Daily Wisdom

October 27, 2006

Blue State Blues

TRENTON, NJ -- The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that gay couples have the same rights as heterosexual couples. The result of this landmark case is that I've just developed a case of the "Blue State Blues". I'm downright depressed. As Bugs Bunny would say... "What a revoltin' development!"

My concerns span a number of areas. First and foremost, as a Christian I am brutally affronted at the sheer audacity of the decision. I'm not really SURPRISED by it. After all, living in a "blue" state means never having (or being able) to say: "Jesus said...", or "the Bible teaches...", or even "the Founding Fathers asserted..." On the other hand, it's still a shock to think of how far our society has departed from the beliefs of those intrepid Pilgrims who braved a long sea voyage and untold hardships pioneering an unknown land in order to establish a God-fearing society in the New World. No doubt there are many such souls who are now turning over in their graves this day.

Secondly, as one who believes that the Supreme Court's role (whether a State Supreme Court or the SCOTUS) is to interpret the law and not to create it from the bench, I am again disappointed that the New Jersey Judiciary has seen fit to legislate. You can read the ruling for yourself HERE, if you like. It's straight-forward and gets right to the heart of the matter. It says that...

New Jersey's marriage laws, which were first enacted in 1912, limit marriage to heterosexual couples. The recently enacted Domestic Partnership Act explicitly acknowledges that same-sex couples cannot marry. Although today there is a national debate over whether same-sex marriages should be authorized by the states, the framers of the 1947 New Jersey Constitution could not have imagined that the liberty right protected by Article I, Paragraph 1 embraced same-sex marriage.

Therefore, one would presume that a "strict constructionist" interpretation of the New Jersey Constitution would prohibit same-sex marriages in any form. Or at least, that's the "logical" conclusion one might draw. But who's to let "Stare Decisis" stand in the way of activist judges? Who's to stand in the way of judges intent on CHANGING THE LAW rather than interpreting the law? Apparently no one...

Times and attitudes have changed. There has been a developing understanding that discrimination against gays and lesbians is no longer acceptable in this State...

And while this passage goes on to say that "the Court cannot find that the right to same-sex marriage is a fundamental right under our constitution", it strongly implies that such a right OUGHT to be there. And why? Simply because "times and attitudes have changed". Damn the Founding Fathers. Damn the framers of the 1947 New Jersey Constitution. There are no "absolutes". There are no "Ten Commandments". There is no "Right" or "Wrong". There is only the mood of the moment. What was "immoral" yesterday is "moral" today. What was "perversion" yesterday is "chic" today. It's the "in-thing"... and therefore it MUST be legal. Anyone who believes otherwise is an old-fashioned, "traditionalist", fuddy-duddy.

Which brings me to the third reason for my "Blue State Blues". On what basis did the New Jersey Supreme Court found its ruling? Why, on none other than the basis of "equal protection". Same-sex couples must be afforded the same rights and privileges as heterosexual couples because they are "EQUAL" in the eyes of the law. Well... I guess, if you SAY so!?! As a judge, if that's what you believe when you sit down to hear such a case then I guess that's what you're going decide, isn't it? Especially if you don't give a damn about what they believed 40 or 50 years ago (let alone 230 years ago). After all, "times and attitudes have changed" now, haven't they? Personally, I don't think gay couples and heterosexual couples are "equal" for any number of reasons. But then, nobody asked me. In fact, those SCONJ judges didn't ask ANYONE in the State of New Jersey what they think. There was no referendum that I can recall. I didn't vote to give gays equal status.

And that brings me to the fourth reason for my "Blue State Blues". The SCONJ went so far as to "order" the NJ Legislature to change the laws...

To bring the State into compliance with Article I, Paragraph 1 so that plaintiffs can exercise their full constitutional rights, the Legislature MUST either amend the marriage statutes or enact an appropriate statutory structure within 180 days of the date of this decision. (emphasis added)

Hmmmm. Seems to me I once heard something about three co-equal branches of government... neither one having jurisdiction or power over the others. I guess that doesn't apply in the State of New Jersey? The Judiciary in New Jersey can just order the Legislature around as it sees fit. Wow! Impressive. I'll be even more depressed if the State legislators roll over and agree to do the Judiciary's bidding without telling them to go shove it!

And last but not least, my fifth reason for the "Blue State Blues". As a taxpayer, I have to pick up the tab. The tax laws clearly favor married couples. Giving gay couples all the "benefits and privileges that are afforded to married heterosexual couples" means that they will be paying less taxes than they were paying formerly. Unfortunately, state and federal expenses will not decrease when gay couples are provided with these new rights. Therefore, this decision will result in a net loss of tax revenue. Lower tax revenues means tax hikes to offset these benefits accorded to gay couples. Hence, I and my fellow old-fashioned, traditionalist, fuddy-duddy, heterosexual, Christian friends will be subsidizing with our taxpayer dollars the lifestyles of those whose values we do not agree with.

Rant over... but disallusionment persists.

October 24, 2006

Why Vote Republican?

You might have to hit the "Pause Button" on this one to read all the text. It goes pretty fast!

Democrat Hypocrisy on Iraq

An oldie but a goodie!

Democrats: No Plan. No Vision.


October 22, 2006

Let's Say Thanks

Take a few seconds to say thanks to our troops. Click on the image above. Then, select a card from the scrolling samples. If you're using Internet Explorer, put your mouse over a scrolling card to stop and enlarge it. Otherwise you can click on the link at the left side of the page to "View All Designs". After you've selected a card, then enter your name and town. Then select from a choice of messages. It's simple and easy. The card will be printed and given randomly to a military person overseas. And don't forget to pray for their safety. They need our prayers now more than ever.

October 17, 2006

The Fascists Among Us

by Selwyn Duke
October 17th, 2006

It’s no secret that hurling names about is as common in the political world as it is in a grammar school playground. One oft-used pejorative is “fascist,” which, along with racist, sexist, homophobe and others, tends to be least understood by those who utter it most. And because these damning terms are used wantonly, more to discredit than describe, they tend to be misapplied. Then, soon, calling someone a fascist becomes akin to calling him a snake: more a vague impugnment of character then a characterization of methods and goals.

Rhetoric aside, however, I’ve come to realize that true fascists do exist in our time. But who are they? How can they be correctly identified? To discover the answer, let’s start with a trip down Bad Memory Lane.

Another word that makes the rounds these days is “Brownshirts,” which, as many know, harks back to the SA, a paramilitary organization that was instrumental in Adolf Hitler’s rise to power in 1933. The Brownshirts were the adolescent Nazi Party’s muscle, squelching opposition through violence and intimidation. Shout-downs and beat-downs were their stock-in-trade, making their name a metaphor for fascist intolerance and oppression.

Now for a little current events. There was a university, some speakers and an audience. The speakers had been invited to the university in the name of intellectual debate and free expression. Some of the audience, however, would have none of it. Intolerant of the views being aired, they shouted-down the speakers and repeatedly called one of the black representatives “nigger.” Then, in a final fit of hatred and rage, in quintessential Brownshirt style, they stormed the stage violently, squelching voices that would have contributed to a fruitful exchange of ideas.

But what was the university? And, more to the point, who were the speakers and the audience? Were the guests communists or advocates for illegal immigration and the audience right-wing ideologues? No, not at all.

This fascistic display occurred at vaunted Columbia University, ostensibly a bastion of free expression. The speakers were with the Minuteman Project, the organization of citizen border sentinels. And the mob posing as an audience comprised those who despise such individuals: leftists. Leftists who did the Brownshirts proud.

Then, there once was a woman who traveled to the University of Arizona to give a speech. But members of the crowd didn’t like what she had to say, and a couple of them attacked her, hurling pies. Now, this isn’t the first time this lady has been targeted with violence, and she now travels with bodyguards.

But who was this woman? Was she a member of GLAAD beating the drum for the legal sanction of anti-marriage or a terrorist sympathizer criticizing US interrogation techniques? No, she was conservative pundit Ann Coulter, and her offense that night was to dare to defend the institution of marriage. And, needless to say, those who tried to silence her were her leftist foes.

And you don’t have to be famous to feel the left’s wrath. On more than one occasion student newspapers have been burned, and even one of my editors related a story to me about being shouted down by colleagues during a previous career in academia.

Lest you think this is unusual, errant blips on the radar screen, know that this is standard practice on university campuses today. Liberals are afforded the right to speak mostly unfettered by disruptive voices, while conservatives are subjected to as much abuse as today’s Brownshirts can get away with dishing out.

Getting back to the more fashion conscious fascists of yesteryear, once the Brownshirts had helped catapult the Nazis into power, the SS (sometimes called the “Blackshirts”) was created. Among other functions, the SS served the regime’s agenda by arresting, questioning and punishing those who expressed the politically incorrect thoughts of the day. It was effective enough so that many German people wouldn’t even express dissent within earshot of their own children.

Fast-forward again, and we have the story of a 14-year-old working class girl in England named Codie Stott. Recently she said something in her classroom to which her teachers didn’t exactly cotton. In fact, her words didn’t find favor with the government, either, and she found herself cooling her heels in a jail cell for three and a half hours. Mind you, this wasn’t for the commission of an untoward act, but for mere use of the tongue.

So what was Codie’s grave transgression? Did she threaten the life of the Queen? Was she a hippie advocating the replacement of tea time with a trip to an opium den? Perish the thought.

What happened was that Codie had been assigned to work on a project with a group of five Asian students, four of whom couldn’t speak English. And the fifth was probably limited to the pidgin variety. After being seated with the quintet and instructed to discuss the subject matter in question, the foreigners commenced speaking amongst themselves in Urdu (one of Pakistan’s major languages), a language Codie couldn’t understand, prompting her to approach the teacher and request placement elsewhere. The teacher’s response was to scream “It’s racist, you’re going to get done by the police.”

And she was.

Suspected of committing a “section five racial public order offense,” Codie was arrested, interrogated, photographed, fingerprinted and told to relinquish her shoelaces and jewelry and then imprisoned.

Now, do I have to tell you whose agenda visited this injustice upon the hapless Codie? Well, be assured that it’s not the work of a “right-wing” boogeyman like Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell or the Vatican.

Be outraged, but not surprised. Like the Brownshirt activity that the left’s useful idiots engage in regularly nowadays, SS-like government suppression of free speech has become rampant in the western world. In Canada, Ontario man Mark Harding was convicted in 1998 of a “hate-crime” for distributing pamphlets critical of Islam. Further west in Saskatchewan, countryman Hugh Owens was forced to pay damages of 1,500 Canadian dollars after taking out a newspaper advertisement in which he criticized homosexuality and cited Bible passages. In April of this year in Irlam, England, a ten-year-old boy was brought before a judge in a criminal court after calling another student a “Paki” and “Bin Laden” in the heat of a playground argument.

And don’t think that we in the United States are immune from such governmental infringement upon freedom of speech. But, wait, relative to other western nations America is supposed to be a citadel of rightist zealotry, a place akin to the Death Star in Star Wars with Darth Vader at the helm. So, perhaps our fascists really are the stuff of leftist nightmares. Well, it’s time for one last story.

In 2004, two opposing groups confronted each other at the Outfest National Coming Out Day street fair, a celebration of homosexuality in Philadelphia, Pa. Each group was committed to its cause, and while stories differ regarding who cast the first stone, words were exchanged in what became a rancorous confrontation. However, despite the fact that the most dangerous weapon wielded that day was an acid tongue, arrests were made. And, despite the fact that both groups launched verbal salvos, only one group’s members were arrested.

Was the persecuted group a contingent of NAMBLA or ACT-UP? Not on your life. It comprised eleven Christians who dared espouse their traditional beliefs about homosexual behavior. And the homosexual group that locked horns with them, the Pink Angels, was left unmolested by the government storm troopers.

I want you to remember these stories the next time you hear leftist sophistry about how conservatives would visit fascism upon us. We hear liberal campfire tales about how the “Christian Right” is converting us into a theocracy, but I have yet to hear about someone being arrested for denying the divinity of Jesus, immersing a crucifix in a jar of urine (smut-peddler Robert Mapplethorpe) or using the Lord’s name in vain. We’re told of neocon designs on our freedoms, but I have yet to see ACLU or CAIR hauled in front of tribunals. The truth is that fascism has reared its ugly head in the western world, but that head always, always, always tilts left.

So Brownshirts do lurk among us, and their number is not insignificant. But there are Americans who fancy themselves to be liberals who cannot be counted among them, individuals who still think this is the age of their grandfather’s liberalism. And for these people, I’ll present some points to ponder. Doesn’t it give you pause for thought that fascist methods are ever more frequently employed in our time, and that when they are it is virtually always in the service of a leftist agenda? Then, a definition of liberalism from Dictionary.com states:

“favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression . . . ”

So I ask you, don’t you think that perhaps, just maybe, there’s something wrong with the soul of today’s liberalism when it has become so illiberal?

As for you Brownshirts, you are the initiated. I know I can’t disabuse you of your misbegotten notions. I also know that you’re winning the culture war in the West, and for good reason.

You’re meaner, more violent and more devious than people of the light, and above nothing. And you may smell blood as you look forward to your ascendancy as masters of the Universe. So, I have an addendum to my stories . . . just for you.

After the Brownshirts (SA) in Germany had served their purpose – giving the Nazis an iron fist of tyranny with which to rule – they themselves became victims of the monster they had created. Starting on the infamous “Night of the Long Knives,” June 29th-30th, the SS began arresting the leaders of the SA and, ultimately, scores of them were executed. It seems that there is no honor among fascists. Besides, the pseudo-sophisticates in the Nazi hierarchy had no use for Brownshirts, always the most boorish of thugs.
Useful idiots never get respect. They just get used.

Selwyn Duke is an occasional contributor to American Thinker.

October 14, 2006

God Bless the Poles

Polish Army Lt. Col Andrzej Kujawa, Commander, Civilian Military Cooperation Unit, Camp Echo, shakes hands with Iraqi doctors following a site survey at a medical clinic in Ghammas. The Polish CIMIC funds, contracts, and inspects projects. (U.S. Air Force photo by Tech. Sgt. Dawn M. Price)

As an American of Polish ancestry, I am forced to admit that I feel a certain pride when occasionally reminded of the contribution Poland has been making to the War on Terror, and in particular to the War in Iraq. I felt that way again when I saw the picture above. Photo and caption courtesy of the Multi-National Force web site HERE.

Actually, it's a bit difficult to explain. What these images evoke in me, I guess, is a feeling of brotherhood... of solidarity. In a sense, I am reminded that I am an American only by the grace of God. If my grandparents had decided not to emigrate to America back in the early 1900s, I would have most likely been born in Poland. And if I was Polish rather than American... it's good to know somehow that my country would be allied with America in this struggle against terror and Islamofascism. It's comforting to believe that if I was Polish rather than American... that at least I would be a close friend of America.

And, somewhat 'Off-Topic', it's also comforting to know that Poland became a Christian nation before the year 970 AD. That's more than 500 years before America was discovered. That's more than 600 years before the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock.

Between 1300 and 1700 AD, the Poles defeated Mulsim invaders several times and almost single-handedly saved Europe from being overrun. They defeated the Tartars (or Tatars) and the Turks. For an interesting commentary on these battles, you can click HERE.

I guess it's in my blood. The Poles have been Christians for a 1000 years, and we've been fighting against the jihadis for 700 years. Is it any wonder that I can't understand why some want to appease the "true infidels"?

October 08, 2006

Gore Signs Multiple Deals

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Former U.S. Vice President and Presidential Candidate Al Gore held a press conference today announcing that he has signed deals with various organizations. Among those organizations are Jenny Craig™, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the Union of Concerned Scientists.

According to Gore, the deal with Jenny Craig™ revolves around a television ad campaign concerning weight loss. "Well, I need to lose a few pounds anyway, so what better incentive to achieve my goals than the good old American greenback?", said Gore.

Mr. Gore also said he has signed an agreement with the U.S. Department of Agriculture to participate in a study. The details of the agreement are sketchy. According to one unnamed source at the USDA, the study intends to show how a reduction in the consumption of foodstuffs by obese Americans can boost American exports and reduce the trade deficit.

Mr. Gore has also signed a deal with the Union of Concerned Scientists for undisclosed remunerations. The UCS is "an independent nonprofit alliance of more than 100,000 concerned citizens and scientists... founded in 1969 by faculty members and students at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who were concerned about the misuse of science and technology in society". One of the organization's present concerns is global warming.

Gore said he will work with the UCS on a narrowly-focused project to determine how reductions of methane gas emissions would impact global warming. "I'm working on this project with the UCS as it relates to some other things I've got going on at the moment", said Gore. Methane is a greenhouse gas.

Mr. Gore is expected to receive a modest stipend from the UCS in exchange for the publicity which he will bring to the UCS organization. Critics have called the UCS an "unlabeled left-wing activist" group.

Gore closed the press conference saying, "Might as well kil... errr, remove two birds from the endangered species list with one stone, ehh?"

Al Gore is best known for inventing the "Internet" and the Social Security "Lock Box".

October 06, 2006

Democrat Duplicity

I have been reluctant to comment on the Mark Foley situation, because the facts are not all in yet. Some have been quick to jump to Foley's defense, but there may yet be more information to come out which would make his defense unjustifiable. Nevertheless, if there is one thing in this whole case that seems certain, it is the duplicity of Democrats.

By now I am sure that you have all heard how Democrats have a double-standard. They think it's OK for a Democratic president to have phone sex and to get a blow-job from an intern, but it's not OK for a Republican congressman to send instant messages. Apparently it's OK for Gary Studds (D-MA), to actually "DATE" a 16 year old male page, get him drunk and molest him, but it's not OK for a Republican Speaker of the House to tolerate a Republican congressman sending E-mails. So, we won't rehash all that here.

But in my opinion, the Foley scandal was caused by Liberal Democrats, and they have the unmitigated gall to try and blame it on someone else. Sure, Mark Foley is a creep and must accept responsibility for his personal actions, but for years the Liberal Democrats have fostered an environment in this country which not only permitted Foley's actions, but encouraged them.

Consider for a moment the positions which Liberal Democrats have taken on the following issues:

  • Promiscuity: In the 1960's and 70's they advocated "free love", held "love-ins", and thought nothing of "wife-swapping". If you objected, you were labeled a "square".
  • Abortion: With all that free love going on, there was bound to be some unwanted pregnancies, but why spoil the fun... just kill the unwanted babies. So the Liberal Democrats pushed the issue to the Supreme Court and passed Roe v. Wade.
  • Sex in the Media: The entertainment industry is a bastion of Liberal Democrats, so nudity in live theater performances became the rage starting with the musical "Hair". Then they began pushing the envelope with nudity and sex in the movies and on television. Then the "shock jocks" like Howard Stern arrived, bringing entertainment to a new low. They promote TV shows like "Sex in the City" and "Desperate Housewives". They bare their breasts at Superbowl half-time shows.
  • Sex Education: Since sexual freedom is obviously such an important part of the Liberal Democratic culture, it was therefore important for them to make sure that young children received training on how to properly participate. Sex Ed started in high schools and then moved progressively down to the middle schools and finally to elementary schools.
  • Condoms: It wasn't enough to teach kids about sex, Liberal Democrats decided to promote sex amongst children with the distribution of free condoms.
  • Abstinence: Liberal Democrats apparently do not believe that children will listen to teaching about abstinence from sexual activity. However, they then assume that children will listen to all the rest of their teaching. This dichotomy is difficult to explain, unless perhaps they believe that hormones take precedence over intelligence. Considering the number of recent cases where teachers have had sex with their students, I guess teaching abstinence would constitute a conflict of interest. And as an aside, the teacher's unions are another bastion of Liberal Democrats.
  • Gay Rights: Liberal Democrats took up the cause of defending non-traditional lifestyles calling all who disagreed "homophobes" and "bigots". Bill Clinton's first act as President of the United States was to implement the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy in the military. Hollywood jumped on the bandwagon producing movies and TV shows that promote the gay lifestyle as normal and acceptable. Liberal Democrats are trying to force acceptance of "alternative" sexual lifestyles onto school students through changes in the curriculum.
  • Diversity: According to Liberal Democrats, we all need to recognize and accept everyone for who they are. We are not allowed to discriminate on the basis of sexual preference. We must be "politically correct" and tolerant at all times... unless you're a Republican.
  • NAMBLA: Some Liberal Democrats even support the North American Man/Boy Love Association which, as the name suggests, advocates sympathy towards and the legalization of homosexual pedophilia.
  • Privacy: According to Liberal Democrats, the sexual preferences and activities of other Democrats are a matter of privacy. What goes on behind closed doors should be ignored and overlooked. Obviously, they do not grant the same privileges to Republicans.

  • Having thus created the "utopia" in which we now live, for Liberal Democrats to attack Mark Foley and Denny Hastert is a hypocrisy of the highest magnitude.

    October 04, 2006

    Hillary Unhurt in Air Crash

    The Associated Press reports that New York junior Senator Hillary Clinton, narrowly escaped injury on the aircraft she was piloting when she was forced to make an emergency landing in Southern New Jersey because of bad weather. Hillary was on her way home to Chappaqua, New York from Washington, D.C.

    National Transportation Safety Board officials have issued a preliminary determination that pilot error contributed to the accident.
    The senator was flying a single engine aircraft in IFR (instrument flight rating) conditions while only having obtained a VFR (visual flight rating) rating.

    The absence of a post-crash fire was likely due to insufficient fuel on board. No one on the ground was injured.

    Photographs below were taken at the scene show the extent of damage to Senator Clinton's aircraft.

    She was very lucky