Ron Paul A Liberal-tarian, Not a Conservative

Written by JB Williams

©2007 USA

Ron Paul supporters are fast making a name for themselves on the web. Not because they are just web savvy, but because they have proven themselves to be the best at hacking on-line polls, invalidating conservative polling data on behalf of their candidate. It seems that even Democrat 527 MoveOn.org is now onboard the Ron Paul anti-war train.

Despite the fact that presidential candidate Ron Paul can not score better than 3% in any legitimate national poll, his supporters claim he is “the conservative” candidate to beat in the 2008 Republican race for the White House. Despite his less than conservative voting record in congress and his Teddy Kennedy like position on the war on terror in Iraq, his supporters think he is the most “conservative” candidate in the race. How?

On the Issues:

Not strong on life

Voted NO on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005)
Voted NO on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime. (Feb 2004)
Voted NO on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research. (Feb 2003)

Not strong on traditional Marriage

Voted NO on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. (Sep 2004 & Jul 2006)

Not strong on crime and punishment

Opposes the death penalty. (Jan 2007)
Voted YES on funding for alternative sentencing instead of more prisons. (Jun 2000)
Voted NO on more prosecution and sentencing for juvenile crime. (Jun 1999)
Voted NO on constitutional amendment prohibiting flag desecration. (Jun 2003)

Not strong on fighting the drug problem

Legalize industrial hemp. (Jan 2007)
Voted NO on military border patrols to battle drugs & terrorism. (Sep 2001)
Voted NO on subjecting federal employees to random drug tests. (Sep 1998)
Legalize medical marijuana. (Jul 2001)

Not strong on free religious speech or private schooling options

Voted NO on allowing school prayer during the War on Terror. (Nov 2001)
Voted NO on requiring states to test students. (May 2001)
Voted NO on allowing vouchers in DC schools. (Aug 1998)
Rated 67% by the NEA, indicating a mixed record on public education

Not strong on national security and sovereignty

Voted NO on deterring foreign arms transfers to China. (Jul 2005)
Voted NO on reforming the UN by restricting US funding. (Jun 2005)
Military aggressiveness weakens our national defense. (May 2007)
Criticizes use of war on terror to curtail civil liberties. (Jan 2007)
Opposes Patriot Act & Iraq War. (Jan 2007)
Voted NO on continuing intelligence gathering without civil oversight. (Apr 2006)
Voted NO on federalizing rules for driver licenses to hinder terrorists. (Feb 2005)

Not strong on government reform and campaign transparency

Voted NO on requiring lobbyist disclosure of bundled donations. (May 2007)
Voted NO on restricting independent grassroots political committees. (Apr 2006)
Voted NO on campaign finance reform banning soft-money contributions. (Feb 2002)
Voted NO on banning soft money and issue ads. (Sep 1999)

Not strong on Second Amendment Rights

Voted NO on prohibiting product misuse lawsuits on gun manufacturers. (Oct 2005)
Voted NO on prohibiting suing gun makers & sellers for gun misuse. (Apr 2003)
Voted NO on decreasing gun waiting period from 3 days to 1. (Jun 1999)

Not strong in the war on terror

We're more threatened now by staying in Iraq. (Jun 2007)
We should have declared war in Iraq, or not gone in at all. (May 2007)
Ronald Reagan had the courage to turn tail & run in Lebanon. (May 2007)
Intervention abroad incites hatred & attacks like 9/11. (May 2007)
When we go to war carelessly, the wars don't end. (May 2007)
Voted against war because Iraq was not a national threat. (May 2007)
Opposes Iraq war and opposes path toward Iran war. (Jan 2007)
Voted YES on redeploying US troops out of Iraq starting in 90 days. (May 2007)
Voted NO on declaring Iraq part of War on Terror with no exit date. (Jun 2006)
Voted NO on approving removal of Saddam & valiant service of US troops. (Mar 2004)
Voted NO on authorizing military force in Iraq. (Oct 2002)

I can keep going, but you can go look for yourself if you need more information. I think this is more than enough to explain why liberal Democrats are supporting Ron Paul for President. He’s better aligned with their thinking than either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama.

It’s true that he voted correctly several times throughout his lengthy political career too. But then, so has Hillary and Teddy. Paul is telling folks that he has never voted against Americans best interests, to paraphrase. Does that look true above?

The question is - why are some self-styled Republicans supporting him and why are they willing to adopt the liberal practice of manipulating on-line polls and trashing other conservative candidates in order to promote what is clearly not a conservative candidate?

In 1992, a similar set of events were underway, both liberal-tarian Republicans with an isolationist national security outlook and a desire to end all federal spending not aimed at benefiting them personally, worked together with liberal Democrats who shared those same “all about me” values to promote a third party candidate named Ross Perot. Together, they seated President Bill Clinton with less than 47% of the popular vote, against the will of more than 53% of voters.

A friend and fellow writer recently pointed out that libertarians are actually just social liberals who don’t want any of their money used to fund the natural consequences of a socially liberal society. They pretend to be conservatives, when all they really are is money conscious liberals with an isolationist view of the world they live in.

Ron Paul provides a perfect example. Like Ross Perot, the notion of ending all “unconstitutional” international spending and reducing taxes is appealing to both liberals and libertarians. Withdrawing from the world for monetary reasons might prove to be deadly, but it will result in temporary reduced spending and eventually lower taxes and that is the real goal.

Ron Paul claims to be Americas “constitutionalist.” I’m a constitutionalist, a strong supporter of the American ideals so carefully crafted by our founders more than 200 years ago. So, why am I at odds with Ron Paul?

First, he’s not a constitutionalist, except when it serves his political agenda which is that of an isolationist liberal-tarian, not a conservative. When he is playing constitutionalist, as in the case of the war on terror (specifically in Iraq), he is a foolish constitutionalist. He claims that the constitution somehow prevents us from protecting our national security interests abroad. He also fails to recognize that the national security threats are much different today, as compared to those present in 1776.

He has recently stated that America should have “declared war” before going into Iraq, and I agree. But in October of 2002, March of 2004 and June of 2006, he voted against such a notion. He has claimed that the Hussein regime posed no national security threat to America, despite the many efforts by the Hussein regime to specifically threaten America over the years. He also ignores the fact that congress has failed to “declare war” in ever military action since WWII, though they authorized military action in every case except Kosovo under Clinton.

Ron Paul uses the pieces of the constitution that serve his political agenda, while overlooking the fundamental concepts throughout our founding documents, a right to Life, Liberty, pursuit of Happiness, security, sovereignty, morality, public decency and personal freedom.

So again, why are some Republicans willing to use extreme tactics like poll manipulation and fellow conservative candidate bashing in order to promote such a liberal candidate?

It’s easy to figure out why liberal Democrats are supporting Ron Paul. He’s anti-war, pro- marijuana, pro- gay rights and abortion under the guise of “privacy”, pro- gun control, anti-trade and an isolationist who believes that America is the bad guy around the globe, rather than the generous beacon of freedom that has liberated more people than all other nations combined. He is a liberal of the blame America first, last and often sort. He is perfect for liberals who believe in all the same things… Only Cindy Sheehan or Jane Fonda can draw a bigger anti-war crowd.

Now try explaining why any Republicans support him? When you are through studying the views of his supporters, you will find that they have two common values, a strong anti-war isolationist view of world events and a deep love of their money.

At the end of the day, Ron Paul supporters on both sides of the political aisle are driven by only two beliefs and one motivating factor. They are anti-war because they are anti-tax. They do not look beyond the agenda to reduce or eliminate taxes to see the consequences of the decisions they make. They would bring the war on terror abroad right to our own doorstep to save a few tax dollars and that allows Ron Paul to appeal to anti-war voters from the far left and the far right.

Thankfully, he has never appealed to more than 3% in any legitimate national poll. Sadly, his supporters will continue attacking all real conservatives and manipulating all on-line polls to cause further confusion and divisions among conservative voters.

The DNC is working behind the scenes to make him the Ross Perot of 2008, because no Democrat candidate can win unless the conservative vote is divided. Hillary Clinton can not get 50% of the vote in a general election and Barack Obama can not get even 40%. Republicans must be divided for Democrats to win.

That’s what the Ron Paul campaign is all about… Just my opinion of course.

When dictators choose our President

This is not the first time that a dictator (or a Muslim terrorist) has piped up about who they think should run our country, believe me. But you know what? The really funny thing is that they have ALL uniformly chosen candidates that belong to the Democratic Party!

Hmmmmm. Makes you think, eh?

Castro's tip: Clinton-Obama the winning ticket

By Anthony Boadle

HAVANA (Reuters) - Ailing Cuban leader Fidel Castro is tipping Democratic candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama to team up and win the U.S. presidential election.

Two Americas

“Democrats claim there are ‘two Americas.’ If they have their way, there will be two Latin Americas.

Liberals know they’re losing the demographic war. Christians have lots of children and adopt lots of children; liberals abort children and encourage the gay lifestyle in anyone with a flair for color. They can’t keep up.

Population expert Nick Eberstadt recently speculated in The Washington Post that a principal reason for America’s high fertility rate compared to Europe’s is its religiosity. Well, that leaves liberals out.

The Democratic Party is in the fight of its life against a conservative demographic trend. Its only hope is to gerrymander America to make the poorest half of Mexico a state. Only a massive influx of criminals, wards of the state and rioters can save them. This is why Democrats are obsessed with giving two groups the right to vote: illegal aliens and felons...

To liberals, building a wall across the Mexican border is a violation of the Voting Rights Act. Democrats are counting on illegal immigrants to be the future of their party, their border guards for the new socialist state.

At least liberals have a clear mission and know what they’re fighting for. Their plan is to destroy America.” —Ann Coulter

Democratic National Convention Schedule of Events

•  7:00 pm ~ Opening flag burning
  
  
•  7:15 pm ~ Pledge of Allegiance to the U. N.
  
  
•  7:20 pm ~ Ted Kennedy proposes a toast
  
  
•  7:25 pm ~ Nonreligious prayer and worship with Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton
  
  
•  7:45 pm ~ Ceremonial tree hugging
  
  
•  7:55 pm ~ Ted Kennedy proposes a toast
  
  
•  8:00 pm ~ How I Invented the Internet - Al Gore
  
  
•  8:15 pm ~ Gay Wedding Planning - Barney Frank presiding
  
  
•  8:35 pm ~ Ted Kennedy proposes a toast
  
  
•  8:40 pm ~ Our Troops are War Criminals - John Kerry
  
  
•  9.00 pm ~ Memorial service for Saddam and his sons - Cindy Sheehan & Susan Sarandon
  
  
• 10:00 pm ~ Answering Machine Etiquette - Alec Baldwin
  
  
• 11:00 pm ~ Ted Kennedy proposes a toast
  
  
• 11:05 pm ~ Collection for Osama Bin Laden kidney transplant fund - Barbra Streisand
  
  
• 11:15 pm ~ Free the Freedom Fighters from Guantanamo Bay - Sean Penn
  
  
• 11:30 pm ~ Oval Office Affairs - William Jefferson Clinton
  
  
• 11:45 pm ~ Ted Kennedy proposes a toast
  
  
• 11:50 pm ~ How George Bush Brought Down the World Trade Towers - Howard Dean
  
  
• 12:15 am ~ Truth in Broadcasting Award - Presented to Dan Rather by Michael Moore
  
  
• 12:25 am ~ Ted Kennedy proposes a toast
  
  
• 12:30 am ~ Satellite address by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
  
  
• 12:45 am ~ Nomination of Hillary Rodham Clinton by Nancy Pelosi
  
  
•  1:00 am ~ Ted Kennedy proposes a toast
  
  
•  1:05 am ~ Coronation of Hillary Rodham Clinton
  
  
•  1:30 am ~ Ted Kennedy proposes a toast
  
  
•  1:35 am ~ Bill Clinton asks Ted Kennedy to drive Hillary home

WARMONGERS

Clinton Lied and People Did Die

The Fifth Column Warner Todd Huston, Senior Writer
August 21, 2007

How the Left lies to themselves as well as the rest of us.

Anyone who is politically aware in this country, anyone who has taken the time to keep up on the news, can't help but to have run across one of the left's favorite bromides; "Bush lied, People Died." Not quite as well known, but as an adjunct to this doggerel, the left has also indulged in a bit of backward Clinton praising with the phrase "No one died when Clinton lied." This, however, is a lie in and of itself, and it's a perfect example of how the left lies to themselves and everyone around them.

One word best describes how the claim that Clinton's lies never hurt anyone is a blatant untruth. That one word is Kosovo. As Thomas E. Woods, Jr. reveals, Kosovo is the best-kept secret of the worst most murderous failure of the Clinton Administration.

In his new book 33 Questions About American History You're Not Supposed To AskWoods reveals some of the lies and destruction that was Clinton's decision to enter the civil war between the Serbs, Croats and Albanians in 1999.

Clinton's decision to enter the conflict was based on the lie that he was valiantly trying to stop the "genocide" of the Muslim population in Kosovo. There is no doubt that there was a lot of killing going on in that corner of the world at the time and that it was all a bad situation. But, genocide? Hardly.

In fact, Clinton purposefully ignored the proof against any substantiation of genocide and he allowed his Administration to wildly inflate the numbers of Albanians killed by warring Serbs to justify his ginning up of his war machine. To make matters worse, the slavishly pro-Clinton media failed to bother to investigate the Clinton Administration's claims and merely reported Clinton's lies as fact.

You are sure to remember that Clinton claimed in 1999 that the USA was on a humanitarian mission to stop the evil Serbs from ruthlessly killing hundreds of thousands of "innocent" Muslims. That is the story we all heard as Clinton blustered about his war plans. The number of Albanians killed that was bandied about prior to the intervention of US and NATO forces was something near 400,000 Albanians murdered by Serbian forces. Yet, it was revealed in 2006 that there were never any more than 7,000 people reported missing during the whole of the conflict. As Woods reports, "The lurid claims of war supporters typically proved unfounded." Since the action ended, we have seen proven false nearly every "fact" the Clinton Administration used to justify this war.

One such "lurid" claim was the supposed story of the Trepca mines being jammed to the rafters with Albanian bodies hidden there to prevent detection. The mines were claimed a veritable new age "Belsen, Auschwitz, and Treblinka," as the Brit paper Daily Mirror reported. It turns out later that there wasn't a single body discovered once western investigators were able to make it to the area. Another tale, that there were mass graves in the town of Ljubenic, later revealed 7 bodies instead of the supposed 350 that were supposed to be there.

Of the 400,000 Albanians Clinton claimed he went to Kosovo to avenge, even The Hague now only claims that only between 4,000 and 10,000 died during the troubles there. Yes, 10,000 is horrible, but it is far from any "genocide" and not much higher than many dozens of other conflicts world wide in the past 20 years. In the final analysis, the intervention of the US was unnecessary at the very least, disastrous at worst. The case the Clinton Administration made for war was filled with lies about why he went into Kosovo.

So where are the deaths we can attribute to Clinton's lies, then?

As we know, once Clinton announced his fraudulent campaign, he did, indeed bomb the area. This specious bombing killed over 2,000 people...and not just among the so-called enemy Serbs. People of all sides died. Worse, a humanitarian mess resulted from the bombing as hospitals, schools and the infrastructure was destroyed. Later, in contravention to Clinton's stated purpose, the Serbs redoubled their efforts to oust the Albanians proving that the bombing didn’t stop any "genocide” at all.

In fact, any so-called genocide was a result of Clinton's bombs as opposed to them having stopped such a crime against humanity. Far from helping the Albanians, Clinton's bombs made matters far worse for all parties -- including the US and the west.

Now, we all know that the Serbs eventually lost their battles due to Clinton's intervention and since then, radical Islamofascists have turned the tables on the Serbs. Far from ushering in an era of peace in Kosovo, Muslims have since killed and displaced far more Serbs and Croats than the Serbs ever hoped to kill of the Albanian population before 1999.

Also since then, the Islamofascists have discovered a place where they can raise recruits and find safe haven. So, far from helping innocent Muslims escape genocide, all Clinton did was give succor to our enemies in the various Islamofascist movements. Money for radical Madrassas has poured into the area from Saudi Arabia, spreading anti-western sentiment. Remember the Fort Dix Six? They were young Albanian Muslims radicalized by Clinton's failures.

In addition, the Muslims who have now taken power in the area have chased out hundreds of thousands of Gypsies, Christians, and other "undesirables" and have even gone so far as to obliterate centuries old Christian religious sites in the country.

Also, since the bombing stopped, the UN has taken control and that has been an even worse disaster on the infrastructure of the area than anything we have seen in Iraq. Many areas in Kosovo, Bosnia-Herzegovina still don’t have reliable water, electric or roads and the economy is still completely destroyed there. More abhorrently, the UN has been caught keeping local teenaged girls as sex slaves in brothels for their UN "peacekeeping" employees.

The Clinton lies resulted in many thousands of deaths, a country laid waste and our enemies, the Islamofascists, have been given an area from which to recruit and have safe harbor. And hundreds of young girls have been reduced to sexual slavery just to survive day to day. Far from stopping genocide, it looks far more like Clinton has caused one.

So, now tell me that when "Clinton lied, no one died."

At least Bush's actions have been for a real humanitarian effort. Clinton's murderous acts were for...what? Pure self-aggrandizement and little else.

New Media Journal

Warner Todd Huston is a senior writer for The New Media Journal. He also serves as an NMJ Radio Headline News Roundtable Editor, a free lance writer, graphic designer and works in Desktop Publishing. Like every man when young, Mr. Huston was sure that Conservatives were inhumane, ignorant of history and greedy...then he grew up.

Vicks Rub et. al.

Ron Paul—The libertarian Republican

If there is one man who elicits a strong response across the gamut of GOP constituencies, it is Texas Republican congressman and presidential candidate Dr. Ron Paul. Because he is a genuine libertarian, Paul has been a gadfly to liberals and conservatives alike since his first election in Texas to the U.S. House in 1976, and his long-time presence in the GOP is an anomaly that deserves attention.

Ron Paul, a ten-term congressman, small-town doctor, retired Air Force officer and great-grandfather is, indisputably, a gentleman. In a legislative body where integrity seems an increasingly rare quality, Paul’s is unquestioned. Not content merely to condemn unconstitutional taxes and expenditures, every year Dr. Paul returns a portion of his congressional office budget to the U.S. Treasury. In his medical practice, Paul refused to accept Medicare payments on principle. Recently dubbed “the most radical congressman in America” by a New York Times Magazine feature article, Ron Paul’s “radicalism,” clearly, is made of different stuff.

Contrary to Congress’ dreams of ever-increasing power, Dr. Paul’s congressional career is laced with legislation that seeks to reduce the size and scope of the federal government. During his first stint in the House (1976-1984), Paul served on the House Banking Committee, where he was an outspoken critic of the Federal Reserve policies of the era. From that time forward he has sponsored bills and voted to reduce and eliminate federal taxes, as well as federal spending and regulation.

Paul has never voted to raise taxes, never voted for an unbalanced budget, never voted to raise congressional pay, never voted for gun-ownership restrictions, and has voted against regulating the Internet. He is consistently pro family and pro life. In his own words, Paul “never votes for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution.” Notably, Paul was one of only four congressmen to endorse the presidential candidacy of Ronald Reagan in 1976.

Where do I, an old-school Reagan Republican, find myself on the issue of Ron Paul? How should other Reagan Republicans see this genuine maverick presidential candidate for the GOP?

The key is the difference between the meanings of “libertarian” and “conservative.” As for Ron Paul’s status among Reagan Republicans, this is the only question that matters.

When it comes down to the nitty-gritty, conservatives and libertarians have often divergent and incompatible perspectives on the Constitution. For the libertarian, the government that governs best is the one that governs least. For the conservative (and by “conservative” I always mean “constitutional conservative”), the government that governs best is not necessarily the one that governs least, but the one that governs according to the letter of the Constitution.

Here we might also consider the differences between libertarianism and liberalism. Libertarians believe in maximal individual liberty—the absolute maximum of individual liberty that a society can tolerate without anarchy. In this vision, government should be as small as possible, so as not to interfere with the liberty of the individual. Paul cemented himself in this camp in 1988, when he accepted the Libertarian Party presidential nomination. At the other end of the spectrum, liberals pursue the advancement of maximal corporate liberty, which is accomplished (in their thinking) by ensuring the rights of groups. A big government with expansive jurisdictions and prerogatives, then, is a necessary feature of the leftist vision for society. More often than not, though, ensuring group rights means trampling individual rights.

Ultimately, libertarians and liberals stand at opposite ends of the age-old problem of “the one and the many.” Whereas libertarians champion the nearly unfettered rights of individuals (the many) at the expense of society, liberals demand rights for society (the one) to the detriment of society’s individuals.

Unlike libertarianism or liberalism, conservatism seeks to reconcile the one and the many by means of a singular bedrock principle: government limited by the law. In American government, this commitment takes the form of constitutional constructionism—the doctrine that the jurisdiction of the federal government is limited to those things explicitly set aside for it in the Constitution.

In our federal system, all other rights and responsibilities are left to the discretion of individuals and the states (the 9th and 10th Amendments). Federalism, then, is the hallmark of constitutionally limited government in our system. Under such a system, the federal government should actually be strong where it has a constitutional mandate to govern (contra libertarianism); this same strong government should be nonexistent where no constitutional mandate exists (contra liberalism).

Regrettably, there is little room for federalism among libertarians or liberals. The strange fact of the matter is that libertarians are becoming increasingly dissimilar to conservatives across a whole range of issues, and increasingly similar to liberals.

Nowhere is this truer for Ron Paul than with national-security issues—the one area where the Constitution couldn’t be more clear about the role of the federal government. One month after 9/11, Paul was one of three Republicans to vote against the Patriot Act. He was the lone member of either party to vote against the Financial Antiterrorism Act (412-1) to inhibit the financing of terrorist groups, and he has been the most vocal of all anti-war Republicans when it comes to the Iraq war, which he repeatedly derides as an exercise in “empire building” and cavalierly dismisses as a war “sold to us with false information.” While never actually embracing any of the conspiracy theories of the Iraq war, Paul’s criticism repeatedly lends them credence.

This disagreement with Dr. Paul trumps all others and is why Paul will not be Commander in Chief. The only way to preserve American liberty is to defend it vigorously from hostile regimes, and the constitutional obligation of the federal government to do so is beyond dispute. To be sure, we want to defend American sovereignty without an expansion of the state, but Paul’s view of Iraq as a “war of choice” conjured up by war profiteers and “a dozen or two neocons who got control of our foreign policy,” is more than most conservatives can bear. We loved ye, Ron Paul, but we never knew ye.

Published by THE PATRIOT POST

Let the ethnic cleansing begin!

This is the ghost haunting the anti-war left, and the left shudders and screams whenever it floats into the room. All those millions of Cambodians didn't have to die, and all those Boat People didn't have to sail into death or exile. The Kennedys didn't have to topple Diem any more than Senators Levin and Clinton have to work to force the toppling the Maliki. And the Democratic Congress elected in 1974 didn't have to abandon South Vietnam to North Vietnam.

America's Vietnam policy of intervention, manipulation, and then withdrawal represented a series of choices. The Democrats of those years, urged on by a hard left anti-war front, finally made a choice to leave, a choice with awful consequences.

This is the crucial point: The Democratic Party and their supporters made that choice, cheered on by the anti-war left. They own the consequences.

Now we are watching a replay of that debate of 30 years ago, but this time no one is even bothering to deny that American withdrawal at this point would lead to a bloodbath. It is a strange time, because the "screw 'em" school of cut-and-run advocates includes many folks arguing for doing something for Darfur just as we did in Kosovo. It is as though the prospective slaughter of Arabs just doesn't rank with them.

Read the whole thing

The Ghosts of Anbar

Al Qaeda has a management style—doing drugs, laying up sloppy drunk, raping women and boys, and cutting off heads, all while imposing strict morality laws on the locals—that makes it clear that they have one set of principles for themselves, and another for every one else.

Read more

Get Smart - Iran develops 900-kg ‘smart bomb’

Guided bomb developed by specialists within Islamic Republic’s Defense Ministry and is now operational, IRNA news agency reports, adding it could be dropped from F-4 and F-5 jets...

Read more

"...the silence and the emptiness is so great that I look and do not see, listen and do not hear."

On Dec. 11, 1979, Mother Teresa, the "Saint of the Gutters," went to Oslo. Dressed in her signature blue-bordered sari and shod in sandals despite below-zero temperatures, the former Agnes Bojaxhiu received that ultimate worldly accolade, the Nobel Peace Prize. In her acceptance lecture, Teresa, whose Missionaries of Charity had grown from a one-woman folly in Calcutta in 1948 into a global beacon of self-abnegating care, delivered the kind of message the world had come to expect from her. "It is not enough for us to say, 'I love God, but I do not love my neighbor,'" she said, since in dying on the Cross, God had "[made] himself the hungry one — the naked one — the homeless one." Jesus' hunger, she said, is what "you and I must find" and alleviate. She condemned abortion and bemoaned youthful drug addiction in the West. Finally, she suggested that the upcoming Christmas holiday should remind the world "that radiating joy is real" because Christ is everywhere — "Christ in our hearts, Christ in the poor we meet, Christ in the smile we give and in the smile that we receive."

Yet less than three months earlier, in a letter to a spiritual confidant, the Rev. Michael van der Peet, that is only now being made public, she wrote with weary familiarity of a different Christ, an absent one. "Jesus has a very special love for you," she assured Van der Peet. "[But] as for me, the silence and the emptiness is so great, that I look and do not see, — Listen and do not hear — the tongue moves [in prayer] but does not speak ... I want you to pray for me — that I let Him have [a] free hand."

The two statements, 11 weeks apart, are extravagantly dissonant. The first is typical of the woman the world thought it knew. The second sounds as though it had wandered in from some 1950s existentialist drama. Together they suggest a startling portrait in self-contradiction — that one of the great human icons of the past 100 years, whose remarkable deeds seemed inextricably connected to her closeness to God and who was routinely observed in silent and seemingly peaceful prayer by her associates as well as the television camera, was living out a very different spiritual reality privately, an arid landscape from which the deity had disappeared.

Mother Teresa's Crisis of Faith

Free corn

Student teaches a lesson to his teacher:

Several years ago I was supervising a beginning teacher in a city school system. One day during our end-of-the-day feedback conference, the young man gave a facial grimace and began to rub his back. I asked him if he had strained his back in the school lab. After a long period of silence, he sat down at his desk and explained that he had immigrated to the United States because of political problems in his native country. The discomfort in his back was caused by a bullet wound he had received while fighting the Communists who were trying to take over his country's government. He was then a member of the underground nationalist force.

Then he asked me a surprising question: "Professor, do you know how to catch a wild hog?" The question was completely out of context regarding the day's classroom and lab teaching. I replied, "I'm not sure what you are talking about. Tell me."

"First," he said, "you find out where the wild hogs are roaming and feeding and then you put some corn out in the field. Soon they will come to eat the corn. You keep putting out the free corn. More wild hogs keep coming to eat the corn."

"So what?" I said. "That's normal for any animal."

He said, "After the hogs get used to your free corn, you put up a length of fence along one side of the feeding area. The hogs get used to it. You keep giving them the corn. Then you put up another section of fence at right angles to the first. You keep giving them the corn. The hogs get used to the second fence. Then you put up another length of fence at right angles to the second section. You now have a U-shaped fenced area. The hogs get used to that section of the fence. You keep giving them free corn.

Then you put another section of fence with a gate in it, making a closed area except for the gate. You keep giving them corn. Now, the hogs no longer are out in the fields, working to find their own food. They keep coming into the area to eat the free corn. They get used to the fenced area with the open gate. Then, one day you slam shut the gate when the hogs are inside the fenced area. The wild hogs are caught - they are your prisoners."

I understood then that the wild hogs were really the people of his native country and that the free corn was the enticements that the Communists were giving to the people.

"That's correct," the young man said. "Now, the hogs will not get anything to eat unless you give them food. You are in control. They depend on you to feed them, or they will starve. They can't get out into the fields and forests anymore to find their own food. They have probably forgotten how, as it is. They are your servants, your prisoners. They must obey you. Or else they starve."

"The hogs," he said, "were so accustomed to having the free corn, that they ignored the building of the fences that would eventually trap them. When the gate slammed shut, it was too late for them to realize what they had been blind to. The free corn was enticing, so effortless to obtain, but eventually the cause of their loss of freedom. The fence had been built; the gate had been shut."

At this point in our conversation, the young teacher loudly exclaimed, "This is what I see happening in America today! People are being offered free corn by the government. People are being blind to the fences being built around them by the liberals - the socialists - and that is what frightens me! Just like it was happening in my homeland. The American people do not learn from history. And history shows that socialism/communism does not work. Take note of Russia. Has socialism been the best thing that ever happened to that country? Absolutely not! But socialism is what the American people are being fed, and they don't realize it. All they can focus on is the 'free corn.' They want more and more of the free corn. And this free corn is being fed to us little by little, and soon the gate will slam shut. I am very frightened, and also amazed, that the American people don't see what is being fed us, and for what purpose."

With that said, the young man sat down at his desk and continued to rub his painful back. And I was silent in my chair. For I could visualize the supposedly "free corn" being fed to our nation's people and our growing addiction to the "free corn". And I could see the gate being slammed shut.

We, the people of the United States of America, because of our ignorance of history, because of our addiction to the supposedly "free corn," could soon be these prisoners.

Before Bush, CIA failed in run-up to 9/11

WASHINGTON: George Tenet, the former head of the Central Intelligence Agency, recognized the danger posed by Al Qaeda well before the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, but failed to adequately prepare the CIA to meet the threat, according to an internal agency report that was released in summary form Tuesday.

CIA criticizes former chief over terror readiness

WASHINGTON (AP) - The CIA's top leaders failed to use their available powers, never developed a comprehensive plan to stop al-Qaida and missed crucial opportunities to thwart two hijackers in the run-up to Sept. 11, the agency's own watchdog concluded in a bruising report released Tuesday.

CIA Missed Chances to Thwart al-Qaida

Your crystal ball

More Funnies

Hey, what about breathing?

Gore’s Zero Emissions Makes Zero Sense

It is the nature of civilization to use energy and it’s the nature of liberalism to feel bad about it. That’s my conclusion after finally sitting down to watch “An Inconvenient Truth,” the Oscar-winning documentary that has turned Al Gore into a rock star (and rock music promoter). Here’s my review: it is an overly simplistic look at a complex problem and it concludes with one of the single stupidest statements ever put on film. Yes, that’s harsh criticism. But it’s the right one, given that just before the final credits, in a segment addressing what individuals can do about global warming, the following line appears onscreen: “In fact, you can even reduce your carbon emissions to zero.”

This statement is so blatantly absurd that I am still stunned, weeks after watching Gore’s movie, that none of the dozens of smart people involved in the production of the movie – including, particularly, Gore himself – paused to wonder aloud something to the effect of, “Hey, what about breathing? Don’t we produce carbon dioxide through respiration?”

U.S. troops in Afghanistan are "just air-raiding villages and killing civilians."

WASHINGTON (Map, News) - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama came under fire Tuesday for saying that U.S. troops in Afghanistan are "just air-raiding villages and killing civilians." The junior senator from Illinois made the comment Monday at a campaign stop in Nashua, New Hampshire.

"We've got to get the job done there," he said of Afghanistan. "And that requires us to have enough troops so that we're not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous pressure over there."

The comment drew a rebuke Tuesday from the campaign of Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney.

"That is a very troubling remark on so many levels," said Romney spokesman Kevin Madden. "Most importantly, it's emblematic of Senator Obama's lack of experience for the job of commander-in-chief. But it's also an entirely inaccurate condemnation of the efforts of the men and women of the United States military who are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan."

A spokesman for Obama, who will speak at the Veterans of Foreign Wars convention in Missouri next week, did not immediately respond to Madden's criticism.

Read the whole thing

Who controls you?

“A substantial number of Americans, perhaps a majority, believe that government should dictate where people live, what their housing structures should look like, and how they should be constructed. They believe it is right for government to dictate what curriculum children should study in school. They believe it is right for government to dictate which land should be cultivated, and which land should not be touched by humans. They believe it is right for government to dictate the kind of automobiles that are available for people to purchase. Simply put, a substantial number of Americans believe it is right for government to dictate how people should live. They believe that government should ‘engineer’ society.

How different is this modern attitude from the belief system that led Americans into war to defeat the Nazis’ efforts to engineer society. How different is this modern attitude from the belief system that led our founders to declare that the Creator, not government, endowed people with equal rights to ‘...life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.’ How different is this modern attitude from the notion that legitimate government is empowered only by the consent of the governed.

Society has been successfully engineered to believe that the goal is no longer freedom, but the control of government, which means the control of society, to fit the agenda of the controlling party. The idea of entering public service as an elected official in order to limit the power of government, and maximize the freedom of individual citizens, is an obsolete concept.” —Henry Lamb

Real Life

“Today’s young people have the ability to experience excitement more than any generation in history.

Outside of school, excitement is available almost 24/7. MTV is exciting (MTV has done far more damage to this generation than has the tobacco industry); video games are exciting... The list of exciting things many children experience is as long as there are hours in the day.

But all this excitement is actually inhibiting our children’s ability to enjoy life and therefore be happy. All this excitement renders young people jaded, not happy... All this excitement in their lives bodes poorly for the future happiness of millions of American children. Real life, let alone daily life, will seem so boring to them that they will not be able to enjoy it. And more than a few of them will opt for lives of constant excitement, often in ways destructive to themselves and others.

The solutions are as simple to offer as they may be difficult to enforce. Limit the amount of excitement in your children’s lives: the amount of video games, the amount of non-serious television, the amount of music whose only aim is to excite. If they are bored, they will have to remedy that boredom by playing with friends, finding a hobby, talking to a family member, walking the dog, doing chores, reading a book or magazine, learning a musical instrument or foreign language, memorizing state capitals, writing a story or just their thoughts, exercising or playing a sport, or just thinking. The younger the age from which children are deprived of superficial excitement, the longer they will remain innocent—i.e., not jaded—and capable of real happiness.”

—Dennis Prager