by ·Comments Off on Anti-War March, March 15

There are many distinctions between the antiwar activists of the Vietnam era and those today. In spite of the fact that many today are holdovers from that conflict, and have perennially, since that time, hated all things American, most are the new breed of protester.

The antiwar rally on the Mall in Washington, D.C., on Saturday, March 15, was like a big anti-American infomercial with each speaker giving their web site address, advertising what group they represented, and inviting all within hearing range to come to yet, another rally, for yet another anti-American cause.

It wasn’t surprising that in their rush to condemn America and President Bush, they forgot to mention it was the anniversary of the gassing of thousands of fellow Iraqis by Saddam. The few who lived through the horrors were not invited to speak or give an eyewitness account of the brutality that the tyrant visits upon his “loyal” subjects.

But you can be sure, if one Iraqi is even scratched by the US military, they will be immediately flown in, invested as the anti-war poster child, and paraded through every rally and talk show decrying the evil of President Bush and the United States.

The speeches, or commercials, would hardly convince the casual listener that they could possibly have anything in common with this rag tag group of socialists that never saw a dictator they didn’t love, and a patriotic American they didn’t malign as being a right-wing terrorist. They had apologists for Cuba, Columbia, Nicaragua and several other countries ravaged by communism, drug lords and tyranny. Their icon of irrelevant thought, Ramsey Clark, praised the French people and said even Lafayette and the Statue of Liberty don’t compare to the greatness of the French people today and their courage to stand up against the infidel, George W. Bush.

But, I would like to think that Ramsey Clark loves conservative Republicans, including President Bush, at least as much as he claims he loves the people of Iraq, which he did at the rally on Saturday. Remember Ramsey . . . charity begins at home.

It was cute how they all kept referring to each other as “brother and sister” like they were all going to go home and share a steak together or something. Oh, sorry . . . I mean a slab of tofu. So, the word “Comrade,” the ancient communist term for unity and “solidarity,” (another key word that kept popping up), has been replaced. Since the rest of the world is under the impression that communism is dead, forgetting Cuba, North Korea and China, it is cliché to call a fellow tyrant loving, useful idiot, a “comrade.” How retro can you get?

Years ago, during the Vietnam protests, we were privy only to the carefully gleaned semi-intellectual comments that were woven skillfully into the evening news of the three major TV networks that held the country hostage to their editorial slant and persuasion. There were no opposing views expressed, except at the voting booth that overwhelmingly put Nixon back in office, inspite of the impression that McGovern was the clear choice of “the people.”

Today, there are so many voices, opinions, camcorders and websites that not only report and film every single word, but provide dissection from every possible angle imagined. With CSPAN loyally providing an unvarnished version of the truth, the rest of America is free to shake there collective heads and wonder what rock these protesters crawled out from under.

Then we remember Seattle and DC and the anti-World Bank and IMF marches where violence and mayhem ensued in the name of peace and justice. A whole generation of anarchists chomping at the bit to release their venom against anything that stands for liberty, personal responsibility and civil rights, is delighted to finally have a purpose, a cause celeb. This was their teething ring, preparing them for the hopes of protesting against a President who has the courage to stand firm against attacks that killed 3,000 fellow American citizens.

It is still a mystery as to why they stood by silently as their icon of ego, Bill Clinton, dropped bombs on Afghanistan, Sudan, and then Serbia and Albania without checking the pulse of the International community. They were silent when the “oops” bomb dropped on the Chinese embassy, and on the personal residence of Slovodon, deep in the heart of Serbia. What, no human shields? No opposition to the president using our tax dollars, our military and our government to bomb sovereign nations, as many of the speakers Saturday were complaining that Bush was doing?

Ok, we know that liberals, even left wing anarchist liberals, believe no democrat can commit a crime, while all Republicans (except the Republican Guard) should be lined up against a wall and shot . . . in the name of peace of course. But it was amazing to see such hate issuing from these young, impressionable kids who probably couldn’t point to Vietnam on a map if their MP3 player depended on it.

So let’s look at the numbers. The most recent polls show that 70% of the American people support the president. That number keeps climbing every time a Hollywood starlet says how awful he is, and how ashamed they are of America.

The Dixie Chicks just caused Bush’s numbers to go up a few points in the polls as they trashed him to London audiences, hoping their base . . . red, white and blue-blooded Americans . . . wouldn’t get wind of their disloyal statements. Heh girls, I dare you to go on a local Nashville station and make those same comments.

Here comes the distinction between then and now. Although the vast majority of the agitators against the Vietnam War were paid operatives with the purpose of demoralizing our troops and destabilizing our presence in that part of the world, the naive followers really did believe we should be out of Vietnam. And that was it.

They weren’t tree-hugging atheists who spewed venom at people of faith who ate hamburgers. They understood the threat of the Soviet Union and wouldn’t be caught dead siding with Castro. They were thoughtful people who had a serious problem with the US sending troops, for years, to a land we knew nothing about for a purpose that was never clearly explained. And when the war ended, they went on with their lives, their businesses, their professions . . . and didn’t look back.

The protesters today are far slicker with a much more complicated agenda that really has nothing to do with peace. If it did, they would have spoken out at some point about the atrocities committed by Saddam, or Castro, or Kim Jong Il, or a myriad of other petty dictators who have zero respect for human life. They would be on the front line against abortion that kills more innocent babies in one year, than they even predict will die in the worse case scenario in an Iraq conflict.

They are giddy with delight that finally they have an opportunity to showcase to the world what an imperialist, aggressive, and arrogant nation they think America is. Because for them, the greater good lies in the hope of a world body that supersedes all that America stands for . . . which they think is greed, oil, money, domination, strength, individualism, religion, faith in God, belief in the core family unit, freedom to choose to eat meat or home school, pay less taxes, have less government control in our lives, etc.

So in spite of the intended result, the rally on Saturday, and subsequent rallies which are sure to follow, serve mainly to entertain, to galvanize an already committed nation to the cause of freedom and justice. They remind us that free speech is a right we all fight to preserve . . . just as much as the right to disagree and think for ourselves, without fear of being called right wing terrorists.

by ·Comments Off on Please Help Us Find an Answer…

We are having a hard time getting an answer from the DNC (Democrat National Committee), and maybe you could help.

We have been calling for days asking a simple question.

How many millions of dollars did Terry McAuliffe (the Chairman of the DNC) make from a $100,000 investment into Global Crossing, just months before they went under?

I have heard everything from $5 mil. to $18 mil., but they don’t seem to know the answer. It can’t be that hard for a member of their research team to walk down the hall, stick their head in his door and say, “Heh Terry, how much did you cheat the investors out of on your inside deal with Global Crossing?” How big can the building be? He has to be somewhat accessible.

Maybe they could stop him on his way to the press conferences where he blames President Bush for accounting practices pushed through congress by Democrats while claiming that the current corporate crisis is the fault of Bush and Cheney. They could even whisper in his ear, after they get the answer we are looking for, that people are still a little curious about Hillary’s windfall from cattle futures, and the fact that they came to the White House with no assets and little money and left multimillionaires.

He should mention in his press conferences that the decade of the 90’s makes the decade of the 80’s divinely altruistic instead of the political spin of a party defining it as the decade of greed. He could try telling the truth about the Clinton administration redefining greed by opening the door for corporate deception, in the name of stimulating the economy, to give the appearance of achieving economic growth and stability, when just the opposite was happening under his watch.

And I guess we shouldn’t hold our breath for the media to ask the tough questions of Clinton’s Treasury Secretary, Robert Rubin and his ties to Enron . . . or remind Terry McAuliffe of Clinton’s midnight pardon of Marc Rich who cheated taxpayers and investors out of millions and fled the country to avoid prosecution. This huge, greased smeared, black pot looks a little odd pointing to a tiny tea kettle claiming its sins are more scarlet.

But if you don’t know the answer, could you do us a favor and try and call the DNC for us and see if they will answer our question about McAuliffe’s investment returns, since we are sure he will want to give it back to the poor defrauded investors?

They just won’t return our calls. For your convenience, their number is 202-863-8000.

It would be a shame if we all forgot the hypocrisy charges leveled against the Republicans when they began holding Bill Clinton accountable to his vows to the country, and his wife, when he was using the oval office for his personal message parlor. So now, the door swings the other way, with the hands of the Democrats in money deals up to their elbows and they have the cajones to sling the accusation of “permissiveness” at the Republicans. So, a little justice, accountability and equal treatment would be a refreshing change for them . . . especially before an election when America is watching . . . and expects it from their leaders.

P.S. If the DNC research team happens to answer you . . .can you e-mail the response back to us?

 

by ·Comments Off on Daschle Meltdown Number 3,562

If you listen to conservative radio talk shows, you might not be aware that Senator Daschle thinks you are capable of violence.

What is so interesting is that even moderate to liberal talk show hosts have been outraged by the statement by Daschle that says, “What happens when Rush Limbaugh attacks those of us in public life is that people aren’t satisfied just to listen.

They want to act because they get emotionally invested. And so, you know, the threats to those of us in public life go up dramatically, and on our families and on us, in a way that’s very disconcerting.”

But, if you read between the lines, you will really hear Daschle say, “Rush Limbaugh holds politicians accountable by pointing out our hypocrisies and inconsistencies and as a result, people are motivated to go to the polls and let their voices be heard.

They want to vote because they realize that we want to take their freedoms away and they are emotionally motivated to secure their freedoms and liberties, but we think this is a threat to our power base.

And so, because they are responding intelligently, and voting with their feet, our livelihoods as a liberal power base, that tries to control the hearts and minds of the American people, is threatened.”

Interestingly, we have searched everywhere and can’t find Daschle making this type of accusatorial statement, chastising a real-life threat made by Alec Baldwin on national T.V. to take Henry Hyde out and stone, and kill him and his family.

All who agree with Daschle’s statement, totally disregarded Bill Clinton’s loathing of the military, thus placing hundreds of thousands of our members of the military in a position of being the recipients of their liberal brand of discrimination and intimidation that they exhibited in the 60’s and 70’s toward the military.

He has not expressed outrage at the hateful, anti-American rhetoric uttered by Hollywood’s useful idiots, Jessica Lange, Robert Altman, and all the others who promised to leave the country should Americans be so stupid as to elect Republicans to the White House.

These same open-minded, compassionate liberals applauded when Julia Roberts remarked at an elitist event that the word “Republican” was found in the dictionary between Reptile and Repugnant. That of course was not seen as inciting violence, or even hatred against people who freely choose to be a aligned with a legally organized political party.

But what is so interesting about this unvarnished attack on everyone who exercises their constitutional rights by drawing an erroneous conclusion that these lemmings are inspired to violence, is that we are not allowed to apply that same conclusion to a group of people who really DO commit violence when inspired to.

We are not allowed to point out that Muslim fundamentalists have as their specific goal in life to destroy us and our way of life, even if it means giving their own life for the cause.

This is considered hateful, bigoted, mean spirited and just in bad taste. Even though all dots connected show a distinct picture of terror, murder, loss of life and property and nations held hostage by the inevitability of life given to their emotional responses.

And ironically enough, if someone does make the international faux pas of drawing this deadly conclusion, they are castigated for their insensitivity, while they are being proven right by the very people they are identifying.

For example when Jerry Falwell made a statement, very similar to Senator Daschle’s, about the violent nature of Muslims, they responded by starting a riot and . . . killing innocent people. Conservatives on the other hand, responded to Daschle’s specious claims that they were violent, by either inviting him to host their show, or posting tongue in cheek articles on the internet making him look like the lightweight he is.

No one, except Hillary, really believed him anyway, or even understood what he was saying. She however is still convinced that all the rational thinking people (aka vast-right-wing conservatives) in America, en masse, tempted her husband to cheat on her and embarrass her in front of the world, and then conspired to get him to lie under oath and do that finger waggy thing saying he “did not have sex with that woman.”

Now that you mention it . . . I do recall seeing Newt Gingrich standing behind his chair during that televised victim-thon, whispering words into his ear and moving his arm up and down as he pointed to all America, like WE were the cause of his major and hugely stupid indiscretions.

So, Senator Daschle, who wants to lead the country, thinks that the majority of the country, who voted for conservatives, are so dangerous, that they should be silenced and the leaders of their ilk, broadcasting their evil and destruction on the air, should be silenced.

Isn’t it odd that he has never once complained about the liberal TV anchors who for years have been spoon-feeding the populace their liberal pabulum with the hopes of keeping us in a state of disinformation and complacency? Even though over 90% of people in the media are self-identified as liberals and members of the Democrat party, Daschle, et al, will not be satisfied until it is 100%. Sieg Heil Her Daschle!!

Liberals, and especially Tom Daschle, really need to take a deep breath, get out more in the real world and realize that Republicans, and conservatives in particular, are not that dangerous. And that the vast majority of the American public, as proven in the last election, are not prone to violence just because they believe in individuality, less government control of their lives, and politicians being held accountable to their word.

Think about it, if they were that violent, they would have revolted after the elections in 1992, and had a virtual overthrow of the country in 1996. They would not have waited until 2002 for a silent and gentle reorganization of power achieved by going to the polls and peacefully, pulling the lever for people who aren’t hungry for power, and don’t lie to to get it.

by ·Comments Off on Newsflash: If you drive an SUV You Support Terrorists*

In order to get into some gangs, you have to do something called, “making your bones,” which basically means throwing yourself on the sword of their twisted fraternity by killing someone. This is a desperate, lonely move, usually made by people who have lost a sense of direction and are hoping their new found “friends” can fill that empty void in their lives.

In civilized society, those trying desperately to prove themselves, to people that the rest of us would choose to avoid, have more sophisticated techniques to prove they are in with the “In” crowd, even if it means they totally alienate themselves from anyone outside this little clique.

Arianna Huffington has just made her bones for the “anti-anything-American-we-hate-conservatives-hypocrite-elitist” gang, by promoting one of the most ridiculous, insulting and deceptively conceived ads since the little girl in the field of daises with the mushroom cloud in the background. She, and her fellow multimillionaire, let-them-eat-cake friends think that anyone who drives an SUV is contributing to terrorism, therefore, is a terrorist.

Let’s define terrorism: Any situation where one group or individual can exert such pressure, force or control over another as to cause them great fear. Like, if I drive an SUV, I could be the target of great derision and abuse, and this should cause me, and other average Americans, to fear driving or buying one. Thus . . . I am terrorized.

Let’s define average American. Well, it is someone who doesn’t own a 9,000 sq. ft. house, like Arianna, or a 13,000 square ft. house with a 21 car garage, like Normal Lear, a supporter of the commercial. It is someone who might have kids, or be in a working profession where a heavier vehicle is needed. It might be someone in sales or delivery who needs an SUV for their livelihood. It is the family on the farm and in the rural areas where four wheel drives and sturdy cars are necessary. It is the electrician, plumber, and carpenter who are all called at the most inconvenient times to come make life for Arianna, and the rest of us, a little easier when expected systems fail.

Grasshopper, would Arianna turn back a plumber driving an SUV if her living room was flooding with water? Or would she turn down a neighbor’s offer to drive a sick child through a snow storm when the emergency vehicles can’t get through?

Everyone who chooses to own a pickup truck needs to realize that they too are the target of these ads because most SUVs are built on truck chassis. “Choice” is a key word here because that is the word these liberals, and neo-liberals, have all carved in their alter of political correctness and restrict all discussion, surrounding the sanctity of that word, to the issue of abortion. They don’t really mean that we should all have a free choice in everything. Oh, heavens, don’t be silly. It is only if our choice is exactly what they think it should be, or if it is the choice to kill an unborn baby.

So a woman can choose to go to an abortion clinic, she just can’t choose to get there in an SUV. And if she does, she is a terrorist, but not a baby killer. Are you following this logic?

Another interesting point that seems to be lost on the gang that can’t shoot their rhetoric straight, is that they claim terrorism is horrible and bad and must be stopped, but the minute President Bush tries to address the issue, they dismiss him as a warmonger, or aggressive imperialist. They have declared they want no part of a conflict that protects their rich heenies from annihilation, to be in “their” name, and have even started a group called . . . Not In Our Name.

The Not in Our Name Project encourages everyone to build resistance in the spirit of Philip Berrigan who said, “The American people are, more and more, making their voices heard against Bush and his warrior clones. Bush and his minions slip out of control, determined to go to war, determined to go it alone, determined to endanger the Palestinians further, determined to control Iraqi oil, determined to ravage further a suffering people and their shattered society. The American people can stop Bush . . . can banish the war makers from Washington.” Oh . . .by not driving SUVs? News flash . . . the vast majority of the oil we import into America is NOT from terrorist countries. And if they are so concerned about us being dependent on foreign countries for oil, why do they continually stop exploration in Alaska and off shore, so we are not?

So what is it? Are terrorists bad or not? Are soccer moms and working men and women who rely on their SUVs and pickup trucks to make a living as evil as Saddam, and are we all really terrorists if we use gas and oil products, even Arianna and Norman?

Or, is this a way for Bill Maher, Al Franken and Norman Lear to force Arianna to repent for her past dalliances with conservatism, sleeping with the Republican enemy, and to prove that yes, she really is a bona fide liberal. That is fine, if she wants to switch parties, ideologies and even soap powder. . . but it is not acceptable for her to take her desperate desire to swing with the liberal elite as an excuse to paint all drivers of SUVs as terrorists, or supporters of terrorism. And if she does insist upon connecting dots that don’t exist, she and her gang have to be honest about the fact that they are far guiltier of the same charge because of the cost of heating and cooling their huge homes, and the cost to put gas in ALL those cars.

It seems a little suspicious that the group, that pretends to abhor terrorism by creating an ad campaign that basically terrorizes SUV drivers, is trying to stop the production of the only vehicle that will be useful should another disaster hit this country. They should be encouraging people to buy SUVs so they can be of assistance if necessary, like they were in DC and New York during the snow storm of Feb. 17 and 18.

A little consistency is all the rest of us “little” people ask from the beautiful people . . . no bones about it.

*Update: We just bought our first SUV in honor of Arianna and her gang that tried very hard to terrorize me and others into thinking we were supporting terrorism. Sorry, it didn’t work. And as a reminder of what freedom, choice and liberty mean, and that intimidation in the name of political correctness should be rejected and denounced . . . we named our SUV . . . Arianna . . . and Jesus is driving with me everytime I drive it, to answer the question, “What would Jesus drive?”

by ·Comments Off on We Were Soldiers, an Open Letter

Dear Colonel Love…..

Tonight I received an unexpected phone call from a good friend ( A Major in the Reserves, Mike Deault, that knows I fought in the RVN in the 1st Cav… as a Platoon Leader )…..He scammed two early viewing tickets to the movie “WE WERE SOLDIERS ” at the Ft.Belvior Military Theater….. he asked me if I wanted to go….

Earlier this month ( after thinking about it for almost 3 weeks ) I finally went and saw “Blackhawk Down “…as I had been in the exact same area going Medical Relief 4 and 1/2 months earlier( protected by a platoon of young stud Marines commanded by a giant {6’ 6”} of a man Major Mike Collier ) with Larry Jones “Feed the Children ” operatives… in a rather tumultuous time there….we were shot at during the Med Mission and even attacked by Adides people as I drove to the airport days later resulting in injuries of several Marines…. there was turmoil and firing everywhere….and a lot of death … and the smell of death… and rot everywhere…..The point being… it took me awhile to go see the movie…..as I really wanna by-pass the realities of that nasty event….and what led us there.

So, I agreed to go to tonight’s movie with great reservation…. to see a chunk of what I experienced in my youth…. where I turned 21 in the Bong Song…..Vietnam……I left the movie….all I could think of is how you and LTC.Hal Moore were so similar….deeply religious, courageous, led by example w/ the deepest of Professionalism and Knowledge…..you knew how to extract the best and the most from your men through a firm but fair Leadership…..I am so very grateful to GOD that you were my Battalion Commander….as was my then retired “Brown Shoe ” Army LTC Father…..who knew you through my letters to him at home during that arduous time….

You were an inspiring Leader. I used many of your examples as I matured…. some kept my alive in later years in the other 26 conflicts I went to. In particular, I remember the “Love walk & look” ….which I later used in El Salvador when I did my Reserve Duty in that particular hard conflict. Shoulders back, chin out, a longer gait, looking into the eyes of Salvadorian or Philippine or Colombian Soldiers… or our our Troops…. sitting on the platforms of the UH-IH’s … as you boarded with them…. the Look was “lets go kick some ass”………….your emphsis on trainning….it goes on and on….plain LEADERSHIP BY EXAMPLE stuff.

When you see the movie….. know that your men always looked at you with that same respect and admiration…..as they were looking at Colonel Moore…..

When you finally decide to go see the movie, it will make you proud of all our service.

Gratefully, Your former 3rd Platoon Leader, C Company 2/5th, 1 Airmobile Calvary….”Ready Sir ” ANDY MESSING

by ·Comments Off on What Seventh-graders in California are Learning About Mohammad & Co.

What seventh-graders in California are learning about Mohammad & co.
by Rod Dreher
National Review Online
February 12, 2002 11:20 a.m.
http://www.nationalreview.com/dreher/dreher021202.shtml

Are California seventh-graders being proselytized by the state’s public schools on behalf of Islam? Yes, says Jennifer Schroeder, mother of a San Luis Obispo seventh-grader, who has filed an official complaint with local school authorities over Across the Centuries, the social-studies textbook used in all the state’s seventh-grade public classrooms.

“Our contention here is not that they’re teaching students about Islam, which is constitutional as long as it’s done in a non-biased manner. It’s that they have a real bias towards Islam,” says Brad Dacus, Schroeder’s attorney and president of the Pacific Justice Institute.

Dacus is helping angry parents throughout the state file similar complaints with local school authorities. Their case got a big boost on Monday from noted Middle East scholar Daniel Pipes, whose New York Post column attacked the 55 8 age history textbook as an example of “the privileging of Islam in the United States.”

“Everything Islamic is praised; every problem with Islam is swept under the rug,” Pipes writes. He further complains that the textbook presents a rosier picture of Islam than facts warrant, that it promotes Islamic doctrines as objective fact, and instructs students to engage in homework assignments in which they pretend to be Muslims.

But Across the Centuries publisher Houghton Mifflin counters that Pipes only has half the story. California’s state-devised history-curriculum proceeds chronologically. Collin Earnst, a spokesman for the publisher, says that Christianity, Judaism, and Buddhism are covered in the sixth-grade text, as mandates by state standards.

“The state of California decided what would be taught and when it would be taught,” says Earnst. “If you look at both these books as a unit, they’re fair representations of all these religions, and present them in a similar fashion.”

That is not the view of one award-winning seventh-grade history teacher from the Bay Area, who asked NRO to withhold her name, fearing reprisal. The teacher explained that in California schools, the role of Christianity in world civilization is studied primarily in grades seven and 10.

“At no point in either grade is the role of Christianity as cogently, thoroughly or engagingly described in the state history texts as Islam,” she says.

“Seventh-grade social studies covers 1,500 years of world history in nine months,” the teacher continues. “Teaching this curriculum is a delicate balancing act because this is the only time in 12 years that most California students study these civilizations. Islam is important in world history, and should be presented accurately and engagingly. That does not justify the virtual obliteration of the history of Christianity and Europe in the state [seventh-grade] text.”

That’s putting it perhaps too strongly, but it is hard to understand why, in an American textbook in which the birth and expansion of Islam gets 55 pages, the Middle Ages in Europe get merely seven, and the Byzantine Empire six. By way of contrast, the story of the Umayyad Muslims is told in seven pages, and even more peculiarly for students in a Western culture, a chapter about “Village Society in West Africa” takes up eight pages.

To be fair, Across the Centuries does have a lot of ground to cover to be faithful to California’s standards. Funny, though, how the textbook leaves out or greatly downplays state-mandated topics having to do with Christianity.

According to state teaching guidelines, the birth of Christianity is to be taught as the final topic in the sixth-grade school year, in a unit called “East Meets West: Rome.” Yet attorney Brad Dacus says his client claims her son was told the reason Christianity wasn’t taught in his San Luis Obispo history class was “they ran out of time.”

The transmission of the Christian faith throughout the Roman Empire, decrees the state, is to be taught in the “Fall of Rome” unit. But Across the Centuries makes no mention of Christianity here, not even when it discusses the Emperor Constantine, whose battlefield conversion to the Christian faith was one of the pivotal events of Western civilization.

State guidelines call for Christianity to be addressed again in a unit on medieval Europe: “Special attention should be paid to Christianity in the Middle Ages because the Church, more powerful than any feudal state, influenced every aspect of life in medieval Europe. The story of St. Francis of Assisi should be told, both for his embodiment of the Christian ideal and for the accessibility to students of his gentle beliefs.”

But in the seven pages devoted to the European Middle Ages, Christianity is presented not in terms of moral and theological belief, but almost entirely as a matter of power relations and social organization. How much space does Across the Centuries give to St. Francis of Assisi, a historical figure so important he merited special mention in the state guidelines? Ten sentences, plus three lines from one of his poems.

This bias against the religious content of Christianity extends into the unit on the Reformation, which gives short shrift to the theological ideas that inspired Protestantism, and focuses almost exclusively on the social and political fallout.

Critics of the textbook complain not only about what they consider its shortchanging of Christianity, but also about its uncritical assessment of Islamic history.

“The book talks about how Islam gave women rights, but nowhere does it teach that the Koran says a man is allowed to have seven wives. Kids should know that, because it’s relevant to the religion and the culture,” Dacus says. “They want to make Islam palatable to Americans.”

And, Pipes and Dacus claim wording in the Islam chapters presents theological beliefs as historical facts.

This isn’t entirely true. There are numerous passages that contain language like “Muhammad is believed by his followers to have….” But others are more ambiguous (“Muhammad was awakened one night by a thunderous voice [of God] that seemed to come from everywhere…”, and still others do in fact present theological belief as fact (“[T]he very first word the angel Gabriel spoke to Muhammad was ’Recite.’”.

Even if Christianity and Judaism are presented in the sixth-grade text in a like manner, says Pipes, that hardly solves the problem.

“That would mean that a social science textbook series was looking at every religion from within,” Pipes tells NRO. “That’s pretty dubious. Here it’s just plain boosterism.”

If the Islamic chapters seem like they could have been written by a Muslim activist group, that’s no accident. The California-based Council on Islamic Education, founded in 1988 to fight what the group believes is anti-Muslim bias in the classroom, works closely with textbook publishers to review and develop teaching material. The CIE, which didn’t return a message left on its answering machine, participated in the writing and editing of Across the Centuries.

“They’re very professional, very informed and they have at their heart the same thing we do, which is the desire for good, accurate information for the children,” Abigail Jungreis, who oversees Houghton Mifflin’s social-studies textbook division, told a Muslim web publication in a 1999 interview.

“We see our reviewers as playing a crucial role in enabling us to present accurate and complete information,” Jungreis continued. “In this day and age, there’s no way anybody can be an expert on all aspects of history or social studies subjects.”

Jungreis did not respond to NRO’s request for an interview. Instead, Houghton Mifflin spokesman Earnst replied, saying that members of other faiths were also consulted to review textbooks for fairness and balance.

The Bay Area social-studies teacher credits activism on the part of California Muslims for the way Islam is presented in the textbook. “The local Muslim community makes it a point to attend social-studies teachers’ conventions to share teaching aids, and they also offer free guest speakers for the classroom.”

The veteran educator says she sees these efforts paying off by the way her students, all non-Muslims, react to the Islamic faith in the classroom.

“They’re generally very enthused by Islam,” she says. “The prose [in Across the Centuries] is boring and disjointed in the sections about Western culture, but the book does a great job with Islam. And the Saudis have contributed well-written, lavishly illustrated free materials that are popular with students.”

The Pacific Justice Institute’s Dacus is not surprised to hear that kids come away from Across the Centuries thinking uncritically about Islam. Says Dacus: “That textbook would be a great recruitment tool for Islam for children, if that was the point of a 7th-grade education.”

Statement by Houghton Mifflin Regarding Its “Across the Centuries” Textbook
http://www.hmco.com/news/release_021202.html

BOSTON, Mass., February 12, 2002 – Houghton Mifflin Company released the following statement in response to press inquires regarding its “Across the Centuries” textbook:

On February 11, the New York Post published an editorial by Daniel Pipes about Houghton Mifflin’s “Across the Centuries” social studies textbook. Although Mr. Pipes may have more than thirty years studying Islam, it is important to understand that his critique of “Across the Centuries” is not based upon reading the text, nor with the understanding of standards to which the book was written. It is very distressing that during a time in which cultural understanding is paramount, that Mr. Pipes would write such a politically and emotionally charged article based on misinformation.

Assumptions and accusations are made in Mr. Pipes’ editorial about omissions or interpretations of the text. Most of the accusations are based on his own bias and his choice to cite passages out-of-context. Mr. Pipes did not contact Houghton Mifflin to obtain correct information about “Across the Centuries.” Houghton Mifflin has always taken a neutral, fact-based approach to writing all of its educational publications, striving for a fair account of history. Furthermore, a multi-cultural and multi-faith panel of scholars reviewed and approved “Across the Centuries” before publication.

“Across the Centuries” is part of a two-book series developed for the state of California. State standards required that the Grade 6 text, “A Message of Ancient Days,” teach “the dawn of the major Western and non-Western ancient civilizations” including the origins of Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Christianity. The Grade 7 text was to teach “the social, cultural, and technological changes that occurred in Europe, Africa, and Asia in the years 500-1789 AD.”

The California Board of Education determined which topics were covered, and in which grade they are covered. Therefore, due to the chronology of history, and the standards determined by the State of California, Islam was not covered during the same school year as other religions, such as Judaism, Christianity, which are covered during the sixth grade school year.

The state also mandated which specific topics were to be taught during each unit. Houghton Mifflin was provided with an outline of topic areas to be covered and had to provide the detailed information about each historical event. As directed by the state of California, these books were to be written with “Historical Empathy.” Thus, the textbooks do not focus on accounts of violence, cruelty or hatred on the part of any religion. In accordance with California state standards, “Across the Centuries” focuses on how the beliefs of certain cultures help shape their motivation and their effect on history.

However, contrary to Mr. Pipes’ argument, the text does in fact mention instances of Muslim religious intolerance (chapter 4, page 81), just as it cites early missionary work and imperialism, as well as the Crusades and intolerance by the Christians.

Readers should also keep in mind that “Across the Centuries” covers material only up to 1789. Therefore, some of the issues regarding Muslim women’s rights as compared to women’s rights in other cultures are quite accurate. Again, because this text examines a certain period of time, ending in 1789, human rights issues of modern Muslim, Jewish, and Christian peoples are not included in the text. Information about modern history is covered in Houghton Mifflin’s other textbooks, namely “Modern World History? Patterns in Interaction,” which covers present day issues, and includes a special supplement about September 11th ? one of the first to be offered by any textbook publisher.

In this post-September 11 environment, no American needs to be reminded of the significance of religion domestically and in the global community. Part of understanding complex cultural issues requires religious empathy. Throughout the two-part series of textbooks, students are asked to complete writing exercises from the perspective of various historical figures. Mr. Pipes’ accusations about solely pro-Muslim creative writing assignments in “Across the Centuries” are based on misinformation. Throughout the two texts, students are asked to write from the perspective of Athenians, Spartans, Greeks, Jews, Christians, and Muslims, among others. These lessons ask students to take a look at history through the eyes of those who shaped it. Through activities such as these, students gain an understanding of how and why people acted as they did, and begin to think critically about how they might have acted similarly or differently. Nowhere in either textbook are students asked to engage in “mock-religious” activities, wear religious or cultural clothing, nor are they encouraged to exercise the beliefs of any particular religious group. They are simply asked to understand what people of each culture believed.

Mr. Pipes tells readers that Houghton Mifflin establishes events according to Islamic faith as fact. The writers of these textbooks were very careful to qualify their statements about religious “events” with statements like “Muhammad is believed by his followers to have had a vision from Gabriel?” “Muhammad’s followers believe that in another vision?” “The God he believed in?.” (chapter 3, page 58). Each of these accounts of the Islamic faith are qualified as fact only according to the believers of the Islamic religion. Mr. Pipes omitted those citations. It should also be noted that the same qualifiers are used when describing other religions’ historical events. Accounts of the life of Jesus are explained as “according to the New Testament?” (Chapter 10, page 318 of “A Message of Ancient Days” and accounts of Jewish faith are explained as “according to the Bible” (Chapter 10, page 309 of “A Message of Ancient Days”.

Regarding Mr. Pipes’ accusations of implied acceptance of Muhammad’s mission, the textbooks refer to several historical figures in the Jewish, Christian and Muslim faiths as prophets. The term prophet was not used as an endorsement for any one religion but as a term to describe religious figures.

Houghton Mifflin takes great care in editing its books to accurately portray history from all angles. A panel comprised of scholars from every major cultural and religious group, who are members of the religious or cultural group they represent, review each book and screen for any bias or unfair representation of their group, or any other group. “Across the Centuries” and “A Message of Ancient Days” have both received approval from, among others, Christian, Jewish, and Muslim scholars alike ? confirming that each religion is portrayed as its believers see it, not just as outsides may perceive it.

One of the recommendations of this panel was to clarify the meaning of the word “jihad.” Often misunderstood, this word means “to struggle or to do ones best to resist temptation and overcome evil.” The book also states “the Qur’an and Sunna allow for self-defense and participation in military conflict, but restrict it to the right to defend against aggression and persecution.” This definition was suggested by Islamic, Judaic and Christian scholars, among others, as the correct representation of the word “jihad.” Many Americans have come to see the word “jihad” as some Islamic fundamentalists use it, as a right or a mission to kill and destroy. However, the vast majority of Muslims do not share this view, and assert that a “jihad” is not necessarily an act of violence. It is the role of educators to dispel misconceptions and prejudices about religion and culture.

Lastly, Mr. Pipes asserts that religion, or at least Islam, should be approached “from the outside” and not as believers. In public schools, religion and culture should certainly not be learned as believers. However, learning about it must be based on information from believers. Houghton Mifflin’s goal is truth in education. Our efforts in “Across the Centuries” and all of our textbooks are to eliminate misconceptions and ignorance, and help our children develop the critical thinking skills and the cultural understanding to build a peaceful future.

Collin Earnst
Director, Media Relations
Houghton Mifflin Company
Collin_Earnst@hmco.com

Articles are also available online at http://www.DanielPipes.org

by ·Comments Off on Ready…Fire…Aim at President Bush’s Economic Stimulus Package

The sound heard across America, attempting to drown out the President’s announcement of a tax cut for every single tax payer in the country, was the sound of Democrats locking and loading to shoot their lies and spins across the landscape.

Yes, you could hear the clips being snapped in place, the shells bolted in, chambers being filled with ammo fabricated by a party that is desperate to regain power, even it means the economy takes the first shot across the bow.

The willing media, all 92% of which are registered Democrats, and regularly supply aid and comfort to their party, were standing ready to reload after each shot was fired.

Meanwhile the Democrat leadership in Congress, gathered before cameras to cluck and shake their heads at how reckless the plan is.

First of all, reckless is when a president has unprotected sex in the oval office with a young intern while talking on the phone to a world leader.

Reckless is going on national TV and blaming the vast majority of Americans for your husband being reckless.

Reckless is NOT returning money or cutting taxes, for EVERY SINGLE hardworking, taxpayer in America.

Grasshopper, if a tax break is given to all American taxpayers, are those taxpayers all rich?

Well, according to the Democrats they are. Even a family of 4 making $40,000 that is paying, after all tax credits, independent deductions, etc., $1500 in taxes.

Under Bush’s plan, they will have that cut by $1100. A 96% tax reduction for middle income families. That is a huge amount of money for a family trying to make ends meet, yet the Democrats would have you believe they are greedy rich Republicans who don’t deserve to have any of their hard earned taxes returned to them.

Democrats might not know what “is” is, but Americans know what rich ISN’T.

Of course you have different levels of rich. You have rich (anyone getting a tax cut, no matter how small their income is), then you have very rich, then filthy rich, then obscenely rich.

Now, the obscenely rich Senator John Kerry, thinks the rich (family of four making $40,000) is greedy for wanting to get any money back.

The filthy rich, like Bill and Hillary Clinton, agree, although they know what it is to have a combined income of about $50,000, but forget their roots. What state was that again?

And then you have the very rich, which is basically every single member of the U.S. House of Representative and the U.S. Senate.

Now, we have to add to that another category of “rich” and that is the faux rich, which is basically comprised of small business owners who show their businesses making more than $350,000 . . . and are placed into that 1% wage earner category, even though this is not their personal income.

It is their business income, and the government, for tax purposes, does not make a distinction.

This in no way means they take home this much money, even after tax dollars.

Out of that they pay employees, overhead and then hopefully, bring some home for the family.

In spite of knowing this, they are castigated by the divisive Democrats who will do anything to regain control of the congress, even if that means the almost 100 million people who will get tax cuts under Bush’s plan have to be categorized as the greedy, selfish, despicable rich, while they are barely making ends meet in their family.

It just seems a little odd that a group of individuals, all making over $150,000 a year, plus paid staff, office, travel . . . hundreds of thousands of dollars of extra perks paid for by the hardworking American taxpayer, begrudge these same Americans a tax break.

They claim it would hurt the economy although statistics have shown after every tax cut we have seen in this country, the economy gets a boost. But the Democrats never let the facts get in the way. They are still referring to Reaganomics as a horrible thing for the country when interest rates went down from 18% to 8%, unemployment decreased from 12% to 4%, and inflation was drastically halted.

What they really mean is that, when the Republicans do something good for the economy, which they constantly try to in spite of the Democrats blocking these efforts, the Republicans get reelected.  This to them is a bad thing.

A good thing for them is when the economy suffers. This is what they want to continue to occur in America so they can point to any increase in unemployment or rise in interest rates as a fault of the Republicans.

What these rocket science millionaires don’t seem to understand is that if you decrease the tax rate for that 1% of business owners, who are hiring middle income Americans, they can afford to hire more workers, pay higher wages, invest in machinery and equipment to increase productivity, thus increase the amount of money coming into the treasury.

So here is a solution.

All those Democrats who don’t want a tax cut should be able to check a little box on their IRS form that says, no, I am far too wealthy now, and really don’t need the money, please give it to someone who can use it.

It must come as a huge surprise to a couple making $15,000 that they are rich. Terry Multi-Millionnaire-Let-Them-Eat-Cake McAulliffe thinks so. On the Democrat’s web site he rivaled Trent Lott’s racial innuendo by saying, “Instead of offering an immediate solution that will give aid to unemployed African Americans . . . Bush chose to reward the wealthiest Americans with a $674 billion tax cut. If Bush is truly serious about getting this economy back on track, he needs to implement fair, immediate, effective and real economic relief for African Americans and for all working Americans.”

I guess he was too busy loading his rhetoric rifle to hear about the employment assistance part of the proposal, or to realize every single taxpayer would get a benefit. But it seems that the Democrats, with hopes of continuing to divide the country along racial lines, will stoop to insinuating that all blacks in America are poor. That must come as a huge surprise to Oprah Winfrey, Venus and Serena Williams, Harry Belefonte, Walter Williams, Tiger Woods, Condelezza Rice, Colin Powell, Charlie Rengal, Armstrong Williams, Micheal Jordon . . . etc. etc., you get the picture.

Heh newsflash Terry, the race thing just doesn’t work any more when there are so many who have achieved above and beyond even the most modest dreams of most non-black Americans, and even attained a status as cult-heroes and heroines in many cases.

To insinuate that a tax rebate does nothing to help black families assumes there are no black families in the middle class, struggling to make ends meet, paying mortgages, college tuition, and who could really use a tax break that would put over $1000 back in their families pockets every year . . .starting now.

It also insinuates that there are no black-Americans who own small businesses that fall into that 1% category. America just isn’t buying the racial division and will not allow the Democrats to continue segregating the country with their disingenuous, political rhetoric.

Here is what I would suggest. Terry McAulliffe, Barbara Streisand, John Kerry, Hillary and Bill Clinton, and every other multimillionaire democrat, who feel this is not fair to the over 100 million people it will benefit, should voluntarily redistribute their own millions to all these people who they obviously care so much about. They care so much they want to continue robbing hard working Americans who are barely making ends meet . . . and this includes ALL races.

This can’t be that hard for middle America to figure out. When Bill Clinton came to office one of the first things he did was raise taxes and the Democrats in unison nodded approval because they have NEVER seen a tax increase they didn’t like.

The Republicans come to power BECAUSE they have always had tax cuts as foremost in their agendas for all Americans who pay taxes . . .which by the Democrat’s definition are “rich” people.

That is how they define “rich” . . .if you pay any taxes, no matter how little money you make . . .you are rich. You are certainly richer than the person receiving government handouts. You are certainly richer than the person on unemployment, or in school, or traveling between semesters, etc. You pay taxes, therefore you are rich.

But, one good thing has developed out of this whole tax cut debate. Finally the Democrats are embracing the 2nd Amendment and have decided to keep and bare arms . . .even if it means shooting holes in a tax plan that will help ALL Americans and stimulate a sagging economy.

Below are more specific details about the President’s Tax cut proposal, prepared and distributed by the Americans for Tax Reform and the Department of Treasury.

If you need more information, contact the Americans for Tax Reform at www.ATR.org.

Taking Action to Strengthen America’s Economy
Today’s Presidential Action

President Bush today announced a growth and jobs plan to strengthen the American economy, and called on Congress to act swiftly to pass it.

* The President’s economic agenda has three main goals:
* Encourage consumer spending that will continue to boost the economic recovery.
* Promote investment by individuals and businesses that will lead to economic growth and job creation.
* Deliver critical help to unemployed citizens.

The President’s new proposal would:
* Speed up the 2001 tax cuts to increase the pace of the recovery and job creation.
* Encourage job-creating investment in America’s businesses by ending the double taxation of dividends and giving small businesses incentives to grow.
* Provide help for unemployed Americans, including extending unemployment benefits and creating new reemployment accounts to help displaced workers get back on the job.

Who benefits under the President’s plan?
* Everyone who pays taxes—especially middle-income Americans—as tax rate reductions passed by Congress in 2001 are made effective immediately. Middle-income families will receive additional relief from accelerated reduction of the marriage penalty, a faster increase in the child tax credit, and immediate implementation of the new, lower 10 percent tax bracket.
* Everyone who invests in the stock market and receives dividend income—especially seniors—will benefit from elimination of the double taxation on dividends. About half of all dividend income goes to America’s seniors, who often rely on those checks for a steady source of retirement income.
* Every small business owner who purchases equipment to grow and expand will get assistance through an increase in the expensing limits from $25,000 to $75,000.
* Every worker who has lost his or her job and qualifies for unemployment benefits will get more help, and many will qualify for new, more flexible Personal Re-employment Accounts, which provide a bonus if they find work quickly.

Under the President’s proposal to speed up tax relief, 92 million taxpayers would receive, on average, a tax cut of $1,083 in 2003.
* 46 million married couples would receive an average tax cut of $1,716.
* 34 million families with children would benefit from an average tax cut of $1,473.
* 6 million single women with children would receive an average tax cut of $541.
* 13 million elderly taxpayers would receive an average tax cut of $1,384.
* 23 million small business owners would receive tax cuts averaging $2,042.

Example:
A typical family of four with two earners making a combined $39,000 in income will receive a total of $1,100 in tax relief under the President’s plan.

According to a projection by the Council of Economic Advisers, the President’s plan will help the economy to create 2.1 million jobs over the next three years.

Making Progress: From Recession to Recovery

Since the beginning of his Administration, the President has acted decisively to promote economic growth and job creation.
* In 2001, he fulfilled his promise to reduce the tax burden on the American people. This tax relief gave the economy a boost at just the right time—ensuring that the recession was one of the shortest and shallowest in modern American history. These tax cuts worked, and the President will continue to press the Congress to make the cuts—including the end of the death tax—permanent.
* In 2002, he proposed and signed into law an economic stimulus bill, tough new corporate accountability standards, terrorism insurance legislation to put construction projects back on track, and an historic trade act. All these measures will help our economy as it recovers from the shocks of recession, the attacks of September 11th, and serious abuses of trust by some corporate officials.

Today, America’s economy is recovering and showing signs of growth.
* The country is now in its second year of economic growth.
* Nationwide, incomes are rising faster than inflation.
* Interest rates are the lowest in 37 years, and low interest rates have allowed Americans to refinance their
homes, adding more than $100 billion to their pocketbooks and to the economy.
* The homeownership rate—a central part of the American dream—is 68 percent, close to the highest ever.
* Productivity of American workers—the most important indicator of our economic strength—went up 5.6 percent over the last four measured quarters, the best since 1973.
* Our trade with other nations is expanding—bringing the lower prices that come from imports, and the better jobs that come from exports.
More to Do: The President’s Agenda to Strengthen America’s Economy

America has the strongest, most resilient economy in the world, yet this economy is not creating enough jobs. We have made great progress, but there is still more work to do.

The President today proposed a specific agenda to increase the momentum of our economic recovery.

The President’s proposal would:
Speed up Tax Relief to Speed up the Recovery: The President’s proposal builds on the success of the 2001 tax cut. As a result of this law, Americans are due to receive additional tax relief in 2004, and again in 2006. Republicans and Democrats in Congress have already enacted these cuts. The President believes the time to deliver this relief is now – when it can do the most good for families, businesses, and the economy – not years from now.

The President’s plan would:
* Make all the tax rate reductions from the 2001 tax law effective this year—and retroactive to January 1, 2003.
* Upon passage, the President will order the Treasury Department to immediately adjust the amount of money withheld for income taxes, so that Americans will keep more of their paychecks right away.
* For income earned after January 1, 2003, the following tax rates would be in effect:
10%
15%
25%
28%
33%
35%

The President’s plan would also bring middle-income families additional relief by speeding up three other tax reductions promised in 2001. It would:
* Reduce the marriage penalty this year, instead of waiting until 2009. An estimated 46 million married couples would benefit under the President’s plan.
* Raise the child tax credit from $600 to $1,000 per child this year, instead of in 2010. That would amount to a $400 increase per child, and checks would be issued in that amount this year to help parents across America. An estimated 34 million families with children would benefit under the President’s plan.
* Move several million working Americans into the lowest tax bracket of 10 percent now instead of waiting until 2008.
[Note: The plan will hold harmless any taxpayer that may be affected by the Alternative Minimum Tax].
Encourage Job-Creating Investment in America’s Economy – The President proposed two new steps to encourage individuals and businesses to invest in America’s economy.

End the double taxation of dividends
* Roughly 35 million American households receive dividend income that is taxable and will directly benefit under the President’s plan. More than half of these dividends go to America’s seniors, many of
whom rely on these checks for a steady source of income in their retirement.
* Yet seniors and other investors are not getting the full benefit of their investments because those investments are taxed twice. The IRS taxes a company on its profits, then it taxes the investors who
receive the profits as dividends. The result is that for every dollar of profit a company could pay out in dividends, as little as 40 cents can actually reach shareholders.
* In practice, double taxation of dividends means that even an investor of modest means is paying a higher tax rate on dividends than wealthy taxpayers pay on their income.
* It is fair to tax a company’s profits, and under the President’s plan, company profits will still be taxed – but only once. It is not fair to tax this income twice by taxing the shareholder on those same profits.
Double taxation is wrong—and it falls hardest on seniors.
* Almost half of all savings from the dividend exclusion under the President’s plan would go to taxpayers 65 and older. The average tax savings for the 9.8 million seniors receiving dividends would be $936.
* The President’s plan would eliminate the double taxation of dividends for millions of stockholders – allowing taxpayers to exclude dividend payments from their taxable income – and returning about $20 billion this year to the economy.
Increase incentives for small businesses to grow
* Small businesses create the majority of new jobs and account for half the output of the economy.
* Current tax laws permit them to write off as expenses up to $25,000 worth of equipment purchases.
The President’s plan would increase that limit to $75,000 and index it to inflation – encouraging them to
buy technology, machinery, and other equipment they need to expand.

Help Unemployed Americans Find Work –As we work to encourage long-term growth in the economy, we must not forget men and women struggling today. The President’s plan would help the unemployed on two fronts, providing both short-term benefits and long-term opportunity:
Extend unemployment benefits
* Close to 70,000 workers exhaust their unemployment benefits each week and need our help.
* The President’s plan calls on Congress to extend unemployment benefits that expired on December 28th and make them retroactive so people who lost benefits in December will receive them in full. The
President is calling upon Congress to make helping unemployed Americans a first order of business this year.

Create new Personal Re-employment Accounts
* The President’s plan would create Personal Re-employment Accounts, a new, innovative approach to help unemployed Americans find a job.
* These accounts would provide unemployed workers with up to $3,000 to use for job training, child care, transportation, moving costs, or other expenses associated with finding a new job. A person who gets a job within 13 weeks will be able to keep the leftover funds from their account as a re-employment bonus. This will help them when they are looking for work and give them an incentive to find work faster.
* President Bush proposes giving states $3.6 billion to fund these accounts. The program would be administered through the One Stop Career Center system and would work through existing state
unemployment systems to ensure speedy delivery of benefits.
* Under the President’s plan, these accounts would be available to at least 1.2 million Americans.
* Workers would receive these Personal Re-employment Accounts in addition to their regular unemployment benefits. Turning Recovery into Prosperity

The President’s jobs and growth package will provide $98 billion of total tax relief over the next 16 months and $670 billion over the next decade. It will spur real overall economic growth, yet it is disciplined and tailored to address specific challenges.

The American economy is strong, but it must be stronger. The President’s plan is a focused effort designed to remove the obstacles standing in the way of faster growth and greater progress.

President Bush will not be satisfied until every American who wants a job can find one; until every business has a chance to grow; and until we turn our economic recovery into lasting prosperity that reaches every corner of America.

by ·Comments Off on What Do Women Want?

A question that has been asked for years is “what do women want?”

For generations, most women answered the question silently and either obtained their goals … or longed for them to be actualized.

Then the feminist movement gave birth to a handful of women who felt they had the answer. The only problem was … they tried to silence the women who disagreed with them. Ironically, what they did was trade one form of oppression for another. Men were perceived as the enemy, because — as we were told — they exploited women; they didn’t respect them; they didn’t treat them equally. But the feminists then became that exploiting force and all voices in opposition were silenced with pejoratives.

But now is the time for a paradigm shift of power … a revolution to free women to speak for themselves apart from a movement that believes they are monolithic. 70% of working moms say that if they could afford to stay home with their kids, they would. Feminists are against tax cuts that would give women more freedom to be with their families. They don’t want school vouchers to give women choice. They keep claiming they have given women the right to choose while denying her all options to choose from. They have traded virtue and dignity for immediate gratification and sacrificed their sisters on the alter of sexual exploitation.

They have insisted that men and women are the same and have the same sexual desires buty forget to tell them of the devistating consequences for this new liberation. So what do women want? You’ll just have to ask each one, because women are as uniquely made as men. They can’t be categorized based on their sex — they are not a monolithic group with the same likes and dislikes. They are renaissance women and they can speak for themselves.

One thing they do have in common though is that they refuse to allow themselves to be manipulated or intimidated. They believe that political correctness is just another form of oppression and they reject it. They are not so materialistic that the economy means more to them than the moral values they give their children. They define culture … it doesn’t define them — and they expect consistency from their leaders.

Because Renaissance Women are multi-faceted … from every profession and background imaginable … they have a variety of issues that concern them. But one thing they all agree on — there is no such thing as a woman’s issue.

Their professions cut across gender stereotypes, yet they have not sacrificed their femininity to pursue their goals and professions.

In asking the question, “What do women want?” — you have to be ready for a myriad of answers. Where you find two renaissance women in a room, you have three opinions because their depth of understanding issues on a variety of levels is intriguing.

So who are renaissance women? They are moms, daughters, sisters, wives, employers, employees, investors, consumers, gen-hers, baby boomers, and seasoned citizens. They are professionals and stay-at-home moms. They are home-schoolers and college professors, lawyers and judges, doctors, astronauts, scientists, farmers, writers, and politicians. They are all of this and they vote. They don’t all vote the same — any more that they are all the same. But they do all look for the same thing in a candidate — they want courage, integrity, honor, veracity and principle.

Not every woman is a renaissance woman, but every woman can raise the bar in her own life by realizing that she was created for a purpose for such a time as this; that she has a destiny that only she can fulfill. She is not at the mercy of a handful of self-procalimed spokesmen who have a vested interest in keeping her wrapped up in theirpolitical agendas.

Renaissance Women challenge every woman to set her own standards of leadership for this new millenium and be her own spokesman — not being offended by the use of the word “spokesman” in identifying that role for herself. Think of her self!! Otherwise, her views will be silence, she will be co-opted, and her true beliefs marginalized or discounted.

If you would like to find out more about who we are, visit our website at www.ninamay.com to see our video webcasts, listen to streaming audio commentaries, and read through an expansive archive of commentaries and user submissions. And if you still want to know what women want — ask one. Remember – she will only be speaking for herself.

by ·Comments Off on Democrats Officially Show True Fascist Colors

The Democrat party has announced that it will begin equating Christians in America to the Taliban, claiming they are intolerant and bigoted.

This is another very enlightened step by a party that constantly shows it is OUT of step with the rest of the country.

The sad thing is that they don’t even know the demographics of their own party that show there are 80 million born-again Christians, registered to vote in the country, and 40% of them are registered democrats.

This can actually serve as a much needed wake-up call to these Christians who have been living in denial as to the agenda of the democrat party.

Those who for years have turned a blind eye to the party’s whole-hearted support, for example, of un-restricted abortion.

Their adamant opposition to parental notification before their child undergoes a life-threatening procedure, school vouchers, choice in education, and protection of children on-line are just a few indications that the democrats are out of step with Christian principles.

Ironically, this same party will bend over backwards to ensure we do nothing to slight Muslims or their faith.  A religion with elements who have declared war on America, with commands in their Koran to kill all unbelievers, and have nothing to do with people of other faiths.

While the very dangerous dictates of the Christian faith are . . . “Love your neighbor, turn the other cheek, pray for those who persecute you, do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

So if the democrats in America are that out of touch with reality, with history, and with their own supporters, I would invite thinking democrats, no matter what their faith, to reject this fascist agenda to attack and destroy a class of people because of their belief system.

by ·Comments Off on 25 Ways We’re Different This Christmas
  1. Last Christmas we were thinking about all the things we didn’t have; this Christmas we are thinking about all the things we do have.
  2. Last Christmas we were placing wreaths on the doors of our homes; this Christmas we are placing wreaths on the graves of our heroes.
  3. Last Christmas we were letting our sons play with toy guns; this Christmas we are teaching them that guns are not toys.
  4. Last Christmas we were counting our money; this Christmas we are counting our blessings.
  5. Last Christmas we were lighting candles to decorate; this Christmas we are lighting candles to commemorate.
  6. Last Christmas we paid lip service to the real meaning of the holidays; this Christmas we are paying homage to it.
  7. Last Christmas we were digging deep into our bank accounts to find money to fly home for the holidays; this Christmas we are digging deep into our souls to find the courage to do so.
  8. Last Christmas we were trying not to let annoying relatives get the best of us; this Christmas we are trying to give the best of ourselves to them.
  9. Last Christmas we thought it was enough to celebrate the holidays; this Christmas we know we must also find ways to consecrate them.
  10. Last Christmas we thought a man who could rush down a football field was a hero; this Christmas we know a man who rushes into a burning building is the real one.
  11. Last Christmas we were thinking about the madness of the holidays; this Christmas we are thinking about the meaning of them.
  12. Last Christmas we were getting on one another’s nerves; this Christmas we are getting on our knees.
  13. Last Christmas we giving thanks for gifts from stores; this Christmas we are giving thanks for gifts from GOD.
  14. Last Christmas we were wondering how to give our children all the things that money can buy; this Christmas we are wondering how to give them all the things money can’t (peace, security).
  15. Last Christmas we were thinking about all the pressure we are under at the office; this Christmas we are thinking about all the people who no longer have an office to go to.
  16. Last Christmas we were singing carols; this Christmas we are singing anthems.
  17. Last Christmas we were thinking how good it would feel to be affluent; this Christmas we are thinking how good it feels to be alive.
  18. Last Christmas we thought angels were in heaven; this Christmas we know they are right here on earth.
  19. Last Christmas we were contemplating all the changes we wanted to make in the new year; this Christmas we are contemplating all the changes we will have to make in this new reality.
  20. Last Christmas we believed in the power of the pocketbook; this Christmas we believe in the power of prayer.
  21. Last Christmas we were sharing / spreading / listening to gossip; this Christmas we are sharing / spreading and listening to the Gospel.
  22. Last Christmas we were complaining about how much of our earnings went to taxes; this Christmas we comprehend that freedom isn’t free.
  23. Last Christmas we valued things that were costly; this Christmas we value things that are holy.
  24. Last Christmas the people we idolized wore sports uniforms; this Christmas the people we idolize wear police, firefighter and military uniforms.
  25. Last Christmas peace on earth is something we prayed for on Sunday morning; now it’s something we pray for every day.