|
|||
 |
|||
| Monday, October 31, 2005 Drugs, Free Sex and the Assault on Established Authority In your zeal to pay homage to the Beatles as cultural Icons...you left out the mainstreaming of drugs, free sex and the assault on established authority. If you are going to praise the Beatles for their impact on society...you may as well praise Bill Clinton for all the "changes" in our world that he ushered in. Oral sex is the rage these days among teens...because after all, it's ok if the President said it was ok. It's also ok to lie, as long as it is for a good reason...plus numerous other "progressive changes" that the Clintons ushered in. P.S. I was a Beatles fan in college when all the "Beatlemania" was transpiring. But I didn't know Jesus at the time...and now I do. The Beatles (and other secular icons of the time) brought our society DOWN...not UP. I really don't understand where you are coming from. If I could find it I would send you a copy of John & Yoko Ono's album...where they included actual recordings of Yoko having an orgasm (yelling and squealing). Everybody at the time thought that was really cool... Robert Gonzalez Publisher, BETTER NEWS Houston's Christian Newspaper for 19 years Ticket to Ride? Music is the ultimate escape from the boring blandness of realty. It's the television of drugs that provides listeners with a soothing numbness to the routines of our day. Who wouldn't want a ticket to ride? "She Said" Nathan Summing Up The Cultural Revolution Your article about the Beatles was very interesting, as usual. What I missed in this one was your summing-up. What do you think were the good and bad effects of this significant convergence of music and the baby-boomers? I know that some people think that the cultural change was somehow "wrong." This view strikes me as merely silly, rather like saying that it was "wrong" or "a loss" that summer was succeeded by fall. But the effects of any significant change are mixed, and the summing-up is a very individual thing. What I regard as liberation you may regard as anarchy. What you regard as chaos I may regard as path-finding. If you feel like doing another piece with your personal summing-up of the cultural change, I'm sure your readers would be interested. Frank DeMarco An Orwellian Nightmare Dear John, Thanks for the excellent article. Ken Kemmerer Where is Separation of Church & State at Halloween? I can’t go anywhere without seeing witches and assorted other scary, gross, gory, nasty looking creatures! My kids don’t even want to go shopping with me, my littlest one is frightened by some of the store displays. We were planning to go to Sea World in San Antonio this fall, until we found out that the entire park was decorated with witches, skeletons, and goblins… what’s that about? Last time I checked, they didn’t have pictures of Jesus Christ, with angels and wise men, greeting people at the entrance at Christmastime! Am I the only person who has noticed this unfairness? Cindy Mattson Wednesday, October 26, 2005 Bush Administration Advocates Torture Marc Perkel San Francisco, CA. Tuesday, October 25, 2005 Please Investigate Why Hospitals Are Recruiting Nurses Outside the U.S. F.D. Monday, October 24, 2005 Constitutional Reform Dear John, Yesterday, I read your article concerning the need for Constitutional reform—in fact, I read it several times—and, honestly, I am unable to make sense of your point. You seem to take contradictory stances and justify your position(s) with contradictory references to the history and notions of human nature imbedded in the text of the document. By this, I mean I cannot tell whether you think the document is too elitist, that is, inherently opposed to 'direct democracy' or not elitist enough; whether it is too democratic or not democratic enough; whether it is too flexible in light of contemporary realities or not flexible enough. For example, you assert, seemingly sympathetically, that the "revolutionary spirit" of the founders was tempered by the events of the French revolution. And while no doubt true, the events leading up to 1789 France were merely the most telling and contemporary evidence of a majority of the framers' already closely held Burkian view about the nature of Man as evidenced by your quote from Alexander Hamilton to the effect that people are volatile and, accordingly, "seldom [able to] determine and judge right." But then you seem to reverse course and denigrate this "anti-democratic" (the 'masses are asses') view of history and human nature as somehow elitist and typical of a group of "landed aristocrats" who would then mischievously proceed to defuse the threat to their property holdings posed by this otherwise justifiable fear of direct popular sovereignty by providing, inter alia, for the indirect election of senators and the president. As an aside, I do believe that such anti-democratic measures (and these, as you know, are not the only ones contained in the Constitution) are commonly referred to as 'checks and balances' or is this term, too, another example of, in your words, "empty rhetoric"? But certainly, this multi-faceted debate over the 'nature of Man', the wisdom of vox populi, and the limitations on popular sovereignty is not new. Indeed, it was the essence of the Federalist/Anti-federalist argument leading up to ratification, was it not? Without being clear as to which side you are on (is the resulting "cautious document" that resulted from the deliberations of 1787 a good thing or a bad thing?), you then, I think, attempt to weave into the article more contemporary questions regarding the proper role of the judiciary and constitutional constructionism (the latter, I assume, in light of the recent Supreme Court nominations)—again, somewhat incoherently, in my view. For example, is the notion of judicial review a good thing because it tempers the anti-democratic tenor of the constitution and updates the document to account for the fact that "our culture has changed, our ethnic and religious mixes have changed, our technology has transformed the way we live and think, [and] we are more tolerant and our status in the world has drastically altered"? Or is judicial review a bad thing because "the Supreme Court, for example, despite its look of somber, black-robed fairness has, with few exceptions, generally sided with the government and the ruling aristocracy"? Again, I am not sure what your point is. And, rather than throw the baby out with the bathwater, at least so far as the debate over constitutional construction is concerned, cannot this conundrum be resolved, in any event, by the mere exercise of judical prudence by the Court(s)? For example, could not Dred Scott have been decided properly (that is, constitutionally and, moreover, morally) merely by weighing the 5th Amendment 'property interest' at issue claimed by the slave master against the 5th Amendment 'liberty interest' claimed by the former slave? Is there any doubt where such an analysis would have led? Similarly, can there be any doubt that at some point during gestation (especially in light of modern advances in neo-natology) a fetus' 5th and 14th Amendment 'life interest' MUST take precedence over a pregnant woman's 5th and 14th Amendment otherwise articulable 'liberty (privacy) interest' to control her reproductive faculties? Do we truly need such judicial creations as Substantive Due process to resolve such contemporary "legal and social issues [that] we face"? Finally, without making clear the precise nature of your criticism of the document you leave open the question of just what in the Constitution you would change if given the opportunity. In answering this question you might well remember that whereas times may change, peoples' nature does not. Ken Betts, J.D. North Garden, VA Real Freedom Unless one is paranoid or has something to hide, enhanced investigative abilities of our law enforcement agencies, with the controls of same in place, can only make us safer and improve our lives. Jim Horn Stillwater, OK Friday, October 21, 2005 No Republican Ads Suppoting Miers Marc Perkel San Francisco, CA. Thursday, October 20, 2005 Is God Punishing America? Warm water in the Gulf of Mexico causes more and stronger hurricanes. Ignoring warnings that terrorists are about to attack leads to terrorists being successful. Going to war with Iraq for reason that turned out to be lies leads to a drop in America's trustworthiness and empowers our enemies. Having incompetent political cronies in charge of FEMA leads to hundreds of deaths. A nation spending more than it earns leads to bankruptcy. And overpopulation leads to resource shortages. It is not God but Reality that is punishing America. We are a nation who has turned our back on reality and allowed our nation to be run by a Christian cult who envisions the future in the destruction of the world and is advancing the cause of Armageddon though a reckless disregard for the principles of cause and effect. If we are going to turn America around we are going to have to put Realists in charge who put reality first when making the important decisions that affect us all. Now that we've seen the devastation that is caused by ignoring reality I think it's time for America to come home to the real world. I'm Marc Perkel - And I approved this message! Marc Perkel San Francisco, CA. My blog: http://marc.perkel.com Founder of the Church of Reality "Welcome to the real world!" Monday, October 17, 2005 Interview with Jones Pulls It All Toghether I've been following all of this closely now for quite some time (TMAP, TeenScreen and New Freedom), but this interview with Jones pulls it all together in an absolutely stunning package. I've e-mailed a link to Michael Moore via his general delivery mail address (Moore is working as I'm sure you know on a movie entitled 'Sicko' and focusing on Big Pharma). I would hope Rutherford would be doing the same. Again, an extraordinary interview. Rob Robinson Event Coordinator The Paxil Protest http://www.PaxilProtest.com Friday, October 14, 2005 Protesters, Yes; Bush, No The op-ed by John Whitehead is one of the better articles I've read about the willingness of citizens to challenge illegal, immoral actions of our government. The St. Patrick's Four may go to jail, but others will come forth to take up the cause for true patriotism; that is, standing up to the federal government's lies, distortions, and war crimes. We know who the real criminals are. We need to put those people on trial, not brave messengers like the St. Patrick's Four. Jack Gilroy Endwell, N.Y. Thursday, October 13, 2005 No One Has a Right to Address Others Anonymously The Rutherford Institute has asked the "Virginia Appeals Court to declare Anti-Spamming Law Overly Broad in Violation of the First Amendment." Your position, and opinion are in error and should be withdrawn. The article states that the US constitution says "....free speech includes the right to speak with anonymity". You are mistaken. No one has the right to address me without first introducing themselves. Doing so is simply rude. Nobody has such a right. People have a right to freely express themselves without fear of government reprisal, but people are, and should be accountable to the people they are speaking to. No one has a right to address others anonymously. I noted that your considered to be living under a "current regime" rather than enjoying freedom of press and speech. Has the government threatened, attacked, or intimidated you through fear? Given the medium we are communicating thru I have to wonder What are you thinking? It's interesting that you include "political dissidents living under repressive regimes" as part of your concerns. The United States constitution is only concerned with citizens of this country, it's not a mandate for the rest of the world. The poor countries who eschew the American way of life are entitled to do so, I just don't want their irresponsible attitudes taking root here. The person who won't introduce themselves has nothing to say that I want to bother with. Spam is an intrusion, the senders of which should be taken to task. Hoorary for Virginia's Anti-Spamming Law. The Rutherford Institute owes those folks an apology. Respectfully in Liberty, Ken Donnelly Tuesday, October 11, 2005 Sacredness of the Constitution I certainly don't hold our constitution in the same esteem that I hold scripture, however, I hold our founding fathers much higher than I hold our "statesmen" of today. I believe that many of this nation's problems would be alleviated if our government were limited to the scope prescribed in the constitution. A good example of this would be our mind boggling national debt($7,900,000,000,000). I also feel that the federal government wouldn't be usurping the authority of the states to the degree that it is today if senators were elected by the respective states legislature. State governments would have an advocate in the senate this way. Instead we have procurers of pork who worry mostly about reelection. Thank you for your column and thanks for reading a different perspective. Monday, October 10, 2005 There's Nothing Antiquated About the Constitution How wrong you are. There's nothing antiquated about the Constitution, although a bunch of politicians and talking heads would like us to think so. The original Bill of Rights is not some list of privileges bequeathed by a benevolent proletariat. They are acknowledgments of God-given rights. They're rights I'll claim regardless of government dictate. The government has it's own self interest at heart. Always has, always will. If you want to start butchering the constitution start with the 16th and 17th Amendments and work up from their. Changing the constitution to fit the times is like doing the same with the Bible. Problem is that right and wrong never change. The only problem with the Constitution is that those criminals in Washington won't heed it. That's a poor excuse for a rewrite. Surely you're not too cerebral to understand that. Ken Encouragement Your "voice" is a clear and concise "call" to our nation. My education does not always allow me to understand every thing you say, but one knows the truth when they here it (do not need an education for that). I am grateful that you use your "gifts and talents," time and energy to "remind" our nation of our true calling. Deepest regards, Mary Soukup Stick to What You Know Stick to what you know (something) about because you are clearly lost in this arena! God Is Love. He is good. Period. As to why he allows bad things to happen cannot be answered by simple humans because he has not made this knowledge available to us. God is not the author of evil although he does use it for good. Anything that happens on this earth or anywhere is either allowed or not allowed by God. I do know that the bible (God's word) says in Romans 8:28, "And we know all things work together for good to them who love God to them who are the called according to (His) purpose." After all, God, according to Christian tradition, had his own son killed (taken from your article). You didn't tell the whole story or left out the most important part here. God offered up his [son] to take away the sin of the whole world to take [the] penalty that man would have had to pay—which was death. But more than that he reconciled himself to us by dying on the cross for all of us for salvation. In fact, maybe we are so intellectually and morally depraved that we cannot fathom what a good God is (taken from your article). Very good point, because of the fall of Adam we are spiritually dead in our trespasses and sins. As a result of Adam and Eve eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil we are born into a sinful nature, speaking lies from the time we come out of the womb. The bible says, "there is not one of us good no not one!" One day you will know why God has not done this or that, but by then it will too late for you. You need to start now, otherwise you will have a long time to wish you had done something different. Scott McDougal Where Have All the Brave Men Gone? Far, Far, Away... Not likely! It would have to be a nation militarily negligible, with large oil reserves, for this administrations "brave warriors" to begin another unholy, preemptive folly. Harken back to their exemplary service during the Vietnam War; it will perhaps dawn upon the public why this nation is doing so badly at home and abroad. Anno Domini 2005 Gagged and Unchecked Thank you for your in-depth commentary and, particularly, your insight on Mr. Winn, your neighbor. The expanse of your analysis was far broader and confirmed my recent thoughts on all of the items and people mentioned. Yes. They interconnect from various angles. Mr. Bush was totally deceived because of a lack of knowledge and adequate research. The 9-11 perpetrators were ferreted out over a year before the occurance by Able Danger. Now, these brave men are being gagged. Adding insult to this utter stupidity we have, at least, 1000 jihadic murderers streaming over our S.W. borders unchecked, monthly. Howell Davis Brighton, Mi. 'Truly Socratic' Today's commentary was truly socratic. Unfortunately, and just like Socrates, you are badly outnumbered by the Sophists (and the invincibly ignorant). Speaking (even obliquely) against the pantheon of American culture will win you just about as much favor. Great piece, George Wayne Santa Barbara, CA Monday, October 03, 2005 Tainted Anthrax Shots Why is it okay for our government to do a secret vaccine study on our own soldiers then send them on their way to fight in a war or search for weapons of MASS DESTRUCTION one might ask?? I will tell you. The Anthrax Shots our troops have been given was a secret (AIDS CURE STUDY) done on them without their acknowledgement or consent, which has left us with TAINTED ANTHRAX(VACCINE-A) being perpetrated upon the military in the name of health and has ultimately sentenced them to an early death. How I see it.. WEAPONS OF MASS DETRUCTION are BEING MADE and used on our own people right here in the USA(!!) without their consent or acknowledgment! What does that MAKE OUR GOVERNMENT?? Don't believe me? Do a little GOOGLE.COM search on SQUALENE and the U.S. retired COL that did the original studies on what happened to the RATS that were injected with the SQUALENE. THEY DIED. Yet the GOVERNMENT wants to keep this advuvant in the shots to keep giving to our soldiers. Where did those reports go? There is a thing called The Freedom of Information Act... they have an 800 number… PRESS ON people and call the FDA about the SQUALENE they also found in anthrax shots. SOMEWHERE in between the lines, it is there!! Why have I found out so much one might ask? My husband, 31 years of age, has every single adverse reaction. On the UPDATED LIST maybe except 15 or 20. I would say he has 95% of the list safely. And his army doctors get around listing them in his records since he is medically boarding. He is getting worse. He can't work more than 25 minutes of hard labor without having heart attack symptoms. I feel it is past time to get the truth out to the people. We are not lab rats, nor are our soldiers!!! Thirteen years married to my soul mate! A Soldiers Advocate |
Archive June 2004July 2004 August 2004 September 2004 October 2004 November 2004 December 2004 January 2005 February 2005 March 2005 April 2005 May 2005 June 2005 July 2005 August 2005 September 2005 October 2005 November 2005 December 2005 January 2006 February 2006 March 2006 April 2006 May 2006 June 2006 July 2006 August 2006 September 2006 October 2006 November 2006 December 2006 January 2007 February 2007 April 2007 May 2007 June 2007 July 2007 August 2007 September 2007 October 2007 November 2007 December 2007 January 2008 February 2008 March 2008 April 2008 May 2008 June 2008 August 2008 September 2008 October 2008 November 2008 December 2008 January 2009 February 2009 March 2009 April 2009 May 2009 June 2009 July 2009 August 2009 September 2009 October 2009 November 2009 December 2009 January 2010
|
||
 |
|||
| The Rutherford Institute P.O. Box
7482 Charlottesville, VA 22906-7482 Phone :: 434.978.3888 (8:30 AM - 5:00 PM Eastern) | Fax :: 434.978.1789 General Inquiries:: staff@rutherford.org | Legal Assistance:: tristaff@rutherford.org Technical comments :: webmaster@rutherford.org ©2007 The Rutherford Institute | Privacy Info |
|||
