Wednesday, July 26, 2006

No More Leftist Lectures On Science

In the wake of President Bush's vetoing human experimentation, aka "stem cell research" the Left has unleashed tons of its usual tired verbal flatulence into the air about Christianity being anti-science. Somewhere along the way the Orwellian Left has managed, with much undeserved success, to propagandize that having ethics when dealing with science is somehow "giving in to superstition." This most dangerous lie reminds me of a certain scientist who Liberals would probably love. He did many experiments in the same vein as those who wish to do the embryonic stem cell research. He never let a silly thing like Christian belief get in his way. And his name was Dr Mengele. Science without ethics will lead us back to the path he followed. Anyone who thiks otherwise is blind.

The Secularist Left continues its drumbeat about the "evil" "Religious Right" impeding scientific progress. But let's look beyond their Orwellian rhetoric for a moment at the facts.

As I stated in my "Left Forgets/Ignores the East" post, the most advanced civilization on the earth during the Dark Ages from 600-1000 AD was a Christian theocracy that knew the world was round. Yes, I refer to the Eastern Roman Empire, mistakenly named the Byzantine Empire. Science grew by leaps and bounds in this nation where Christ was considered the King and the Emperor merely His Regent on earth. The superior scientific knowledge of the Empire saved its capital, Constantinople, from a more numerous Muslim enemy in its two sieges from 668-675 AD and in 717 AD.

In the 17th century, not only were the Dutch Reform Calvinists (definitely Right Wing Christian extremists to the modern Leftist) the originators of the modern Republic, their Netherlands was the most scientifically advanced nation of its day. You've got to be when you're tiny Holland, but you're the strongest and richest nation on earth. When the 17th century Russian Tsar, Peter the Great, wanted to learn about Western technology, he disguised himself as a common laborer and took factory jobs. One of the places he made sure he spent much time in was the "theocracy" of Holland.

In 1688 hard-core Calvinists launched the Glorious Revolution to reclaim the Puritan notion of Parliametary Supremacy that their grandfathers had won and lost in Cromwell's day. The English appointed a Dutch King, William III, who acknowledged Parliament as his superior. The English monarch has never been above the Representative body since then. Over the course of the next several decades, under the stewardship of its Religious Right, England rose from a backwater barely out of the Middle Ages to supplant the Netherlands as the most advanced nation on earth in the 18th and 19th centuries.

And the piece-de-resistance is America in our own lifetime. Who's technology won out in the end, Judeo-Christian America or Secularist USSR? Even if we accept the Left's historical revision that America was Christianized by Joe McCarthy and Dwight Eisenhower (and this is truly a farce, the Declaration of Independence says we have certain inalienable rights endowed by Our Creator and the SCOTUS ruled in 1892 that America was a Christian country), the fact is, it was Christianized at the time.

So I think we can dispense with the notion that Christianity retards scientific progress. But if we look at the Left, they do not live within the boundaries of the ideals they so loudly proclaim. Science is supposed to be human curiousity, seeking knowledge through finding fact and experimentation.

A group of scientists, some Nobel Prize winners, believed that there were holes in Darwin's theory big eough to drive a truck through. Darwin asserts that small, simple lifeforms evolve into big ones. The problem is, there are no simple lifeforms. Even single-cell life is complex, if small. Darwin himself said that if proved to be the case, his whole theory would collapse. It was Alexander Oparin, a Soviet "scientist" who first proposed that we all evolved from a paramecium. Darwin apparently had more shame than to do that. So a group of scientists say that we've learned a lot since Darwin's day ad that his theories do not fit any longer, and there is much evidece for Intelligent Design. What does the Left do? Goes straight to our corrupt court system and shuts down all debate based on a non-existent law (Separation of Church and State). What's more Darwin also theorized that women and blacks evolved as lesser creatures than white men. We don't seem to be taught that in our schools right now. What do we get taught? The pickings and choosings of the Political Left from Darwin and the theory of one of Stalin's state-sponsored scientists. the Left imposes these lies on us with no right to debate or disagree. Is that scietific? Not in the least. It retards our scientific growth. Is it American? It is not Unamerican, it is Anti-American. And that is all the Left has to offer us.

Let us no longer sit and listen to the Left lecture us on how scientific they are. They squelch new ideas in favor of old and tired beliefs from an Evil Empire. They have no right to talk down to anyone about science.

Thursday, July 13, 2006

Republic of Utica Answers a Silly Question

Austin Cline, self-proclaimed expert on Atheism and Secularism at About.com, feels that Atheism is neglected in our society. He wonders why he can't turn on the TV and see an Atheist politician strutting his stuff. The Republic of Utica's short answer is- you can Austin. Right now there is a powerful Atheist leader who is strongly fighting the good fight for the principles of Atheism and Secular government. His name? Kim Jong-il. His regime is the logical outcome of the so-called "Enlightenment." Don't the humanist achievements of North Korea make you swell with pride?

The truth is, there are two breeds of Republics. America and the UK emerged from the Puritan Revolution of 1644-1648. Oliver Cromwell's statue stands before Parliament in London as a testament. The Puritan Republic of England had several excesses (not nearly so many as the modern Liberal would have you believe, but they did nonetheless) and Oliver Cromwell became ever more like a monarch as "Lord Protector." Nevertheless the notion of Republicanism and Parliamentary Supremacy were birthed in England during this era. The fulfillment of the Puritan Revolution came during the Glorious Revolution of 1688. Though not "Puritans," the 1688 Parliamentary forces were hard-core Calivinists who would, by any modern Liberal standard, be regarded as right-wing Christian extremists. The chief philosopher of the Glorious Revolution, one John Locke, was a Calvinist who justified every point he made in his treatises with Scripture. He was also one of the main inspirations of the US Constitution and Declaration of Independence. If one could put Locke's writings in a nutshell it would be, "God makes men free, as is His will and other men make men slaves." That's where the line in the Declaration of Independence "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" comes from. This is the sort of moral absolute that makes the skin of modern Leftists crawl. If there is no Creator, we have no Inalienable Rights. We only have whatever rights that the moral equivalence of Big Brother condescends to give us. And those will inevitably be little or nothing. Even in our society today, we can't even get out of the womb before the Left tries to tyrannize us, claiming right of life or death over us.

Speaking of Big Brother, that brings me to the other kind of "Republic." It doesn't really deserve the name. The Secularist "Republics" begin with a rush of populist collective democracy, but very quickly degenerate into corrupt oligarchies or dictatorships. The first such was Revolutionary France. The euphoria after Louis XVI's beheading quickly evaporated as the "Committee of Public Safety" began beaheding everyone. I am reminded of the musical "Pippin" where the idealistic young prince stabs his father Charlemagne, promising to change the "off with his head" style of ruling. It isn't long before Pippin himself is saying, "off with his head!" He then went to his father, lying there with Pippin's dagger in his back. He said, "can I have my knife back, please?" Charlemagne then rises, pulls out the blade, gives it to him and says, "don't let it happen again, son." I know there were many Frenchmen in the 1790s who were wishing they could give Louis XVI his head back, empty as it was. Instead the "Great Republic" soon had a new absolute monarch in Napoleon and embarked on a bloody world war.

Twenty-eight years after the heady days of storming the Bastile, the Russian Tsar's troops marched triumphantly through the ruins of France. Did the madness end there? By no means. A groups of Russian officers who would come to be known as the "Southern Society" brought the Secular Leftist ideals of the French Revolution home. From their humble beginnings the USSR would be birthed 102 years later.

The USA and the USSR were really the culmination of the true Calvinist Republic and the Secular "Republic" respectively. The Secular Left really needs to stop clinging to old, outdated notions. They need to realize that the Cold War is over. And their side lost.

Monday, July 10, 2006

Separation of Church and State?

Multiple Choice question for all you out there-

"Separation of Church and State" does NOT appear in which of the following Constitutions?

A. Pol Pot's Cambodia
B. Nazi Germany
C. USSR
D. United States

If you answered "D" you got the only correct answer.

In "B", Nazi Germany, Hitler, a New Age Neo-Pagan, did his best to de-Christianize his Third Reich. Hitler hated Jews, you see, and Jesus, being a Jew, was hated by the Nazi Party. The SS, who were the political troops of the regime, used pagan symbology and desecrated Christian wayside shrines on their axis of advance much the way ACLU tyrants do in America today.

Joseph Stalin and his Communist Party wrote a Constitution for the new USSR in 1936. It included Separation of Church and State. In the implementation of this countless numbers were murdered or sent to forced labor camps.

And who can forget the crown jewel of Secular Humanism, Khmer Rouge Kampuchea? The Separation of Church and State was very well enforced, enough to make the ACLU proud. Any display of religious belief earned the believer a one-way trip to a killing field.

With such a marvelous track record, it's a wonder that any of us here in America would not want this law in full force here!

The troublesome little fact is "Separation of Church and State" is nowhere to be found in the US Constitution. Look hard and long, read it backwards and forwards, read every word twice, you'll never find the words "Separation of Church and State" anywhere. This is a might strange to me, as Left Wing revisionist historians argue that this mythical separation was so critically important to our Founding Fathers. So why didn't they write it out plainly if they were so unanimous and unwavering in this belief? Most perplexing.

The revisionists argue that the Establishment Clause in the I Amendment says "Separation of Church and State." But there are several problems with this. First being, if it was so important to keep government and religion apart, how did civilization as we know it survive between the writing of the Constitution in 1787 and the passage of the First Amendment in 1791? Something as important as the wall of separation supposedly was, why wasn't it put in one of the Articles of the Constitution? Why put off putting in the Constitution UNTIL AFTER IT WAS RATIFIED? Here are the facts- The majority of Americans in 1787 and 1788 were Anti-Federalists. Anti-Federalists opposed a strong central government for America. They did not want to trade a tyrant in London for a tyrant in Philadelphia and they knew any national government would have the potential to be exactly that. However, most people that the new thirteen independent countries needed to keep some semblance of unity, because it was a dangerous world filled with aggressive empires. They liked many of the ideas of the Constitution. So many of the Anti-Federalists agreed to support the new Constitution in return for the promise of a Bill of Rights to curtail Federal power. Let me reiterate this- the Bill of Rights- Amendments I-X- were written expressly to limit Federal authority. The "Establishment Clause" of the I Amendment says "CONGRESS shall make no LAW RESPECTING an Establishment of Religion." (emphasis mine) The argument can really end here as school prayer or local Ten Commandments monuments are not laws made by Congress. However, when trying to properly interpret a law, it is important to understand its origin and purpose. And in the Estbalishment Clause we have the glossed over word "respecting." If Congress can make no law RESPECTING an Establishment of Religion, that means, in plain English, that Congress cannot make a law for, against or indifferent to Establishment of Religion. It cannot touch the question. It necessarily follows that Federal Courts cannot touch the question either. Unless, of course it involves Congress making a law to Establish a Religion. What does this mean? It means that the biggest violator of the Establishment Clause in America today are the thug lawyers of the ACLU and the corrupt, protituted judges who seem bent on giving them their every whim, no matter how tyrannical. The Establishment Clause was written to protect people like the citizens of San Diego who are being tyrannized by the ACLU over a cross in their city's war memorial. Or the young girl who was denied both freedom of speech and freedom of religion in her valedictorian speech in Nevada while the ACLU applauded.

So where does Separation of Church and State REALLY come from? I mean, something supposedly so important was not recognized by any court in the land from 1789 to 1947. Strange that something so vital to a Republic as silencing religion supposedly is had to be "discovered" by a New Deal judge over 170 years after the founding of our nation. The separation crowd bays that Thomas Jefferson wrote it in his Danbury Baptist Church letter in 1801. However, suppose for a moment that the ACLU was trying to put a child rapist back on the street, as they often do. And suppose the prosecution based its case on a document written by someone who did not witness the crime and wrote it 14 years later. The ACLU would, no doubt, argue (rightly) that this evidence should be inadmissable. But these same people argue that Jefferson's Danbury Baptist letter, written 14 years after the Constitutional Convention at which he was not even present, is ironclad proof that "Separation of Church and State" is in our Constitution. What's more Jefferson was reassuring the good people of Danbury, Connecticut that the Federal Government would be staying out of their religious affairs in that letter. What comfort would the Danbury Baptists have taken from Jefferson promising to force them not to pray in their schools or break the crosses off their war memorials? Jefferson had won the presidency in 1800 on a platform of limited Federal interferrence. The notion of some New York shyster being able to tell people in towns that he didn't live in in Alabama or Georgia that they couldn't have a Ten Commandments monument in their public square would have been alien to him. It was the exact opposite of what he stood for. Thus, his letter to the Danbury Baptists is really inadmissable.

The first time "Separation of Chruch and State" appears in our Judicial opinions is written by the Supreme Court tyrant Hugo Black. It was in the 1947 Eversman v Board of Education case. Black actually ruled in favor of the Christians, saying that they "weren't violating the Separation of Chruch and State." So much for the stare decises of the 1892 Holy Trinity case, which acknowledged the obvious truth that America is a Christian nation. In any event, the Black stuck that little phrase into his ruling and the Left has been tyrannizing us ever since. The Eversman case was the latest in a string of cases in which the Courts applied the Bill of Rights at the state level, supposedly, via the XIV Amendment (which says that no state may deny immunities and priviledges of the Constitution).

Hugo Black and the Left argue that the XIV Amendment can transfer the establishment Clause down to the states, counties and municipalities. There are many problems with this, most glaring of which is the complete legal paradox which it creates. As has already been shown, the Establishment Clause forbids the Federal Government from engaging in any question of religion in the states. If the Federal Courts get involved, it is a violation of the I Amendment. But if the XIV Amendment allows the Court to violate the I Amendment by getting involved, then the I Amendment no longer stands, and by what basis do you use the Establishment Clause? Either way the Establishment Clause cannot be applied to a state or locality.

To wit- the Court can force New York State to honor Free Speech in the Gitlow case without violating New York's free speech. But they cannot force the Establishment Clause on the states without itself violating the Establishment Clause. The Left, as usual, is trying to have it both ways.

Truth of the matter is, Liberals in the 1920s, 30s and 40s believed that Stalin's Russia was the most advanced and enlightened nation on the earth. New Deal Liberals dreamed of a socialist world. In Article 124 of the 1936 Soviet Constitution said "there shall be a separation of church and state." It worked so well for Stalin, they wanted to try it here. You see, our Liberal judges seeking to impose the laws of Global Socialism on us is not a new phenomenon. It didn't begin with Breyer and Ginsberg imposing French and UN law on us a couple years back. Hugo Black and his fellow eight FDR appointees began this Leftist Judicial tradition by imposing Stalin's laws on us. And THAT is the true origin of Separation of Church and State in Modern America.

Sunday, July 09, 2006

The Clinton Legacy vs The Reagan Legacy

I remember 1989 and 2001. I remember how in 2001 Bill Clinton was scrambling around like some great booby trying to find his legacy. Ronald Reagan, a humble man, let his legacy speak for itself in 1989. That year the Berlin Wall came down and Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, East Germany and Romania tasted freedom after decades of bitter Soviet occupation.

After the better part of a year trying to convince us how great he was for us, we still only remembered Bill Clinton for his romp with Monica Lewinsky. One might argue that that was all he deserved to be remembered for. I used to agree. The Lewinsky Scandal makes Clinton look like a mere buffoon, like Governor LaPetomaine from "Blazing Saddles" who made it to the White House. But he really deserves to be remembered for his truly most serpentine action, the Chinagate Scandal. John Huang, DNC fundraiser extraordinaire and Red Chinese Agent, sold access to President Clinton in return for donations to the DNC, his '96 presidential campaign and his legal defense fund for the various cases brought about by his sexual harassment. Clinton also sold military technology. That included missile technology. In 1992 the Red Chinese didn't have a missile that could hit Japan with any accuracy. By 2000 they could threaten Los Angeles. And guess who supplied North Korea with the missile technology with which it is currently threatening the Pacific Basin? You guessed it, China.

Not only that. It was the Clinton Administration that negotiated with North Korea back in 1994 the last time it sought nuclear weapons. He gave them some of our uclear technology as well as some fissionable material in return for their sweet promise not to build bombs with it. Any fool who would believe such a promise was never fit to be president. And now we face the danger of North Korean missiles. This is Clinton's legacy.

On the other side of history stood Ronald Reagan. He made the decision as president that we would stand up to the USSR. He asserted that the Soviet Evil Empire could be beaten and forced to relinquish the territory it enslaved. Liberal Democrats laughed at the idea. They saw their Soviet brothers as sophisticated and loved them. They saw Reaganite Republicans from Middle America as cruel bumpkins and despised them.

Reagan said we could build a missile defense shield and thereby negate Soviet nuclear weapon technology. Liberals mocked the idea all the way. They opposed SDI. Much to the regret of the USSR, nobody listened to them. Both Gorby and Anatoly Dobrynin (the man who negotiated for the Soviets during the Cuban Missile Crisis) said that SDI did their cause in (both said so in interviews they gave on the History Channel). Liberal "geniuses" got especially snarky, acting like they were so smart and anyone who didnt see it their way was so dumb. And after being wrong about nearly everything since their love affair with Joseph Stalin, they still act that way. In any event Reagan took on the Communists and the rest is history.

Two legacies are casting their shadow over America today. Bill Clinton's, represented by the missiles North Korea is firing at us and Ronald Reagan's, represented by the missile defense shield rising to protect us. We should honor them both in the manner they deserve.

Saturday, July 08, 2006

America The Not So Hated II

In my last post "America the Not So Hated" I briefly analyzed eight elections that took place across the Free World from 2004 to 2006. In this supposedly anti-American world, the score went thus- victory for 5 Pro-American Conservatives, two Liberals who promise friendly relations with America (one of these was Tony Blair, a loyal friend of the US) and one Anti-American Liberal, Zapatera of Spain, who was given the 2004 election by the 3-11 'al-Qaeda Madrid attacks.

I extend my apologies to John Howard, who I neglected to mention. He is the Conservative Prime Minister of Australia, a good friend of President Bush and America, who won re-election in 2004. He had faced off against a venomous pro-Islamofascist appeasement Laborite. His opponent had promised to withdraw Australia's troops from Iraq. Perhaps the Bali nightclub bombing taught the Austalian people the folly of appeasement. A footnote in the 2004 Australian election is that John Kerry's sister proved to be as big a traitor as her brother. She went Down Under to stump for the Anti-American candidate against Howard, our friend.

The truth about Anti-Americanism in Europe is that in most NATO countries back in the Cold War Era, 10-20% of the population were Communists or fellow travellers. In most cases these people call themselves something different since 1989, but they haven't changed who they are or what they believe in. These people didn't get angry at America for invading Iraq. They got angry at us for daring to stand up to their beloved USSR and win. There is nothing America can do to please these people. Anything America does to protect itself, like waging the War on Terror, will draw their ire. And these Socialists can easily call on thousands for their rent-a-mob demonstrations. And then the Liberal Media portrays it like we are making these people mad all of sudden by our Iraq policy. If you watch these demonstrations closely on tv you can see things like streaming red banners of socialism and portraits of Stalin. All very illuminating about the so-called "Anti-War" Movement.

As I acknowledged in my first post, there is widespread Anti-Americanism in the Middle East. Obviously. But there is also more Pro-Americanism than the Liberal Media will report. Most young Iranians favor restoring friendly relations with the US. Most Iraqis participated in their young republic's electoral process, embracing American-style republicanism. Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, under US influence, are turning their once absolutist monarchies into more Parliamentary style systems. Egyptians are calling for a full republic like they have in Iraq. The Lebanese took heart from the US presence in Iraq to rise up and throw the Syrians out after thirty years of occupation. Even some who had once harshly criticized America now expressed their gratitude to it. The very opposite of what Liberals are saying (that our presence in Iraq is increasing Anti-American sentiment). There are more than a few Middle Easterners who are friends of the republican form of government. And developments in Iraq are quite pleasing to these people. Yes, there are also many friends of tyranny friends of tyranny in the Middle East. These people agree with Liberals.

I hear a lot of people saying that the US is hated around the world. There is no denying that we have many enemies. But these have always been there, from one end of Eurasia to the other. They've hated us ever since we decided to oppose Stalin and his clients back in 1946. We don't have any new enemies since 2003. As a matter of fact, thanks to the Army, Marines, Air Force and Navy in Iraq, we have thousands upon thousands fewer foes! God Bless them and God Bless the USA!

Thursday, July 06, 2006

America The Not So Hated

The votes are in and they've been counted twice. Conservative Felipe Calderon has been certified the winner of the Mexican presidetial race. Leftist Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador is promising a court battle. However Calderon has won the election, albeit by a narrow margin.

Something I read about the campaign in the New York Times got me thinking. Calderon has charged Lopez-Obrador with being a staunch Anti-American in the mold of Venezuela's Bush hating warthog, Hugo Chavez. Far from admitting it, Lopez-Obrador indignantly responded he was no such animal and that he would maintain cordial relations with the US and encourage its investments.

What does this tell us? Even to the Leftward half of Mexico's electorate, or at least a majority of them, maintaining at least lukewarm relations with the US is important. Hugo Chavez couldn't win an election in Mexico (couldn't win a FAIR one in Venezuela either).

Now, when we listen to the Liberal Media, they tell us America is hated around the world over the war in Iraq. They cite this poll, taken by Leftists, that America is viewed as the most dangerous threat to the world today. However, election results in the various republics of Europe and the West tell us a much different story.

The only openly Anti-American Leftist to win was Zapatera in Spain, in March, 2004. Osama bin Laden handed it to him with the 3-11 attacks three days before Spaniards went to the polls. The Conservative Aznar was blamed for the attacks and the election was over before the emotions of 3-11 died down. All things being equal, Zapatera would be just another loser, as he deserves to be, and no doubt will be in 2008.

The Liberal Media played up Zapatera's victory to the skies. They barely mentioned the triumph of Pro-American, Pro-Iraq War Conservatives in Greece three months later. The Greek Right had promised to get the Olympic facilities squared away, and the Socialists had been making a hash of it.

Then came the elections in Germany, Poland and the UK. In Germany, Conservative Angela Merkl ran on a platform of restoring full good relations with the US and won. Poland elected Conservatives. In the UK, Laborite Tony Blair held on to a majority diminished by nearly 50 seats. But, as we all know, Tony Blair is a friend and not an enemy of the United States and he is also one of the architects of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

In 2006 we had elections in Canada, Italy and, of course, Mexico. In Soviet Canuckistan, we had an unexpected Glasnost with Conservatives sweeping to power in the wake of rampant Laborite corruption. The Left narrowly won in Italy, but like Lopez-Obrador in Mexico, Romano Prodi promised Italians cordial relations with the US.

Where's all this hatred for America? None of the election results of any Western Republics indicate a major shift to the Left against America. On the contrary five of the eight elections in Western Republics yielded the result of a Conservative victory (six of nine if we count the US election of 2004). All three Leftist victories were by thin margins, one a good friend of America. The elections speak a different story than Left Wing push polls.

Even in the Muslim world, where there is much Anti-Americanism, many people there believe in us. The Lebanese threw the Syrians out after thirty years, inspired by the new Republic in Iraq. Democracy Movements have emerged in Iran, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere.

Looking at the facts, we can see that the Left Wing Media has just been churning out more "Blame America First" garbage when it tries to scare us with all the tales of how the US is so hated all around the world.

Monday, July 03, 2006

Happy 4th of Quinctilis

I wanted to wish all you citizes of the Republic of Utica out there a Happy 4th of Quinctilis. In the days when Marcus Porcius Cato Uticensis walked the Earth, that is what this month was called, and next month would be called Sextilis. However, a Left Wing politician came on the scene in Rome, wanting to be King. He renamed Quinctilis "Julius" after himself, and his successor renamed Sextilis "August" after himself (such megalomania! Even Uncle Joe Stalin never tried that).

Being staunchly republican in my ways, I propose that we return the ancient names of our two hottest months to their ancient names. Let us not honor the Leftist who would be King and his successor, who was.

So.......

Happy 4th of Quinctilis!

Saturday, July 01, 2006

Why Are Liberal Journalists Sacred Cows?

As a general rule of thumb, the Left does not believe in the Bill of Rights. They do not embrace these sacred truths, they oppose them. In spite of this staunch oppostition, they don't hesitate to invoke our freedoms if they can use them against us.

For example, Liberals do not believe in freedom of speech. Anywhere where they have strong control and there's no chance of a Conservative winning the next election, they impose political correctness and speech codes. They do this to avoid anyone being "offended" (ie to avoid offending any Liberals by having someone express a Conservative viewpoint). They will not hesitate to punish anyone for alleged "hate speech" excepting their own, naturally. But on the other hand, they will invoke freedom of speech incessantly to preserve things like pornography or some anti-American garbage that no one wants to listen to. If you ask why a transvestite hooker needs to address a group of eighth graders they'll say, "you need to have all points of view." But if it comes to a Coservative Christian, "you might offend someone." An absolute double standard and they get away with it time and again.

Once again, the New York Times has betrayed America. The Gray Witch gave classified information to the public about a totally legitament program to monitor and stanch the flow of terrorist funds. Terrorists without huge amounts of money see their groups whither and die. And then soldiers and civilians don't lose their lives. But this simple concept seems to be beyond the ken of the ivory tower dwelling Mahattan elites. Or, more likely, it is't. But what are the lives of our soldiers or our people next to selling a few more newspapers? Pinchy Goebbels, given his preferrence for seeing an American soldier die over his enemy, is probably glad to have hurt our soldiers (for those of you who didn't read my last post, "Pinch" Sulzberger said to his during the Vietnam Era that if a North Vietnamese and an American soldier encountered each other, he'd hope the American soldier got killed).

Now, what do you think will happen if we prosecute Pinchy Goebbels for his CRIME (yes it is a crime to give away Top Secret Information to the enemy) of betrayal? You know he is going to invoke the First Amendment that he doesn't believe in. He's going to prance around going on and on about a free press. But, as anyone with an ounce of common sense knows, a free press doesn't mean the newsman can yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater. Or to help terrorists we are at war with.

Sadly, a corrupt court system such as ours, which found a right to be sodomized in the Constitution in the Spring of 2003, but not the right to freedom of religion plainly written there being defended by Judge Roy Moore in the Summer of 2003, might very well find a right to betray America by the press.

Nonetheless, we must bring Pinchy Goebbels to trial, as well as his underling media propagandist Bill Keller. Right now the New York Times believes it can betray America at will and expose our secrets to our enemies and laugh at anyone gullible enough to believe that they do it in the name of a "free press" and to "foster debate" rather than to sell newspapers and advance their Hate America Agenda. Crime Boss Al Capone once seemed above the law the way Pinchy Goebbels does now. But Elliot Ness kept on him and Capone died of syphillis on Alcatraz. Someday Sulzberger and Keller may get their just deserts as well.

We cannot allow Pinchy Goebbels to paint anyone who wants him to face justice as enemies of a free press. The Bush Administration and the American people are totally in favor of it. But no one has the right to betray the lives of our soldiers and people to sell newspapers. There must be a reckoning. It's time to make hamburgers out of the Sacred Cow of Liberal Jouralism.