

My father was a twenty-year man in the United States Air Force. I grew up a "military brat," on and around a variety of Air Force bases, some of them smack dab in the middle of the Cold War. So my perspective may be somewhat different than the typical civilian`s. I grew up scared.

In one of my earliest childhood memories I see myself crouching like a small, beleaguered mouse beneath my clapboard school desk while a shrill, discordant Trump of Doom wails high overhead. It`s the first time I`ve heard an air raid siren, and its intensity is terrifying. A sound that loud, that insistent, could mean only one thing: the Bomb was on its way, and I was its target. My kindergarten class was practicing a "survival" technique equivalent to a snail retracting its head in a last-second defensive reflex, only to be obliterated, shell and all, by a gargantuan boot. Neither the snail`s fragile shell nor my rickety desk were designed to withstand Arrivals of such Magnitude. But while the snail probably died happy as a clam, unaware of anything beyond the range of its feelers until the instant of its Apocalypse, my big, highly imaginative brain made me the oracle of my own Doom. I had seen the mushroom clouds on TV, had heard the ominous accompanying words: radiation, mutation, annihilation. At the tender age of five, I had a pretty good idea of what I was in for, Armageddon, just as Saint John the Divine had predicted. Being all too aware of my sinful nature and the wrath of God against me, both of which were being drilled into me, inexorably, Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenings after pot-luck dinners, what could I do but accept my fate, just as the snail had accepted his, albeit more presciently?

Although in my egocentricism I supposed myself to be the Bomb`s main target, my class was actually "preparing" for a preemptive Russian nuclear strike against the nearby Lincoln, Nebraska airbase where my father worked for the Strategic Air Command. No doubt SAC had bombers lined up on the base`s runways, ready to drop retaliatory nukes on Russian kindergartners. But, alas, I found it small consolation that my annihilation would be swiftly and righteously avenged! Still, I had the satisfaction of knowing that we were the good guys and would never, ever strike first! At the very least, we would die with honor, like the good little Christian boys and girls Jesus had told us to be, despite our miserable sinfulness! Our class`s "bomb drill" consisted of us huddling benightedly beneath our desks until our teacher gave us the "all clear" signal. In those days, children still presumed the adults in charge knew what they were doing, and why. (Today I suspect that trusting adults is one of the many childish things Saint Paul meant for us to put away on our path to enlightenment.)


I also vividly remember the USSR invading Czechoslovakia in 1968. I was ten at the time. My family lived on the outskirts of Wiesbaden, Germany, where my father was stationed at yet another arsenal of democracy. Herr Schellheimer, a German neighbor of ours, happened to be visiting Czechoslovakia when the Russian tanks thundered down the streets of Prague. After he made it back to the relative safety of West Germany, the U.S. military confiscated the pictures he`d taken of the Russian tanks, an action I found disconcerting. Why did they need the pictures of a tourist? Did we have any idea what the Russian tanks were capable of?


In those days it was widely assumed, at least by military brats "in the know," that if the USSR invaded Western Europe, NATO forces would be lucky to hold out long enough for the wives and children of American servicemen (i.e., us) to be evacuated. Whether this was true or not, I have no idea, but it seemed my prized baseball cards and comic books were in the same precarious position as the Mona Lisa: likely to be the spoils of war. I remember hearing what sounded like "strategic plans" akin to Frodo`s in Mordor. We would all fall back, then run desperately for our lives, the minute the vastly superior Russian tanks and ground troops so much as sneezed in our direction. So I understand what it must have felt like for Iraqi schoolchildren to hear rumors that the invincible U.S. tanks were gassing up for an invasion.


In 1968, did we think for a minute that the USSR had the "right" to invade Czechoslovakia? No, of course not. We believed the Czechs had the right to self-determination and self-rule. The USSR was the equivalent of a schoolyard bully who stole nerds` lunch money while stroking his ego at the expense of their humiliation. Could we have imagined any scenario in which it might have been "right" for the USSR to invade Czechoslovakia? No. What the USSR did, it did entirely by might, which made its actions entirely wrong. Being good little Christians, we had been taught in our diapers that might does not make right. If we were sure of anything, it was that Jesus turned the other cheek and wasn`t a bully. The Russians quite obviously were atheists, not Christians like us. But at the very least we would die martyrs to a noble cause! We would never, in a million years, be the ones to strike first! Perhaps that would be our salvation. If we could only summon the courage, we would turn the other cheek, as Jesus bade us, in between bouts of repenting and footwashing.


It was more than obvious to us that the USSR should not have invaded Czechoslovakia, unless perhaps Czechoslovakia had attacked the USSR first. But even then, because the USSR was so much bigger and stronger than Czechoslovakia, the Russians should probably have merely defended their borders. If a teenage boy slapped Mohammed Ali, should Ali pound him to a bloody pulp? The strong can afford to be merciful, can`t they? Only cowards pick on the weak. Or at least that`s what our mothers, teachers and pastors told us. Must I invoke Saint Paul again?


If there`s one thing good little Christians learn in their nappies, it`s that Jesus hates hypocrites with a righteous passion. He told us not to call our brothers names - saying that calling someone "fool" puts us in danger of Judgment - but then he called the hypocrites all sorts of nasty names: fools, hypocrites, vipers, hypocrites, whitened sepulchers full of dead men`s bones, hypocrites. He even said the prostitutes would enter heaven before the hypocrites! If just thinking about sex is a sin that condemns us to hell, and yet prostitutes are far better in God`s eyes than hypocrites, just think of the torments that must await them! If Jesus is going to separate the sheep from the goats, and if he`s consistent and doesn`t change his tune, which we don`t expect someone perfect to do, then it seems it`s essential for Christians not to be hypocritical. And it seems quite obvious to me that if Saint John the Divine is correct, and Jesus is coming back to crush all opposition to God`s rule on earth, in order to establish a kingdom of perfect love, justice and peace, he`ll certainly begin his Doomsday rampage by eliminating his sworn enemies: the hypocrites. Best, then, not to be one! China recently announced its intention to "resolutely crush" the Tibetans who oppose them. Of course Bush and McCain leapt immediately to the defense of the vastly outgunned Tibetans. But what are we doing in Iraq but resolutely crushing the vastly outgunned people who oppose us? Isn`t it the height of hypocrisy for us to be indignant about what we do ourselves, on a far greater and more violent scale? The Chinese don`t like opposition to their plans for Tibet. We don`t like opposition to our plans for Iraq. We both resolutely crush our opposition. We simply do it "the American way," with billions of dollars worth of Hellfire missiles, HARMs, MOABs, and whatever else wows CNN`s shock-n-awe enriched couch potatoes. And what is Jesus himself planning to do, according to the Religious Right, but resolutely crush anyone and everyone who opposes him? He, of course, has everyone outgunned. And what did Jehovah do in the days of yore, but resolutely crush anyone who opposed him, even the newborn Canaanite babies who perished beneath the fearsome swords of Joshua and Caleb? Joshua, I have been told on a number of occasions, is a "type" of Jesus. They share the same Hebrew name: Yeshua. It seems to be a vicious, if not altogether righteous, circle. Upon his entry into the Promised Land, according to the Bible, Joshua`s armies killed Canaanite mothers and children. Upon his glorious return, according to the Moral Majority, Jesus will slaughter billions of Moslem, Hindu and Buddhist mothers and children. If he`s going to destroy two-thirds of the earth in order to save it, that means lots of dead mothers and children, not to mention Wiccans and homosexuals. And heaven help enlightened saints like Gandhi, Einstein and the Dalai Lama, when Jesus returns in all his Righteous Wrath! He`ll save the earth, sure, or at least what remains of it, but only after it lies in smoking ruins. Sounds a lot like Iraq, doesn`t it?


Can this be right, or did someone misinterpret something somewhere along the line? Is it possible that we have misinterpreted the message and intentions of God, if God is Love, as Christians famously profess him to be? I for one certainly hope so. And there does seem to be an intriguing clue in the Bible. As Joshua prepared to invade Canaan and commit, or least attempt, genocide, he saw the Angel of the Lord, the Captain of the Lord of Hosts. When Joshua asked whether the Angel was with him or his "adversaries" (who weren`t looking for trouble, but rather cowering behind Jericho`s walls like nerds avoiding a bully), the Angel said, "Nay" and told him to remove his shoes because he stood on Holy ground. Is there a message for us here today? If there is a God of Love who desires "peace on earth, good will toward man," is it possible that the people of Joshua`s time didn`t understand that Love doesn`t take sides in wars, or slaughter mothers and babies? Do we understand this today?


I read the Bible cover to cover, ten chapters per day, around the age of ten. Oh, how my parents beamed to see me devouring the word of God so industriously! But unfortunately for them, for me, and for God, I fell into deep despair when I learned that God had sentenced everyone I loved to die; that he was the first murderer (having slain animals to give Adam and Eve skins to wear the day of the Fall); that he had drowned trillions of innocent animals at the time of Noah, when men were the ones at fault (why didn`t he send a human-only plague?); that he had demanded the blood of innocent animals to "cover" the sins of the guilty; that he had told the Israelites not to kill, then led them to commit genocide in Canaan only forty years later; and that he had commanded the stoning of backtalking children (me!), slavery, and even the killing of mature women while taking their virgin daughters as sex slaves (Numbers chapter 31). Yes, God despised men for their injustice and immorality, but in his wonderful wisdom, love and grace, he had given us the saving grace of Jesus Christ so that we didn`t have to be perfect like God. God was appeased, even pleased, by the blood of Jesus, and so we were saved from hell (which God had somehow forgotten to ever mention to Adam, Eve, Cain, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, or any of the Hebrew prophets). God and I achieved a Jesus-inspired truce for a period of perhaps three years. Then puberty arrived with a Big Bang.


When I reached puberty, God, Jesus and I had a falling out, a Cold War of our own. Jesus had said that lust was the same as adultery, while my Sunday School teachers informed me in no uncertain terms that all adulterers would burn in hell for all eternity. Once again my big, imaginative brain became the oracle of my own Doom. Girls were pretty and close enough to touch, nearly. God and Jesus were distant, silent, and had quite obviously conspired together to have a flimsy excuse to torture me for all eternity. God gave me sexual desires out the ying-yang, while Jesus damned me for so much as thinking about using my wang. I was the Joker to their Batman and Robin. KA-POW! It was Armageddon for me all over again. Ah, the sweet joys of fundamentalism! No wonder we sometimes long to go to war and blow our enemies to smithereens. We merely emulate our epitomes, who seem dead set on destroying us. I had to choose between burning in hell for all eternity, or giving up my burning passions. Of course I did what any sane man (or boy of thirteen) would do. Like Adam, I chose Eve over God (although at the time "Eve" was a rather mystical concept, since I wasn`t quite sure what women looked like under their unmentionables). At the time of the Cold War, we hadn`t yet unthawed from the frigidity of Puritanism, or at least not in my family. But that was about to change for me, thanks to Hugh Hefner and Bob Guccione. One day a friend of mine "borrowed" some of his father`s Playboys and Penthouses. The rest, as they say, is history. Once I had discovered the real joys of life - Women, Wine and Rock`n`Roll - it was "high time" for me to make like a "Rolling Stone" and leave God and Jesus "Blowin` in the Wind." I remember lying in bed one night, swimming in a bed of tears, like King David (another horrible sinner, like me and Paul), tearfully telling God goodbye forever. I knew I was worthless slime in his eyes, because of my waywardness and lust. Wasn`t that what my Sunday School teachers had been drilling into me from the day I first happily burbled, to their wild applause, "Jesus loves me, this I know, for the Bible tells me so! Little ones to him belong! They are weak, but he is strong! Yes Jesus loves me, etc." But unlike Mohammed Ali, who hopefully didn`t pound the teenage boy into submission, God and Jesus had no sympathy for my teenage rebelliousness. I was weak. They were strong. They demanded that I choose them over Eve, that I "love God with all my heart, mind and soul." But Eve was pretty. Eve was mysterious. Eve was hot. And Eve was, almost, close enough to touch. At least I acted on my conviction. I admitted my miserable sinfulness to God, telling him that I knew I was bound for hell for not being perfect, like him. If there was any "salvation" for me at that moment, perhaps it was that I didn`t become a moralizing hypocrite. I was, at least, an honest sinner acting on my deepest conviction: that girls were hot. Sometimes now I wonder, if there is a God of Love, if he didn`t notice me that night, and make a mental note to himself, "Well at least here`s an honest one. Maybe we can do something with him, someday, if all our other projects don`t work out." (I have little doubt that they didn`t, if the Religious Right is any indication.)


Because of its dogma of an eternal hell, Christianity made me amoral. I knew I was damned to hell for all eternity, so what difference did it make what I did? If you`re a Christian parent, you might want to consider this carefully, very carefully. If you teach your children that there`s an eternal hell, and that lust is the same as adultery, what will happen to them when they hit puberty? But why tell them about an eternal hell that God forgot to mention to anyone in the Old Testament, even his best buds Abraham and Moses? Perhaps God thought life on earth was hell enough. Is your priest or pastor wiser than God Almighty? Did hell slip God`s mind entirely, or did religious experts make it up? But in any case, there was no hope that my mother and father would see their dream of my salvation realized. God and Jesus had conspired to damn me to hell; how could I "love" them? I set off in my pursuit of Eve, which consisted mostly of flipping through the pages of Penthouse trying desperately to imagine what went where.


I grew up to become a staunchly conservative Republican. But over the years pressing worries began to undermine my ultra-conservatism. I was in favor of the death penalty, but time and again I saw that our courts did not - indeed could not - dispense justice evenly, much less perfectly. When the justice system erred, improper incarceration could be corrected, at least to a degree, but an undeserved execution could not. Not did there seem to be any way to end a humane life "humanely." We are perplexingly hard to kill until it`s our time to go. Both compassion and common sense persuaded me that the death penalty was a horrible idea. And while I wanted to believe that when the United States acted militarily, we did so with the best of intentions and a degree of intelligence, the fiasco of our invasion of Iraq soon ended that particular pipe dream. From the onset of the war in Iraq, our ability to "shock and awe" our enemies was altogether obvious. But it was soon just as obvious that we were unable to achieve a good conclusion in Iraq, for all our much-vaunted firepower and "accuracy." Today the price of oil is sky-high, while the cost of the war in terms of lives lost on both sides is incalculable. Yet what have we achieved, really, other than chaos almost infinitely compounded by waste, suffering and death? No one knows what will happen in Iraq the day we pull our troops out. Nor what will happen if we leave them there indefinitely. Only God can bring order out of chaos, and even he seems to have his hands full with Planet Earth. Can we afford to gamble hundreds of thousands of lives and trillions of dollars on a shot in the dark? Why risk everything on a roll of the die, when we can`t begin to calculate the odds against us? For a child the fear of war is a terrible thing. The thing itself is hell on earth. But why on earth put your children through hell when you don`t have a clue what good it can possibly do them, you, or anyone else? Is it better to be a man than a mouse? At least mice have the good sense to desert a sinking ship. But do we? Yes, the United States military has the firepower to bring most countries to their knees. But so what? Do we have even the slightest ability to leave them better off than we found them? All we can do with any certainty is scuttle the ship, then get sucked into its vortex - a maelstrom of our own making. When we create chaos, we have no idea what the conclusion will be. If we don`t know that a good conclusion can be achieved, why the phenomenal waste of lives, resources, money and time?


As long as the threat of war exists on the planet, a strong national defense is both wise and prudent. We can and should do what we can to defend ourselves and our children. And no, we shouldn`t be isolationists. We must always remember what happened to the snail when it ducked its head into its shell, and what happened to Europe when it allowed Hitler to violate his borders. We should demand that the United Nations assume its proper role in policing the globe and helping to resolve international, territorial and civil disputes. When a predominately Muslim nation has a situation that requires some sort of intervention, we should employ a modicum of reason and let other Muslim nations assume the lead roles. We should prove the goodness and sincerity of our intentions by being willing to play a supporting role, such as providing humanitarian aid. We should act with wisdom and prudence on the international stage. We should be aware that we are increasingly viewed with suspicion, and rightly so, just as the schoolyard bully is by the lunchless nerds he assaults and the defenseless girls he ogles. He too believes that what`s good for him is good for the goose. So does every randy gander. But do we want randy ganders to come near our wives, daughters and sisters with their pants unzipped? If we can`t behave with a degree of civility on the international scene, we have become the bully, the rapist, the oppressor. It`s high time to zip up our pants, holster our guns, and learn to abide by international law, like gentlemen. If we choose to be more civil will the results be perfect? Of course not. Will justice ever be perfectly served? When has it ever been? We live in uncertain times on a highly imperfect planet. Until every human being renounces violence forever, the globe will invariably have its hot spots. But perhaps we can stop adding fuel to the fire and fanning the flames. I have another childhood memory - one of watching schoolchildren setting fire to crickets, just to see them burn, in a sort of bizarre "experiment." Dare I say that Iraqi children are going up in flames over our current "experiment" in sword-induced Democracy?


Are we truly dedicated to the proposition that all men, women and children are created equal, and that they have the right to pursue life, liberty and happiness? Or do we believe that they can only pursue life, liberty and happiness on our terms? Are we that wise? Is our own house in such wonderfully good order? Is it possible that people in other countries might prefer to be able to eat and live in relative (if imperfect) peace, than to vote this minute? Is the vote itself in any way a panacea? Millions of Americans have voted for government officials, even presidents, who have lied to them, betrayed them, taken bribes, perjured themselves, and played the fool and the hypocrite, often simultaneously. How many moralizing ethical geniuses have we elected, who seldom if ever bothered to practice what they preached? Is the "American way" in any real or measurable way "better" than other methods, or do we simply have such abundance that we can abide bad governance, rampant hypocrisy, shameless graft and ludicrous spending of our tax dollars, while still having something left for ourselves at the end of the day? Do we thrive because of democracy and capitalism, or in spite of them? Do we even know? If not, why not let every nation evolve toward democracy and capitalism at its own speed, not ours? And who knows but that one day a better system might emerge? One day we might be able to accurately measure the integrity, maturity, compassion and competence of human beings. On that day, wouldn`t it make sense to let those best equipped to lead us, do so? We pay superior athletes the highest salaries because they are demonstrably superior. Perhaps one day we`ll be able to measure the attributes that make a good leader, rather than hoping, believing and praying that what they say might be true. A friend of mine recently informed me that his company`s clients now employ a test developed by a Nobel prize winner which allows them to gauge the integrity and compassion of job applicants. According to my friend, his company`s clients have seen marked increases in "good hires" and decreases in theft since they started using the test. What if we could use such tests for teachers, prison guards, policemen, judges and politicians? What if we were able to measure the integrity, maturity and compassion of people in positions of authority? Can we afford to be dogmatic about a "vote in the dark," when dogma seems to be one of the worst banes of human existence?


Have we learned nothing from the Dalai Lama, Martin Luther King Jr., Mahatma Gandhi, or Jesus Christ? Perhaps we should practice, if not exactly turning the other cheek, at least a degree of patience before we charge in like vigilantes with guns ablaze. Human nature being what it is, I don`t advocate beating our swords into ploughshares just yet. But I do advocate making the sword the very last and always most reluctant implement in our arsenal. I say this for a very practical reason. It makes no sense for me to risk suffering and death for my son, or your daughter, when the odds are so incalculably against us that I can`t possibly compute them. Are we "making the world safe for democracy" or ensuring its downfall? Does anyone really know? I admit that I don`t. Not a clue. Perhaps honesty is so lacking in American politics today that the "adults" in charge prefer to put our children through hell rather than publically admit "we don`t know what good we`re doing, if any." Or perhaps they`re so deluded they actually believe the words that unaccountably gush from their mouths whenever we give them a forum. Being dogmatic seems to lead invariably to hypocrisy. Take, for instance, the dogma that American was founded on Christian principals. George Washington famously never told a lie, as illustrated by the charming story about the cherry tree. But he had sworn a solemn oath to the King of England when he served as an officer for the British, which he broke. The Boston Tea Party obviously involved theft. Both Jesus and Paul taught unequivocally that authorities should always be obeyed. Am I saying it was wrong for the Americans to rebel? No. But I am saying that the rationales and methods of the American Revolutionaries quite clearly violated Biblical injunctions not to disobey authorities, evade taxes, steal, kill, lie, or break (or even make) oaths. Now we have the strange belief that the United States was founded on the Ten Commandments, when it is quite clearly based on the rights of men. Does the Bible teach that men have the right to violate the Law? No, of course not. Jesus said that not one jot or tittle would pass from the Law until all was fulfilled. He also said, "If ye love me, ye will keep my commandments." His commandments were most definitely not to refuse to pay taxes, rebel against ruling authorities, lie, steal, and kill! Today we have the outlandish hypocrisy that Jesus is our archetype, when we are clearly our own archetype. But then why condemn homosexuals because "God said" homosexuality is an "abomination." According to the Bible, God also said that eating shellfish is an abomination. Christians have the curious habit of saying they`re "not under the Law" while cherishing it fervently for others. Isn`t the root of our hypocrisy: that "we" have the grace of God while "they" don`t? When it suits our needs, we can kill Iraqis on the flimsiest of pretenses. But if a man is intimate with another man, that`s an "abomination" which "God hates" and will likely bring Katrinas or Asteroids down on our heads. The level of hypocrisy and lack of reason on both sides of the political fence is shocking, saddening, sickening, disgusting. Not long ago, I caught a few minutes of a debate between the major Democratic presidential candidates. Of course they all routinely and roundly criticized Bush for his handling/mishandling of the war in Iraq. But when asked what they would do if Musharref wouldn`t allow elections in Pakistan, they all quite calmly and "reasonably" discussed invading Pakistan! Now let me get this straight. The Bush administration is to be castigated for its mishandling of our problems with Iraq and Saddam Hussein, but somehow it`s still a "reasonable" idea to invade a nuclear-armed, sovereign nation in order to take out an ally who not only has never attacked us, but has indeed helped us on any number of occasions, at considerable risk to himself? Not that I`m a fan of Musharref. Far from it. But neither am I in any way a fan of the candidates, who probably disagreed on every other subject, and yet were unaccountably of one accord on the question of invading Pakistan. I can`t see why Bush`s reasoning is wrong because he`s Bush, and a Republican, while their reasoning is valid because they`re them, and Democrats. If it was a bad idea to invade Iraq, allegedly our enemy, then how can it be not be an incredibly bad idea to even consider invading Pakistan, demonstrably our ally? The fact that the candidates all seemed to agree on the question of invading Pakistan troubles me deeply. Do we want that sort of consensus? Do we somehow see ourselves as the self-appointed saviors of the globe? How can we, when we consider our recent track record? Can it be that, because we`re a "Christian" nation, our leaders have Messiah complexes? Why do Bush, McCain, Clinton and Obama all sound so alike when they talk about themselves? My estimation of the Democratic presidential candidates dropped precipitously that night. Between them and McCain, it seems we`re likely to invade Pakistan or Iran at the drop of a hat, no matter who gets elected. Perhaps Saint John the Divine was onto something, after all. Who knows but that my childhood foreshadowing of Doom may have also been true, and only slightly premature?


Does anyone have the foggiest notion of what will happen in Iraq next month, next year, ten years from now, or a hundred years from now? If not, then why don`t we consider pulling out our troops as quickly as possible, letting the United Nations step into the breech, and offering primarily humanitarian aid? Why should we line up our troops-our own children!-like ducks in a shooting gallery, when we don`t know what their deaths, mutilations and amputations will accomplish? Do I have a clue if the next ruler of Iraq will be better or worse than Saddam Hussein? No, I don`t. Does anyone? Does Hillary Clinton have the slightest clue what will happen to Pakistan, or the world, if she "takes out" Musharref? Does Barack Obama, or John McCain?


In my long-winded, rambling way, I have finally come down to the question at hand: is there ever a time when one country has the right to invade another country? No, I would say not. If there is ever another invasion of a sovereign nation, it should be by a consortium of nations like the United Nations acting to defend a weaker country from a stronger aggressor. It`s high time for the world to define its borders and stick to them. But there are non-lethal methods that can and should be employed before any invasion of a sovereign nation. If one country violates another`s borders, perhaps there should be an automatic international blockade of the offender. In these days of globalization, how many countries can do without imported gasoline, foodstuffs, etc., for any length of time? Such an international law might quite possibly have stopped Hitler in his tracks, the first time he exceeded his bounds. Will there be imperfections and setbacks? Undoubtedly. But at least the world will suffer and endure them together. And what have we ever had but imperfections and setbacks when bullying nations have acted unilaterally? Human lifespans are exceedingly short, in the eternal scheme of things. The worst of tyrants are invariably deposed by death. Is it worth the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocents to bring one villain to "justice," especially when, in the process, we turn our own children into killers, with all that implies and entails? It`s bad enough to kill in self defense. But if I travel thousands of miles to shoot someone on his own turf, who believes in his heart that he`s defending his home, his family, his freedom, his faith, and his way of life, am I in any way "in the right"? Are our troops in Iraq "defending freedom," or are they engaged in the equivalent of a gang bang between the Crips and the Bloods? If my son kills an Iraqi on Iraqi ground, is he automatically right, somehow, simply because he`s an American? Because he`s a Christian? Because he`s my son? How can anyone be "in the right" if he kills someone else on that person`s native ground, and yet that person`s country never attacked his? If my son killed a neighbor because he "thought" the neighbor "might" have "some kind of weapon" that "could possibly" be used against us "someday," would I call him a hero? Don`t get me wrong. I`m not condemning our soldiers. But I am questioning our leaders` morality and perhaps their sanity. If my religious and cultural beliefs include sacrificing children to bloodthirsty Gods, should I be allowed to slit my son`s throat, as Abraham almost killed Isaac (according to the Bible)? Self-evidently, no. The freedom to adhere to a religion or culture must have reasonable limits. In a civilized nation, such "lines in the sand" must be drawn at points that keep one person from harming another person unfairly. Religious or cultural beliefs that cause one person to be treated as "inferior" to other people due to circumstances of birth, social class or standing, etc., are anti-democratic and therefore un-American. I am reminded of a story my business partner, a black man, once told me: when his father was a boy growing up in Mississippi, he was ordered to call little white boys "sir." I was shocked, immediately understanding how such a seemingly small slight could hurt a young boy, both in his own eyes and in the eyes of his peers. Any nation, religion or culture that allows one child to be favored over another can hardly be called "civilized." And yet the basis of many religions is that God "favors" one person over another. For instance, in the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament ), God favored the Israelites over their neighbors and commanded ethnic cleansing and genocide, the "slaying of everything that breathes." As a result, religious fanatics like Moses, Joshua, Caleb and King David decided that "thou shalt not kill" did not extend to Canaanite women and children. According to the Bible, the "man after God`s own heart," David, killed every woman when he "smote the land." Today unfortunately the same outmoded thinking persists in Israel/Palestine, where people who consider themselves the "chosen few" try to rule others by the divine right of birth. If we want peace rather than racial violence and war, it`s time to tell people of every religion and culture that "superiority" ends where the law begins, with equality. If my religious and cultural beliefs include sacrificing children to bloodthirsty Gods, should I be allowed to slit my son`s throat, as Abraham almost killed Isaac (according to the Bible)? Self-evidently, no. The freedom to adhere to a religion or culture must have reasonable limits. In a civilized nation, such "lines in the sand" must be drawn at points that keep one person from harming another person unfairly. Religious or cultural beliefs that cause one person to be treated as "inferior" to other people due to circumstances of birth, social class or standing, etc., are anti-democratic and therefore un-American. I am reminded of a story my business partner, a black man, once told me: when his father was a boy growing up in Mississippi, he was ordered to call little white boys "sir." I was shocked, immediately understanding how such a seemingly small slight could hurt a young boy, both in his own eyes and in the eyes of his peers. Any nation, religion or culture that allows one child to be favored over another can hardly be called "civilized." And yet the basis of many religions is that God "favors" one person over another. For instance, in the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament ), God favored the Israelites over their neighbors and commanded ethnic cleansing and genocide, the "slaying of everything that breathes." As a result, religious fanatics like Moses, Joshua, Caleb and King David decided that "thou shalt not kill" did not extend to Canaanite women and children. According to the Bible, the "man after God`s own heart," David, killed every woman when he "smote the land." Today unfortunately the same outmoded thinking persists in Israel/Palestine, where people who consider themselves the "chosen few" try to rule others by the divine right of birth. If we want peace rather than racial violence and war, it`s time to tell people of every religion and culture that "superiority" ends where the law begins, with equality. I`ll be interested to hear what you think. There is a simple, effective cure for racism and man`s tribal impulses: fair (nonracist) laws and courts. They`re not perfect, but here in the USA they ended the worst large-scale, systematic racial injustices. After World War II and the Holocaust, Jews were able to live in Germany despite the recent horrors, once Germany was no longer a fascist state. The main problems in Israel are racism and fascism (i.e., people of one race/ideology believing they have the "right" to crush the people of another race/ideology, even defenseless women and children. The solution to the problem is very simple, if only the USA had the wisdom and guts to require Israel to establish fair laws and courts.

food for thought

It would be nice if human beings abandoned racism and the tribal impulse voluntarily. But human nature is what it is, although it continues to evolve. Until Jews and Christians are willing to actually follow the instructions of the Hebrew prophets and Jesus Christ (practice compassion and social justice), the only thing that stands between us and the jungle are fair laws and courts. If Americans don`t "get smart" soon, we may pay a terrible price for not requiring Israel to do what we did ourselves, when we ended Jim Crow laws and kangaroo courts. This is something conservatives and liberals should be able to agree on. When children are being deprived of equal rights and freedom because a "superior" race considers them to have been "born wrong," perhaps moral outrage is in order. Are you in favor of racism and fascism? When did I say anything like that? I pointed out that our government`s actions in the Middle East helped bring about 9-11. I didn`t say acting more rationally would cure all the world`s ills, but obviously it would help. But if we acted more rationally, they might not fear us as much. So it makes sense to change the way our government acts.

I simply point out the obvious: that if American men harm other men`s women and children, we open a Pandora`s box of evils. The sane thing is to stop harming Muslim women and children, for the sake of our own survival. If you think it is morally correct to kill stone age people and/or steal their natural resources just because you can, I disagree with you, but it this case the "stone age people" will soon have nuclear weapons When did I say anything like that? I pointed out that our government`s actions in the Middle East helped bring about 9-11. I didn`t say acting more rationally So what "worked" in the past will not work in the future. Hopefully you don`t think killing and dispossessing stone age people is morally correct, because that would make you a fascist, like Hitler.

9-11 was the result of Israeli and American hubris and stupidity. The wise thing to do is to abandon the hubris and stupidity that have cost us so many lives and so much money.

What "feel-good fluff" are you talking about? I don`t think we should harm and kill women and children in the Middle East. That`s just decent morality and common sense. But you seem to be unable to read and understand what I wrote, so perhaps you should stick to the kiddie amusements yourself.
Michael Burch:
Debate with HA ANDREWS

"Does any country have the right to invade another and impose its values on it?"

Harrison Alfred Andrews

Sir Harry responds:

Ah yes, the ad hominem the last resort of the liberal ideologue! The liberal must delve right away to the name calling to assure himself of his moral superiority. What follows the name calling is the slogans. It`s for "the Children." "The Children," that`s a great catchword here in the US. I do recall in the days when some news leaked out of Irak, a report of an Arab attack on US forces always concluded with the addendum: "And Children were killed (or injured) in the attack." International order does not turn on the catchphrases of a US School Board Election. Nor is the international order run by the by-words of US constitutionalism. Equal rights, protection of minorities is a US concept which most nations of the world do not acknowledge in either theory or practice. Indeed that concept came late to the US. It isn`t in the original document. Most of the world accepts that minorities are up for sport. Think of what the Arab oil Lords do with Christian minorities. The US no longer has the type of power to force these places to pay lip service to our way of thinking. The US simply lacks the financial and military resources to force the rest of the world to abide by the US Constitution, however an admirable document that maybe. There is a distinct difference between liberal and conservative thinking. The boundary line is objectivity and realism. The world can be divided only into friends, enemies, and interests. The first two come and go; only the latter is permanent to any extent. Ideology has nothing to do with real world politics. You speak of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. A cynical view of the Israeli - Palestinian problem can be stated in Darwinian terms: inconsistent species seeking to occupy the same niche. The cynic might tell you that a struggle for the same niche defies any hedonistic, feel-good, good guy American solution.

America is the exception as long as we devolving into the anarchy of pluralism and ethnic or communal violence multi-culturalism: Greek v Turk, Israeli v Palestinian, Paki v Hindi, Chinese v Tibetan or Vietnamese or Korean or Jap, just to name a few, that`s the rule. In spite of his commitment to a certain sense of scientificism, the liberal sees the world at least in theory with rose colored glasses. Everything evil in it is either the US`s fault or the US`s problem. A true Conservative could not join you in an ideal daydream about the nature of the world. At present US hegemony or the fiction of it holds the pleasant liberal dream together with only the occasional unpleasant reminder of what lurks beneath the surface, such as 9-11.

The sticky point is the liberal concept of"rationality." Your definition of rational international behaviour foresees that if we`re reasonable with them, they`ll be nice to us. Rather in most cases what you define as rational or reasonable behaviour is taken as weakness and invites attack. This is what I mean when I say you live in a day dream. For all your hate America speech that the US continent was stolen from stone age peoples, you invariably fall back on inflated and empty us moral outcries and self-serving US feel-good moralism all enshrined in a mythological version of World War II which you accept as an article of faith.

All life is a competition for superiority in possessing limited resources. When the US stumbles and falls naturally the Arabs will get even. Will that happen later today tomorrow or in some indefinite future, I don`t know. I agree with you to the extent that, as the three Rs of international order are: revenge, reprisal and retribution, the day must be prepared for. You liberals lean on an assumed morality. In international affairs there is winning, losing and holding on. Moral correctness is not essential to any phase of it. Moral blow-bagging may be a US trait on which you do not have an exclusive monopoly. On that point throughout the oil wars in the Middle East, it was The Bush and his father who piled on all that feel-good fluff with which you liberals wax eloquently. Bubba on the other hand in his bombings of Baghdad or Belgrade or his attack on a shoe factory in Sudan merely acted to distract attention from his private peccadilloes. At the time, I said to ensure world Peace we ought to have bought Bubba the Mustang Ranch. Heck, Bubba banged away at Belgrade and Baghdad because he was caught raping White House aides?

On the other hand, think of someone more saintly James Earl Carter. How might history have been written had saintly Jimmy Carter instead of squeaking like a mouse bombed Tehrran into the stone age and stole their oil in reprisal for the taking of the US embassy? Regretfully, the what-for is what teaches the others their manners. It may not seem reasonable to you but when you bruise your enemy badly, he thinks before he takes his next move.

Contrary to the World War II good guy myth, the Germans don`t love you for bombing the stuffing out of them; neither do the French. it`s the law of nature, a harsh law that you can violate only so many times before you`re struck down by it. 9-11 ought to have been a wake up call. foreigners do get even, but 9-11 is buried somewhere in the myth of moral superiority.

You ask me: was America founded on a lie? All Empires are subject to the forces of history independent of their ideology. Usually a major cause for their decline is buying into their own fluff.



Obama-nation? Is that a country where little girls and boys moo to a myth of parental dominance? Is it S & M? Is it a country where morons pretend they are educated because they sympathize with weaklings and welfare recipients? Is it a land where a dictator-in-waiting still pretends that he cares for the people? Is it Mussolini in mufti?

~Awesome David Lawrence

L. Lawrence

Uncle Luke, the hip-hop rapper and founder of 2 Live Crew scolds Florida for not getting out the vote, and by Florida he means African Americans. In his recent Miami`s New Times column he excoriates his constituents for staying at home. By doing so, they have given up their right to complain when every housing project in Florida puts up barbed wire fences. They should no longer moan, he says, when the state administers drug tests before issuing them food stamps. Clearly this is a voting block to be reckoned with.

According to Luke, these missing Democrat votes from the entitlement seeking slackers, loafers, and druggies, could have sidelined the Republican victory in Florida. Something tells me Uncle Luke needs a drug test of his own before writing his next column. Or does he?

Geoff Jackson:

The big news seems to be the foreclosures on home owners in the US.

In Merry Olde, I reject The Lord Dean`s suggestion that The Queen`s Christmas address was an oblique expression of displeasure to a political figure. I can't imagine the Queen and HM Government being at loggerheads, particularly since the speech is read by HMG (the PM?) beforehand. I would rather suggest that the Queen's reference to sport has to do with bribery scandals in cricket and soccer plus the usual doping.

It also has to with the soccer world cup competition being awarded to Russia and Quatar, which English people believe was regulated by bribes.

On German news tonight, they referred to over a hundred players going to be put on trial for rigging matches. One player, who bet a fortune he had got in bribes, claims to be in fear of his life from the criminal underworld.

There are problems between Norway and China due to the fact that The Nobel Peace Prize has been given to a Chinese dissident currently in prison.

Otherwise, a wave of success for the extreme right is sweeping Europe. In my view, this is due to a very open immigration policy over the last 25 years combined with economic problems and unemployment hitting young white people particularly.

Moreover, there has been a natural calamity in Hungary due to a massive release of heavy metals including arsenic onto the land, into the ground water and into the Danube.

By the way, the three economists, who won the Nobel Prize for Economics, are putting forward a new thesis to tackle unemployment.

Susan Marie Davniero:


Season entrance
Roaring winds dance
Winter welcome snow
Shining ice aglow
Clouds gather round
Moving snow bound
Crystal flakes fly
White heaven sky
Fade the flowers
Winter is ours


Fall remains behind
Out of winter`s find
Brisk cold walks
Muffled talks
Fireplace warmth
The home`s hearth
Silent snow fall
Wintry call
Sun tucked away
At close of day
By nature`s chart
Behold winter`s art


Republican Presidential CandidateAndy Martin says Google may be manipulating its search engine results to eliminate reports for opponents of Barack Obama Martin is asking Google for an investigation and written response from Google before deciding whether to seek legal action

(CHICAGO)(January 19, 2011) Republican Presidential Candidate Andy Martin has written to Google`s legal department and requested an investigation into whether Google search engine algorithms have been doctored to restrain reporting on opponents of Barack Obama.

I have not seen Google`s internal search algorithms, but I note that Google has considerably reduced reporting through its Google News and Google Alerts for a very visible and vocal opponent of Barack Obama. We have previously documented how Wikipedia is an extension of the Obama campaign smear machine. And we will have more to say about Wikipedia fraud at a Friday news conference. Now it appears that Google is also falling into line with the Obama disinformation apparatus. Based on my external knowledge of Google`s algorithms, it appears the search criteria have been doctored to remove names of persons who oppose Barack Obama. I suspect the algorithms have been modified to remove the names of Obama`s vocal opponents from Google`s systems. Google should disclose whether it is modifying algorithms to censor Barack Obama`s opponents. Google may be censoring Obama adversaries to limit their exposure and to understate the extent of their activity.


Chicago NPR calls Andy a "boisterous Internet activist."

Susan Marie Davniero:


Here is my heart
Lest us never part
Love alters not
Passions of hot
No one ever loved
As my beloved
Wedded in time
My Valentine


This Valentine Day
A heartfelt way
To unwrap a surprise
The love underlies
A gift of gold
Embrace to hold
Love confess
Is so priceless
A loving touch
None too much
A glance will play
Upon you to say
Words to be true
Say I love you


Valentine Day’s around
Lovers are found
Taking their part
Messages of the heart
Spreading the love
By mailman’s rove
Cards, candy, flowers
In loving showers
By postal tender
Gifts of sender
Yet, coming next
The e-mail express

Dr. Charles Frederickson:

The quintessential sum of all fears is called phobophobia, the fear of fear itself, the most pervasive conditioned response to perceived dangerous threats and uncertain future events. Afraid to know ourselves as we really are, we must learn how to reflect upon what has been, while acknowledging what is, thereby recognizing what can be. Yesterday perpetuates today, while tomorrows are still yesterdays-in-waiting.

The source of fear manifests itself in a multitude of perverse forms – as hatred, loathing, frustration, anger, fury, impatience, jealousy, envy, intolerance. The opposites of worrisome fear are self-awareness, social security and others-oriented empathy. Fear prejudices courage, your emotionally disturbed feelings craving a hug. Spontaneous multi-sensory perception involves seeing with open-minded ears, hearing with refocused eyes, marveling at the glorious wonders of nature, creatively breathing in the surrounding aromas with a heightened sixth sense. Children afraid of the dark too often grow up to be wary adulterers, living a shadowy existence, afraid of the light. Replace the darkroom where negatives are developed with glossy image exposures. Trade in the victim mentality, become your own Savior and take responsibility for inner peace enlightenment. The key to pragmatic believer positive thinking is that it must be constantly refined and practiced, while accepting that nothing can ever be fully perfected.

Those who never take any risks ironically live with a nagging dread of something going wrong. It is infinitely easier and more satisfying to dare to dare to try new ways and means to tackle bogged down challenges and to conquer imposed hurdles by jumping over them. Ships were not designed to remain moored in the harbor. Fear of the unknown is best overcome by simply doing it. Generate a positive, can do, will do attitude, lift your rusty anchor, mentally refuel your empty tank, rev up your stalled engine and set sail to wherever. Bon Voyage!

~ Dr. Charles Frederickson

Michael R. Burch:
Child of 9-11

a poem for Christina-Taylor Green,
who was born on September 11, 2001
and died at the age of nine, shot to death ...

Child of 9-11, beloved,
I bring this lily, lay it down
here at your feet, and eiderdown,
and all soft things, for your gentle spirit.
I bring this psalm — I hope you hear it.

Much love I bring — I lay it down
here by your corpse, which is not you,
but what you left to this world of grief
to help us learn what we must do
to save another child like you.

Child of 9-11, I know
you are not here, but watch afar
from a distant star, where angels rue
the terrible things some mortals do.

I also watch; I also rue.
And so I make this pledge and vow:
though I may weep, I will not rest
nor will my pen fail any test
till guns and wars and hate are banned
from every shore, from every land.

Child of 9-11, I grieve
your gentle life, cut short. Bereaved,
what can I do, but pledge my life
to saving lives like yours? Belief
in who you were has led me here ...

I give my all: my pen, this tear,
this lily and this eiderdown,
and all soft things my heart can bear;
I bear them to your final bier,
and leave them with my promise, here.

David Lawrence:


It has become redundantly boring to hear the left wingers consistently calling the right wingers violent, bomb toting maniacs. They pose as humanitarian, gentle pacifists. They believe that they are good human beings. Yet if you look at the left wingers of the world in Russia, China, Korea, Cuba, Cambodia, Vietnam you will discover that they have committed over one hundred million murders.

Beneficent? Gentle? Humanistic?

Give me a break. Even the reputed worst monsters in history, the Nazis, only killed about twenty million people. That makes the communists five times worse.

Check out Stanley Kurtz`s "Radical-in-Chief" and you will see Obama`s deep, extensive socialistic connections. He is either malicious or ignorant of the left wing`s crimes. Don`t forget that Obama was born a Moslem. In one of the ironies of life the Moslems and the left wingers have formed an alliance.

From my gym in Brooklyn I look out at the empty space in lower Manhattan where the World Trade Towers used to stand. What American heartless fools would vote in a President who was born a Moslem even if he later converted to Christianity?

In Germany if you were born a Jew there was no conversion. Moslems were sympathetic to Nazis. By Obama`s father you shall know him. By his roots you shall pluck out the plant.


Pert Katie Couric endorses a Muslim-themed “Cosby Show” to do for Islamacists what Cosby did for blacks. Katie is the spoiled child of an emancipated western system. It amazes me that she would want to support the Muslims, the unwitting enemies of females, whose theocratic/political history shows such disrespect and violence towards women. She wants to support the same men who hide women behind berqas, stone women to death for committing adultery, honor kill their own daughters for dating westerners, perform cliterectomies to guarantee girls won`t have any sexual pleasure and in Saudi Arabia won`t allow their female family members to drive or to go out into the world unescorted by men. And here`s a biggie Katie, Muslim women get shafted in divorces. Tell your sisters. No alimony.

Right on Katie. Do you even have a clue as to who you are? Do you realize the gift that you have living in America? Do you really want to insult African-Americans by suggesting that they are as cruel as male chauvinistic Muslims? Do you realize that African-American males were victims, not terrorizing misogynists?


The New York Times, once again the paper of left wing ideology and blame-slinging, has an article on the front page on Tuesday, January 11th, entitled, “In Gifford’s District, a Long History of Tension.”

Duh. So what? Political tensions have absolutely nothing to do with a psychotic gunman. Even if Jared Loughner tried to use politics to justify his acts, his acts were still the deranged deeds of a madman.

If the Times thinks that healthcare is so vitriolic, why don’t they blame Obama for introducing it rather than the people for rejecting its horrendous propositions.

It’s not that the Times’ article on Gabrielle Giffords was so bad; the problem is in the Times placement of it on the front page as if the link between the politics in Gifford’s District and Loughner’s presence there was the cause of the murders. The conjoining of two unrelated issues detracts from the fact that the cause of the murders was Loughner’s own madness.

Only a liberal paper with its political correctness would fail to call a murderer a murderer and try to make up political excuses for him. Lacking clear moral distinctions, caught in a relativistic world, liberals speak a wishy-washy, confused language. Remember that they won’t even call a terrorist a terrorist.

Even if Loughner used politics as the cause of his murder spree it would not be so. Murder will out. He would have done it anyway.

I bought the January 11th copy of the Times just to see what’s up. I feel let down. I will never buy such an arrogant, pompous, misleading, bigoted, scapegoating newspaper again. The Gray Lady has become a gat-toothed, angry, finger pointer. She doesn’t even have the sense of humor of the Wife of Bath.


It`s ironic that liberal left-wingers insist on a separation of church and state. Yet they are sympathetic to socialism and communism where the church is the state. In other words, the dictates of the planners are imposed upon the worshipful citizens.

The planners of communism or socialism are their Gods. Communism is a theocratic system where ideas rain down from the executive heaven. Ideas are deductively imposed upon citizens. Society is not an inductively developed, free organism but a logical, unemotional pattern imposed by autocratic socialistic bullies.

Democrats, liberals, communists and socialist are all varying shades of peas in a pod. Their color is the green of hypocrisy and envy. They want to beat up the common worker while they pretend that they are protecting him. They want to redistribute wealth into their pockets.

Liberals are fascists renamed socialists. They kill with a deceptively good name. They stultify creativity. Have you ever met a communist whose laugh isn`t sardonic? They have no sense of humor. The joke of omnipotent government is on them.


Followers of socialism and communism are anal retentive. They can not go with the flow of free enterprise and need to establish strictures and rules within the framework of a nationalized government.

Socialists are often well-educated academics. Academics are organized, fascistic personalities who spend their lives with their noses buried in books because they are afraid to face the vicissitudes of the real, pragmatic world. While they may be book- smart, they are life-stupid.

If you look at the history of extreme socialism or communism their countries almost always ended up in failed economies and autocratic blood baths—Russia, China, Cambodia, Cuba, Vietnam, etc. Only a fool would want to repeat the horrors of communism. Even these ideological countries have morphed into survival mode and have been loosening their strangleholds on their people, moving towards free enterprise.

Yet Obama wants to push the freest country in the world, America, in that direction. Worse, he has the support of a bunch of our most book- educated and nanny-chasing poor people.

Hey, I have a Ph.D. in literature. It doesn`t mean that I want to strangle the freedom of America. The brain should not always dictate to the heart.

If this country wants to discover a new model for the future we should rediscover our own Constitution and be open to the clash of ideas instead of institutionalized government and union bullying. We should get rid of being led by anal retentive wimps. We should take a suppository and let freedom spurt out.


Sheriff Dupnick is trying to turn the shooting of twenty people at Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords` Arizona rally into a political rant against the conservative media. He is trying to pervert a Blue Dog moderate Congresswoman`s work into his own personal, political tirade.

While one might forgive his bigotry, it`s impossible not to be shocked by his stupidity. He basically blames the shooting on the vitriolic rhetoric of Republicans. If vitriolic rhetoric is so corrosive, why did only one lone nut, Jared Loughner, pull the trigger?

Don`t millions of us hear this rhetoric? Why weren`t there hordes of shooters in Arizona? Dupnick is either stupid or so blinded by his anti-conservative bigotry that he can`t see that one homicidal maniac does not a movement make. Loughner is a lone wolf not a poster boy for Dupnick`s hatred of the Tea Party Movement.


One of Chris Mathews major problems on “Hardball” is that he talks over his guests. It`s as if he wants to swallow them. That baritone looks delicious. Let me eat up his spate of the conversation.

He is a leftwing fanatic who calls all conservatives rightwing fanatics. He is fanatic about his fanaticism.

Lately he has accused Mark Levin and Michael Savage of creating a climate of hate that led to the Tucson shootings

Pretty amazing when you consider that the killer, Jared Loughner, was a pot-smoking quasi left-winger. If he were dictated by politics he would have shot a conservative, not Giffords, a democrat.

For Loughner there was no climate of hate. He was blown by the insane winds of his own deranged mind.

He was a vicious Hamlet, pushed to madness only when the winds blew north-north-west.

Loughner doesn`t listen to talk radio. Yet Mathews accuses it of driving Loughner to murder.

Do you think it`s time “Hardball” was taken off the air? Mathews is playing soft ball with his diminishing audience.

The Republicans and Democrats want to sit together at Obama`s State of the Union address. This is their meretricious idea of a Cumbaya extended moment. Their group hand-holding is supposed to make up for the deaths and the maiming of the people at Gabriella Clifford`s Arizona pep political rally.

Is this preplanned foolish bathetic idea to bring together overly ambitious politicians a way to make them seem like compassionate human beings? Will this bring back the nine year old girl whose organs are being divvied out to other children?

Politicians are so desirous of being involved in every situation that they want to have a Congressional sit-down to show that they are part of the killings. But they are not. They should not be adapting their behavior to the misfortune of Jarred Johnson`s lunacy. They should not use six deaths to find incidents of appeasement amongst each other.

Politicians are so busy selling themselves that they have little self-identify. They almost identify with the killer. They imagine that their seating arrangement at the State of the Union teleprompter event is somehow significant in the tragedy that was not theirs. They want to soul kiss Jared Lougham`s madness. They feel left out while they engross themselves in arrogant judgment.

Charles Fredrickson

The curious wonder of teaching lies in awakening expectations – watching fuzzy caterpillars break out of their cozy insular cocoons; turn over a new leaf; realize their fullest potential by spreading transformed fragile wings to discover the showy infinite glories of nature.

No Holds Bard {<^>}

Michael Burch:
Reflections on Christina

What can we do when innocent children like Christina-Taylor Green are killed senselessly? We can do all we can to prevent the next senseless murder. That means adults need to act like adults: we need to end the wild proliferation of weapons, politicians spewing lies, hatred and intolerance, and people acting as if the Bible and the Constitution give them the right to abandon reason and go on the warpath. We know the things we need to do, if we want our children to live in a safer, better world. We cannot allow the NRA and fearmongering politicians who speak and behave like fascists to rule our lives and endanger innocent children. If we want to live in a safer world, we need to make a pledge to protect the innocent and put an end to the bullying we see everywhere around us. How can this happen? The answer is simple. How did we end child sacrifice, witch hunts and slavery? We decided as a society that such things are not acceptable. Today we need to decide, as a society, that things that endanger innocent children are not acceptable. This means telling politicians like Sarah Palin to tone down their overheated rhetoric. It means telling the NRA to back off. It means telling politicians that we are not willing to send our children to die in wars to “secure” foreign oilfields or to “support” allies of ours who practice systematic racial and creedal injustices against their own citizens. We need to abandon the lie that we were attacked without cause on 9-11. We were attacked on 9-11 because our government constantly interferes in the Middle East, and has aided and abetted racist actions of Israel that have caused millions of Palestinians to suffer terribly for over sixty years. Many completely innocent Palestinian women and children have died as a result. If we consider how we feel when one child is killed unjustly, we should be able to understand how Palestinians feel when their children are killed unjustly, and are forced to live in giant walled ghettos and concentration camps while other people constantly steal their land and water. Now the fear, anger and despair caused by 9-11 and two decade-long wars are causing some Americans to go on the warpath, or to surrender to intolerance and injustices against Muslims, even those who are law-abiding American citizens. If we want our children to grow up in safety, we cannot allow our government to kill Muslim women and children, or aid and abet acts of systematic racism that are practiced against them. We have the power to change our world for the better, and an important step is to change our culture and society to not allow things that endager innocent children. -- Michael R. Burch

Ethical Question: Justice Steven Brier suggested that with the rise of the Islamic population in the US certain adjustments must be made in the concept of freedom of speech. For example, Justice Brier notes, Koran burning may not be entitled to the same Constitutional protection as flag burning. Should the Constitution be revised for Mouslem immigrants who might be offended?

Any society that would tolerate burning a book is sick.

Mike Berger, PhD Psychologist


Ethical Question:

Is Koran burning protected by the First Amendment, or it is "illegal" to say unwise things that might possibly offend other people? Please excuse me if I point out that the question is clearly rhetorical! I have said many unwise things to my wife, in the course of being married to her for eighteen years. If I had to go to jail every time I said something "unfair" that offended her, my prison record would stretch from earth to the most distant stars. I seem to be incapable of offering my wife logical advice, no matter how well-intended, without making her break out in tears. Usually, I earnestly believe that I am actually "helping" matters, until I discover to my deep chagrin that I am being inestimably "unfair." So I can only conclude that either (1) freedom of speech extends to things men say that other people consider unfair, or (2) I have been walking around a free man, when I should have been incarcerated for life. I do not claim to be an expert on the law, like Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, who recently equated offending people`s sensibilities with shouting "fire!" in a crowded theater. If I shouted "fire!" in a crowded theater and someone was trampled and died, I might justly be accused of some form of manslaughter. On the other hand, if I told my wife that her lipstick was too garish and she shot me, she might be accused of overreacting.

If we can`t burn the Koran (not that I want to; I prefer burning Bibles), where do we draw the line? Am I not allowed to criticize "honor" killings, religious wars or slavery, because someone else is convinced that God Almighty put his stamp of approval on such things?

The Bible and the Koran both condone slavery. Am I not allowed to point out that Yahweh and Jesus were idiots and cretins because in all their "infinite wisdom" over the course of many thousands of years, they never managed to once clearly point out that slavery was an abomination? And never mind freedom of speech; what about freedom of entertainment? How could I properly enjoy life, if I wasn`t able to mock the popes, priests, pastors and other witchdoctors of religion who insist that the Bible is the "divine revelation" of the "heart of God"? After all, mocking such people is one of the few forms of entertainment I can still afford in this terrible recession, which they brought about by insisting that Christians must "support Israel," the way they once insisted that Christians must drown witches, burn heretics at the stake, etc.

Even more importantly, if it`s illegal to burn the Koran, how can I continue to create huge bonfires of Bibles and use them to cheaply heat and illuminate my house, since the warmongering of Jews and Christians has left me a veritable pauper?

Should people who subscribe to terrible religions be allowed to stifle my freedom of speech, because they become offended when I point out that the "gods" they worship constantly commanded war, slavery, matricide, infanticide, genocide, ethnic cleansing, racism, sexism, homophobia, and religious intolerance? As for the pope criticizing Islam for being a religion "spread by sword and flame," all I can do is thank the good LORD that I`m not the infallible moron who condemned innocent children to death by calling the use of condoms a "sin." Is it better to kill children with sheer stupidity, than with guns and bombs? If I sound like an oracle of wisdom, please keep in mind that it`s only because my enemies are dumber than do-dos.

Mike Burch

Dear Mike:

The German prelate called pope by the Roman Catholics quoted Manuel II, Christian Emperor of The Eastern Roman Empire (Byzantium) who as a hostage of the Mouslems witnessed the sacking of Philadelphia in Asia Minor. It was more of an on-the scene report by a well placed spectator than a theological conclusion. Islam is what it is. The very reference to an eyewitness account touched off rioting in the Mouslem world.

Edward L Sommersett
Lord President of The Society

Awesome David Lawrence asks: Does this confirm that leftist stations like NPR are against freedom of speech and do not really want open dialogue despite their complaints about fictitious right wing prejudice? Do they throw stones of bigotry against right wingers to hide their own prejudice? Are the leftwingers the real fanatics and zealots?

Gee, that`s an interestingly phrased question, which seems to plead, "Now that someone on the left has acted irrationally, aren`t all the right-wing idiots, morons and religious fanatics suddenly and impressively vindicated? No. It is entirely possible to have fanatics and zealots on both sides, as when Hitler and his Nazi goons went to war with Stalin and his Marxist goons. The Republican party has become the playground of peevish Chicken Littles who run around full of irrational fears, constantly crying, "The sky is falling! The sky is falling!" when actually it isn`t. Nothing the left does wrong can possibly vindicate them. Now please go into timeout.

Mike Burch

Bob Djurdjevic:

Why hang around a pigsty when you can gaze at the sky? (pun intended, the rhyme just happened).

Geoff Jackson:

A Constitutional Right to Bear Arms

Ensconced at the heart of the American Constitution is the right of all Americans to bear arms. This paragraph should be seen in the light of the situation in 1766, when it was the militiamen of the Thirteen States of the Union, who defended the new Republic against the Hessian and other mercenaries, who fought for the British imperium. The conclusion of the Founding Fathers was that the liberty of the young US would depend on its militias and that the freedom of the individual would depend on his right to bear arms.

More than three hundred years on, the situation has changed 180 degrees and it is armed violence on the part of gangs and criminals, which threaten the life and liberty of the individual. Of course, with so many arms in circulation in the criminal underworld, it is not acceptable to deprive the individual of his right to self-defense.

But how open should gun laws be? Should the individual be required to produce proof that he is of sound mind? Should the sale of guns be prohibited to those with a criminal record? Should gun laws be handled by the Congress or should they continue to be the prerogative of the states?

What, too, of hunters? In my view, anyone who is a member of a hunting club, has a license to hunt etc., may be allowed to purchase the fairly specialized hunting weapons. No one wants to take away the right of hunters to shoot and trap.

No one wants to take away the right of average citizens to defend themselves. But the deranged attack on the Congressman and others in Tucson, Arizona, underlines yet again the problem of guns falling into the wrong hands. States vary in their interpretation of the right of the citizen to bear arms. Some like Arizona and Texas have almost no control. Others like New York have strict controls.

Some Americans like those on Manhattan live as close to their neighbors as broody hens in a battery, whereas others live miles away from their closest neighbors in the Wilderness. No one wants to take away their right to hunt or defend themselves.

In the wake of the massacre at Tucson, compromise is called for. Compromise must be tailor-made to American history and Constitutional rights and not based on European or other models. However, there must be a way whereby irresponsible Americans can be screened out and responsible Americans retain their right to possess guns and defend themselves.

~ Geoff Jackson



Andy Martin's letter to Google`s General Counsel complaining about left-wing, pro-Obama bias


Dear Counsel:

I am writing to lodge a formal complaint with Google concerning apparent tampering with your algorithms related to Google News and Google Alerts coverage of opponents of President Barack Hussein Obama.

I previously helped expose how Wikipedia (and its tax-exempt foundation) was defrauding the Internet public by rigging reports on prominent individuals who are critics of Obama. Left-wing operatives had "locked" favorable reviews of Obama, and had locked negative reports of his opponents (including me).

Wikipedia originally sought to take refuge in the Communications Decency Act but was forced by my litigation to admit the CDA did not protect Wikipedia because it was not a passive purveyor and was instead actively editing and censoring allegedly impartial reports on the site.

My litigation and investigation of Wikipedia continues and later today I will be asking the IRS to revoke Wikipedia's tax-exempt status since it is a politically motivated and politically controlled pro-Obama medium. I have no problem with people being either pro or anti-Obama. That is the source of strength of our democracy. But I do not think taxpayers should subsidize such blatant political activity when it masquerades as "impartial" information.

Now back to Google. Both news reports and my blogs used to appear regularly in my own Google Alerts, as well as on Google News (particularly through www.pr-inside.com). For about six months (I am not exactly sure when the change occurred; it could be longer) I disappeared from these media. My belief is that just as Wikipedia is a left-wing-directed smear operation of Obama's supporters, your algorithms have been doctored to portray Obama's opponents in an unfavorable light or no light at all. That appears to be the case.

Note the contrast between "Bing" and "Google." Using the generic search criteria "Andy Martin" I took a screen shot of both just before finalizing this letter. Bing leads with a news item, sourced to pr-inside.com. Google apparently eliminated pr-inside.com from the Google search engine precisely because it was a repository of Andy Martin material. (I have no link to, interest in or other connection with pr-inside.com; I am merely an Internet user of the service). Bing is obviously less biased than Google (although both provide prominence for the "dirty" site Wikipedia).

A few days ago David Diersen, a person who assembles a daily email on Illinois politics, inserted a link to a report on my upcoming New Hampshire speech. That link never appeared on Google. I have no idea where Diersen got his link but it did not come from Google.

My legal conclusion is that Google has manipulated and edited is algorithms to portray me and other Obama critics in an unfavorable light and to literally erase much of our presence in cyberspace. For example, what came up near the top on Google (see enclosed page) was a more than two-year-old attack by a George Soros-financed Obama/left-wing smear machine, Media Matters. It is not accidental that Google highlights left-wing and negative reporting concerning me. Your algorithms have targeted coverage of my name to attack me (and other Obama critics) and to place me in an unfavorable light.

This letter is a polite request to review your search criteria and to rebalance your search engine by, inter alia, returning search engine coverage to pr-inside.com.

Only if we are unable to resolve our dispute in an amicable manner will we resort to litigation.

The public should have confidence that Google and its employees, and particularly its engineers and programmers, are not stooges and front men (women) for a left-wing political agenda and a relentless attempt to smear Obama's opponents with biased and unbalanced coverage. In my opinion, the current efforts of Google fall far short of impartiality and neutrality.

I would appreciate an expeditious, detailed and hopefully favorable response. I don't think a private corporate has any "business" taking sides in political debts or trying to slant the news in favor of the left-wing.

Respectfully submitted,

John Mathewson:
Where You Are Now

Our lives have no mystery.
Once you realize you will die
Then life is a jigsaw puzzle:

The borders of birth and death
Some of the pieces fill one side
Top and bottom remain undone

But the remaining pieces
You can learn to shape and color
This, your life, with joy and sadness,

Lines perpendicular and
Parallel, glorious sunsets,
wild beginnings, belief systems,

Sonnets, sex, you see as best
fitting. You will die, and so please,
You can stop looking so puzzled.


Republican Presidential CandidateAndy Martin says the mainstream media (including Fox News) continue to mislead the American people Martin says Obama's campaign spectacle in Tucson was planned from the gitgo as a campaign rally, not a memorial to the dead and recovering Martin predicted that Obama would seek to drive attention to Obama and away from the victims-and Andy did it hours in advanced of Obama's speech; why did the White House "not know" what was being planned in Tucson?

(NEW YORK)(January 15, 2011) It was just a week ago that our national tragedy in Tucson unfolded and the liberal mainstream media began their attacks on conservatives and Republicans. Several days have now passed since Obama's spectacle "memorial service" in Tucson. I may be alone in my viewpoint, but after reading these remarks I hope you are convinced that the mainstream media have once again helped Barack Obama [Bahm]boozle the American people into thinking he 1s a leader. 2012 reelection campaign, anyone? Read on.

First, in a nation driven by a commitment to "freedom" and "rights," it is inevitable that we are occasionally going to have the tranquility of our republic disturbed by madmen (and women). Whether mental illness consumes one percent (3 million people) of the population, or more, or less, we can't be sure. But there is no way a free society can escape occasional disruptions by deranged individuals. I am not discussing "political violence" here, because we have seen very little politically-motivated violence in all of the random attacks directed at our institutions by Americans themselves. Rather, on proper review and reflection, we usually find that the individuals who perpetrate insane acts are, no surprise, insane. We also find on review and reflection that our leaders use national tragedies to manipulate our emotions and to advance their own political and personal agendas. No surprise there. Rahm Emmanuel, Obama's former chief-of-staff, said that every crisis should be exploited for political benefit. Rather than criticizing our institutions which are there to deal with insane individuals, I would like to praise them for doing a pretty good job of protecting us from the ravages of mentally ill individuals such as the Tucson murderer.

Second, the White House has a whole staff of people whose sole purpose is to anticipate events and plan events, including reactions to tragedies. While any individual disaster may be unanticipated, it is no "surprise" to presidential staffers that presidents will at some point in their presidencies have to deal with a national trauma. The White House knows what to do in such situations. They are not rookies or neophytes at crisis management or grief therapy.

Third, as a nation we have usually conducted "memorial services" in places of great solemnity. I am very proud that the "National Cathedral" in Washington (an Episcopal church) is almost always the place where great national losses are mourned and remembered. (I am a member of the Episcopal Church.) Why did Obama plan to hold his "memorial" in a college field house?

Fourth, if you hold a "service" in an athletic field house, with tens of thousands of students in attendance, that may not lend an air of solemnity to the occasion.

So, what happened when Obama decided to "memorialize" the Tucson victims? What happened was precisely what Obama wanted to happen. His staff crafted a political event and not a memorial service. They tried to mislabel the raucous air of the production as "just blowing off steam" by the local community. Blowing smoke in our eyes is more like it.

Around midday on Wednesday, after initial web-based reports on plans for Obama's flight to Tucson, I began to see the "memorial" as nothing more than an Obama self-love extravaganza. I followed developments on the web. The more the story developed on the Washington Post, the more political the event appeared to become. What I saw increasingly said to me "politics" and a political event.

If I could see that a political event was developing, and if I could write hours before the event took place that Obama was about to engage in a preening act of self-referential Obama-love, how is it possible the White House Staff and Press Secretary Robert Gibbs were "surprised" by the outcome? "There are none so blind as those that will not see, none so deaf as those that will not hear."

Obviously, the sincerity of Gibbs, Obama & Company in claiming they were "surprised" by the tone of the Tucson event has about the same level of "sincerity" as "Round up the usual suspects" has in the film Casablanca. After the fact, Obama, through Gibbs, professed "surprise" that what I saw developing as a political Obamaganza turned out to be precisely what it appeared to be: an Obama self-love session.

Where was the Tucson "memorial" conducted? In a church? In a place of solemnity? When was the last time a Kennedy Family memorial was held in a college field house instead of a church? Obama's "memorial" was scripted for performance in an athletic field house. Why wasn't a Tucson church or synagogue chosen to "memorialize" the victims and to pray for recovery of the survivors? When did "rabbi" Janet Napolitano become our national clergywoman? Eric Holder our priest-in-chief?

Not one local clergyman was present at the Tucson "memorial." Not one Rabbi, not one Priest, not one. Instead we had the pathetic spectacle of a University of Arizona academic clown performing a Mexican memorial in which he took more time to deliver his personal resume than to remember the dead or survivors. This character is a "Doctor" and Professor? What kind of a "university" is Arizona when jokers such as a Mexican memorialist are on the senior faculty?

But if I predicted we were in for a clown service hours before the event, how could the White House have been surprised when I was not? Obviously, they knew exactly what they were planning and it was not a memorial service.

Next, not one person tried to restrain the crowd. The university president, who acted as Obama's toastmaster with profuse praise for our great leader, never once asked the crowd to calm down and manifest a respectful tone. How could "the children" behave themselves and manifest due respect and solemnity if the adults present did not ask them to do so? No, not one person who spoke tried to tone down the tenor of the crowd.

Now let's look at the "speech."

Obama's prepared text (link below) said he was coming to "kneel to pray..." Did you see any kneeling or any praying? Was there any kneeling during any part of the service? Any prayer? The only "religion" on display was Obama-love.

Did anyone from Tucson show anyone from Washington the program of events in advance? What happened to the "kneeling" and "praying" Obama came to perform? It disappeared. Has anyone on the White House staff been fired for blowing the advance planning? Not that I am aware of.

Paul Krugman, who has been one of the most vicious left-wing attack dogs on conservative leaders, chose these words from Obama's speech to highlight Krugman's column Friday (link below):

"[L]et us use this occasion to expand our moral imaginations, to listen to each other more carefully, to sharpen our instincts for empathy, and remind ourselves of all the ways our hopes and dreams are bound together."

"Expand our moral imaginations?" "Sharpen our instincts for empathy?"

These passages are classic Obama campaignspeak.

Early in his over-long speech Obama focused on the victims. But as the half hour of peachiness wore on, Obama reverted to campaign mode. His gestures and cadences were those of a candidate, not a mourner.

Some bloggers have even suggested that the delay in Obama's appearance was timed to coincide with the special order of trinkets and memorabilia to "memorialize" his visit and that the "Together We Thrive" theme from a campaign blogger (link below) merely morphed into the "thriving" slogan of last Wednesday. It's hard to know where the truth ends and where Obama media manipulation begins.

So we had an event that from the outset and the outside looked like a campaign rally, held in an athletic field house, which was to "memorialize" victims without the benefit of any clergy, and which ended with Obama exhorting Americans to "expand our moral imaginations."

Hope and change, anyone?

Compared to Obama's manipulations and meretriciousness, Sarah Palin looks like a paragon of virtue.

So, where were the national media and pundits? Acting as trained dancing bears for Obama. As usual. That's something to mourn.

Now you understand why my columns are called "Contrarian Commentary," and why I am running for president in the 2012 primaries. To tell the truth to the American people, and to pull the wool off their eyes. 100% Obama flannel. Before it's too late. And Obama "memorializes" America out of existence.

Kneeling and praying anyone? Just call Obama. He knows all about that.

© Copyright by Andy Martin 2011

Andy Martin:
A Touch of Tinseltown

Andy Martin Speaks: Tucson murders have Hollywood flavor. Left-wing media are trying to scapegoat law-abiding Republicans for the tragedy in Arizona when the real culprits are the people who fund the Democratic Party: the violence-saturated Hollywood media community that floods America with violent films, violent TV programs and violent video games. "Instead of scapegoating Republicans, the Democratic Party should be asking itself if it can afford to be the political arm of the violence-profiteering Hollywood media establishment.

(PALM BEACH, FL)(January 8, 2011) First, I express my profound sympathy for the victims of the shooting in Tucson. The murders are truly a national tragedy.

Second, I had no idea when I issued my remarks two days ago that violence would break out within hours. But tonight I am certain that the murders in Tucson were the result of a deranged individual, not talk show rhetoric. And, no, when a mental patient commits a crime, the criminal act is not an "attempted assassination" as the media are trying to portray the attacks, but simply a criminal act.

I turned on the TV to see what was being said and I was disgusted by what I heard. On CNN, Roland Martin was trying to scapegoat Sarah Palin for the Tucson incident. That was a despicable accusation. But it was on the self-styled home-page of left-wing America, MSNBC, that I saw Keith Olbermann and Gene Robinson of the Washington Post become unhinged.

Olbermann read a "special comment" that should be his ticket into a mental institution. In his own way, Olbermann is just as mentally unstable as the shooter, Jared Loughner. Olbermann accused Governor Sarah Palin, Representative Alan West, former candidate Sharon Angle, The Tea Party movement, and Fox News' Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly, of being complicit in the Tucson mayhem. Olbermann did not blame any Democrats, only Republicans, for the massacre. But Olbermann's silence concerning the greatest purveyor of violence in our society, the Hollywood media elite that literally flood our movie theaters, TV sets, computer terminals and video game consoles with relentlessly violent action and rhetoric, well Olbermann was silent on the Hollywood moguls who are the financial mainstay of the Democratic Party and who are currently trying to impose Rahm Emmanuel as Mayor on the people of Chicago.

Let me be clear:

First, the murders in Tucson were not a political act. We know the U. S. Army (three cheers for Army screening) rejected Loughner for military service. The killings were the act of a mentally deranged individual and someone who in the fullness of time will probably be exposed as a violent video game and film addict.

Second, neither talk radio nor talk TV had anything to do with the murders.

Third, lawful gun owners are among the most law-abiding persons in this nation.

Fourth, it is pro-family Republican conservatives that have exposed and condemned Hollywood violence as a destructive force in our society.

Fifth, the Hollywood media establishment is the principal source of cash for liberal Democrats. When are Democrats going to condemn these malignant Hollywood moguls and resolve to reject Hollywood cash as the mother's milk of the Democratic Party?

Sixth, the prosecution of a right-wing blogger who threatened Chicago federal judges was initiated by the Bush Justice Department. To its credit, the Obama administration followed through. (I am not competent to discuss all of the merits and demerits of the prosecution, but it is clear that both parties take action to prevent violent rhetoric outside of Hollywood). Hal Turner, who had written incendiary claims about judges, was condemned by both liberals and conservatives.

Keith Olbermann's idiocy and Gene Robinson's similarly unhinged rhetoric attacking conservatives for violence is disgraceful. Both Olbermann and Robinson should be taken off the air. Why is it that the media elite in New York and Washington refuse to condemn Hollywood violence? Because the corporate parents of the media elite (including Fox News), just like their Democratic associates, are the principal purveyors and profiteers of violet images in America and around the world? The media companies which are headquartered in New York and Hollywood are all drenched in violent films, violent TV programs, violent video games and Internet fantasies because that's where the fast cash and easy money is. The media elite in Hollywood probably caused the violence in Tucson, not law-abiding gun owners and conservative Republicans.

Democrats and media propaganda artists such as Olbermann and Robinson should not be allowed to divert attention from the true purveyors of violence in America--the Hollywood moguls who have a cash-induced stranglehold on the Democratic Party--by allowing them to scapegoat law-abiding Republicans.

Americans can start fighting back by rejecting the candidacy of Rahm Emmanuel for Mayor of Chicago. Emmanuel is being financed almost entirely by violence-producing media moguls in Hollywood. Emmanuel's' brother is an "agent" for violence-saturated media production companies and Hollywood stars.

Finally, let's be clear about one more fact: it was the violence-saturated Hollywood media elite that forced President Barack Obama down the throats of the American people. Let's wait to see how long before Obama blames general "violence" and avoids targeting the real source of violence in America, Obama's own campaign contributors in Hollywood.

Republicans need to fight back against the character assassination of MSNBC, CNN and the liberal media elite by shining light on the dark corners of the Democratic Party and its main source of campaign cash. My remarks are a first step; they should not be the last.

Fullosia Press * Arthurian Legend * * Introduction to Fullosia * * * Lord Woodburry`s Home Page