|
|||
 |
|||
| Monday, November 28, 2005 No Matter Which Religion Raising Many Questions We should thank God that nothing worse has yet happened on our soil. Any constructive discussion (not just a repetition of the material received) would be gratefully received. Keep up the good work you are doing. K. L. Shirk Jr. Drawing a Line in the Sand Americans have celebrated Christmas with parties at School, Home, shopping for 100 years and now, because a small minority want it out of Public Square, Christians/Non-Christians are being censored by hostile minority and I for one do not like that. The Secularist have twisted and used our Laws against us, and they are the Christians' enemy, they are afraid of us and want to stifle our every being. Families moved to America to get away from that. It has to be fought, Christians have been pushed and pushed. Hope you can see the picture I am trying to make, I have drawn a line in the sand. I will not buy anything from stores. What you are saying is accept this, celebrate Christmas another way, but why should we have to enjoy another way? GA. Wednesday, November 23, 2005 Torture Regarding your article, I don't know if you're familiar with this quote, but I wrote a piece on the subject a while back and found it very relevant to today's debate. During the Revolutionary War, General George Washington, speaking to the officer in charge of prisoners at Princeton, New Jersey, said: "Treat them with humanity, and let them have no reason to complain of our copying the brutal example of the British army in their treatment of our unfortunate brethren." Bush should be forced to read a little history. Oops, I forgot, he doesn't read. DH Tuesday, November 22, 2005 The Pied Piper A modern day Pied Piper and his cronies have been leading this nation down the garden path of moral and cultural deterioration. Despicably adversely criticizing men who have actually served this country in uniform and who have bled in doing so. Those who truly (and here I hesitate to use the overly charged word patriotic for obvious reasons) love this country, are the voices raised in opposition to the Iraq war. They are the voices expressing concern for those young men and women, many of whom are still not quite adults. They are expressing their desire to get these young heroes out of harm’s way. Perhaps we should revisit the story of the "Pied Piper of Hamelin". There seems to be a frightening lack of sensibility regarding the safety and protection of the young adults placed in harms way. The decision to begin the Iraq war appears to have been made in a grossly incompetent cavalier fashion. Anno Domini MMV Does Intelligent Design Prevent the Teaching of Science? How does presenting Intelligent Design along with Evolution prevent schoolchildren from learning the science of Chemistry? Explain how presenting Intelligent Design along with Evolution prevents schoolchildren from learning the science of Physics. How does presenting Intelligent Design along with Evolution prevent schoolchildren from learning the scientific classification of plants and animals, the location, function, and nomenclature of the organs of the body, or the circulation of blood and sap in plants and animals? Explain how presenting Intelligent Design along with Evolution prevents schoolchildren from learning photosynthesis, how a DNA molecule zips and unzips, or from learning the function of rhibo nucleic acid during protein synthesis in the endoplasmic rheticulum. Explain how presenting Intelligent Design along with Evolution prevents schoolchildren from leaning mitosis, meiosis, or the scientific laws of genetic inheritance discovered by Gregor Mendel, a Roman Catholic monk and firm believer in Intelligent Design. Explain how presenting Intelligent Design along with Evolution prevents schoolchildren from learning Evolution. How does having been presented Intelligent Design along with Evolution place an Electrical Engineer, a Computer Programmer, a Pharmacist, a Medical Doctor, or a Nurse at a disadvantage? How does having been presented Intelligent Design along with Evolution place at a disadvantage a High School Biology Teacher who believes in Evolution but who has several students whose parents believe in Intelligent Design which the Biology Teacher considers ignorance, but the Teacher is aware that the taxes of these parents accounts for 20% of his salary? Evangelical Christians believe in Intelligent Design and make up 20% of the population. Therefore they pay 20% of the taxes. If a school objects to the teaching of Intelligent Design along with Evolution would the school object to having its Budget cut by 20% and vouchers given to those parents who want their children to attend a school where Intelligent Design is taught along with Evolution? Wouldn't you like to ask somebody to explain how exactly the presentation of Intelligent Design along with Evolution somehow prevents children from learning science? Religious Rights Suppressed Everyday I have to admit I am surprised a letter such as the one Mr. Whitehead sent to support the religious right for Jewish prisoners was even necessary. However, I am finding that religious rights in this are being suppressed to a greater extent more and more everyday, despite a president that seems to be opposed to that very thing. In the area I live in, corruption and abuses of political offices and power work enormous legal and constitutional crimes and offenses. However, I am having difficulty finding individuals interested in addressing these very issues. Things like secret prisons and torture being carried out abroad shock me less and less each day when I see what is occurring in the small urban area near here. How is this happening? Are people at the top truly this ignorant as to what occurs, or do they just not truly care? Does anyone see anarchy or the self-destruction of America on the horizon? Has it occurred to anyone that if push came to shove that martial law in this country would probably be a dismal non-viable option? Monday, November 21, 2005 More Opinions on McCain I haven't always agreed with John McCain, but I sure do this time. Your analysis was very helpful in framing the issue. Jack F. Take a Second Look It seems that while you have a pretty good sense about what’s going on in the world today, you have fallen for the tired old liberal crap written and said about Senator McCarthy. Worse yet, you are spreading the manure. Although it will be difficult for you to throw off years of misinformation and then accept the fact that you have been mislead and that a smart man like yourself is wrong, please read the following about McCarthy. It gives the real poop on him. Sincerely, Chad B. McCain Not Worthy of Trust I have not read the legislation, but I cannot believe President Bush would have anything to do with the torture of humans. My guess is that this issue is simply another example of hyperbole and exaggeration from the left at work again. I would be extremely careful about trusting McCain—do not forget that this is the same guy who sponsored the anti-free speech legislation that he tricked Congress into voting for by cleverly calling it “campaign reform.” I’m concerned that you’re being duped. Be very careful about endorsing any point of view favored by McCain. Make sure that you understand exactly what the proposed legislation says, since McCain is not above hiding anti-civil rights legislation (like his campaign reform act) behind a subterfuge and making anti-civil rights legislation sound appealing. McCain is not worthy of your trust, so make sure that you are not being used. Regards, Philip R. Many Thanks Your article today was touching. I appreciate your use of logical arguments and the ability to see both sides. Here at Union College (Lincoln, NE) we have a petition supporting McCain’s bill posted around campus. We hope to get 50-60% of our students to sign. This article made me cry for our nation’s pride. We have come so far, we have supported freedom in so many ways. True, our nation is run by people, and everyone makes mistakes, but we have been making great strides towards human rights. But, this makes me sad. Like you said, it is not okay to protect human rights by destroying them. Many thanks again. Eric S. A Few Viewpoints "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."—Benjamin Franklin "Every citizen should be a soldier. This was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free state."—Thomas Jefferson This last one is from another well known man: "What luck for rulers that men do not think."—Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945) Thank you for your time. God bless, Justin Dallas TX. Thursday, November 17, 2005 A Beatles Fan From Day One Your column on the Beatles appeared in the Centerville-Bellbrook (Ohio) Times and I just want you to know I thought it was just outstanding. I really enjoyed it, being a Beatles fan from Day One. My first rock concert ever was the Beatles (Comiskey Park, Chicago, August, 1965). Thank you for your insights. Sincerely, David P. Wednesday, November 16, 2005 May God Bless This Work! Many times in the Bible, God states His requirements for people who He has put in positions of authority. God requires rulers to be just and do righteousness and also to plead the cause of those who cannot fight their oppressors. The rule for those in authority is "to whom much is given, much is required". With a lofty position comes grave responsibility and it's power must not be exercised flippantly nor to avenge their personal enemies as is done often. Our Constitution still keeps rogue leaders in check. Thank you all for this sacred ministry to us. Curt Benjamin Grand Rapids MI Tuesday, November 15, 2005 Peace of Mind So... the aggresive Bush administration screwed up. And it is sad to report that realistically, it is too late... too late... for true and complete healing. Not because George was aggresive, but because... George should have been focusing on an economic war against China WITH COMPLETE AND OPEN DIALOGUE, rather than being "The Rich Bully"... and invading Iraq... costing lives, BILLIONS of dollars, and our American "peace of mind". Ron Monday, November 14, 2005 Late to the Battle I enjoyed your article on Edward R. Murrow very much, however, I must disagree with one statement you made—Murrow did not "break the ice" in attacking McCarthy. He, himself, admitted that he was coming late to the battle. He was, of course, one of the most visible new people who spoke out and the most eloquent. Terry Elston Tyler, TX. Friday, November 11, 2005 A Very Concerned Parent I'm a very concerned parent who is not happy with Thomas Jefferson School in Bay City Michigan and their Christmas Program, as the children were told they can NOT use or do anything containing GOD or JESUS CHRIST because it might offend someone! Well guess what? I'm offended by this as that holiday is all about the birth of Christ and the Principal wants to throw Christ down at one of the most holy times of the year! Before you say it might offend someone remember this: "ONE NATION UNDER GOD", which the students say every morning?? Lets stop the Pledge of Allegiance; Is this not a conflict that also might offend someone?? My daughters class was going to do a short play on the birth of the Christ child for the Christmas program or Holiday(Christmas) Program and they told her NO! What kind of Principal did the school put at T.J. this year, one who hates Christ and God and all they stand for??? Or doesn't Believe in them??? Does she worship the Devil??? Or is it the School Board??? Lets face the truth: you can't say no God or Christ in the program and then say the pledge every morning and repeat One Nation Under God. That's being two faced in every way, if she is going to make a stand with the Christmas program then stop the Pledge! As a matter of fact, at last years program some children even did the Dreidel song for the Jewish holiday, which falls at the same time! They also believe in God! So what is the real story with this Principal woman at Thomas Jefferson School??? Or is this a new School Board Policy?? This is the main problem with this Country. Let's stop the Principles and Beliefs that this country was founded on! Every form of U.S. Money in this Great United States has the words "IN GOD WE TRUST" ! What is wrong with this Picture?????? Timothy Elswick Thursday, November 10, 2005 Kick In The Pants Tuesday, November 08, 2005 Get A Reality Check Why do you condemn torture? When these terrorists kill your family, you might think differently. The information interrogators get will save the lives of Americans. What is wrong with you people? Do you think these terrorist care if we live or die? YOU NEED TO GET A REALITY CHECK. CIE/GA Monday, November 07, 2005 Walking on Pins and Needles Dear Mr. Whitehead : Thank you for the excellent article. It was accurate, and wonderful to read. I'm a pro-life liberal. Just think.....just think.....if Al Gore became President instead of George Bush. We, as Americans, would be so so much better off! I find it appalling, scary, and disgusting that 1% of our population controls 99% of our population! John, the USA today is like Germany in the 1930's! Everybody is walking on "pins and needles"! All I hear on talk radio is more conservative bullshit - the liberals are satanic, the liberals are bad, the liberals are evil, the liberals are wrong.....etc. What ONE good thing has George Bush done? Captured Sadaam? Who cares! Where is Bin Laden??? I can't think of one good thing George Bush has done. He calls himself a "uniter"? C'mon! Get Real George! He has always been a divider!!! George Bush is for ONE segment of society - wealthy, white people (and I'm white). Hopefully, your article today will motivate THOUSANDS of American politicians to re-establish our sacred Bill of Rights! Today, law enforcement IS law entrapment! And if you even simply lie to a police officer? Your ass may wind up in jail! Police officers are THE BIGGEST LIARS!!!!! We all need the Bill of Rights to protect us - every hour of every day. It's really scary. Thank you, John. RON The Wrong Solution Dear Mr. Whitehead, I was very disappointed in your article titled It's Time for Constitutional Reform. You recognized a problem and offered the wrong solution. Our most serious problem today is not that the constitution no longer works, but that the federal government is grossly violating it and subverting many of its provisions and protections. I stridently disagree with your assertion, "...the shakiness of anyone's liberty when entrusted to the aristocratic vision of the founders." Au contraire, they gave us freedom of speech and religion, property rights, due process, jury trials, private ownership of firearms, and the 9th and 10th Amendments to both guarantee our rights and limit federal power. They did a fine job of protecting our liberty using these provisions. It isn't the fault of the constitution that our government is subverting all of these in its desire to have ever-more control over the population, or that the people are generally ignorant of what has taken place. You wrote: "A casual reading of the Constitution finds that there are various sections that ... are being ignored...The size and structure of our government has grown far beyond its constitutional framework. And few of these systematic alterations to our scheme of government match the original Constitution anymore-a scheme that was developed for 13 isolated colonial states." Perhaps you've forgotten that the federal government was never meant to do too much; the scope of its jurisdiction was intentionally limited. That's why the Constitution delegates only certain powers to it, and reserves all other powers to the states and the people. You wrote these things as though they're problems with the Constitution. They're not. We live under a government that no longer wants its power to be limited by a written constitution. It wants a blank check to do whatever it pleases. The solution to this is not to change the constitution in order to give the government more power, the solution is to force the government to obey the existing laws. As professor Rodney D. Scott wrote in his book The Great Debate, "The Constitution ... is an agreement between the people and their government." Today, the federal government is horribly violating that agreement. Most of the modifications to the constitution that should be made today are only needed because the original system has shown to be lacking in its ability to keep government power in check and to protect the rights of the people. We live in a time when government abuses and destroys people's lives almost at will, often without due process. It has corrupted our court system to the point where justice is a sham. The recent trials of Irwin Schiff and Richard Simkanin illustrate this, for they were nothing more than Kangaroo Courts and Star Chambers. See The Income Tax Gulag for more information. The right of the people to jury nullification (which protects us from bad laws), once accepted nationwide, has been decimated and now exists in only 4 states. It is interesting that you quoted Charles Evans Hughes' (who later became Chief Justice of the Supreme Court) remark, "The Constitution is what the judges say it is." Therein lies a big part of our problem. The constitution is supposed to be a wall of protection between us and government. It is NOT supposed to be whatever judges (meaning the government) say it is. Therefore, original intent is of paramount importance when interpreting the constitution. Sadly, most Supreme Court Justices today no longer go by original intent. They interpret it to mean whatever they want it to mean. Thus, the protective power of our constitution has been undermined and that document is instead used to bludgeon our rights and expand government power. Anyone interested in this subject should obtain a commentary by Joseph Sobran titled How Tyranny Came to America, which explains how the Supreme Court has subverted our constitution. Your statement, "The Supreme Court, for example, despite its look of somber, black-robed fairness has, with a few exceptions, generally sided with the government and the ruling aristocracy", was quite accurate. That is a problem that we need to fix as soon as possible, and it is unclear how best to do it. You also wrote: "The Constitution in many ways has become antiquated...Clearly, the time for constitutional reform is now. If not, the time will come when the Constitution will be so far removed from the realities of society and government that it no longer applies. As a consequence, our government will no longer be restrained by a written Constitution. The next step, thus, will be government without limitation and the destruction of any semblance of democracy." Sadly, we've already reached the point where our constitution no longer restrains government power in any meaningful way. Myriads of government agencies, programs, and laws exist for which there is no constitutional authority. The DEA, FDA, EPA, OSHA, HUD, ATF, SSA and federal "crime" and "gun control" laws are just a few examples. Usurpation of power has become the norm. Government without limitation is here and growing. What we must understand is that a power-hungry government, which refuses to obey its existing contract with the people, will not suddenly have respect for a new contract. Government officials who have no respect for the law now will not develop respect for law when we change the law. They will remain lawless. That is why changing the constitution will not solve the problem. As an analogy, We The People can be compared to owners of a bar. Our government can be compared to a bouncer at the bar, whose job is to protect people and keep the peace, and the Constitution to his contract. Now, when the bouncer begins taking more power than the contract specifies; making decisions which are outside his purview; and intimidating the owners, what is the proper solution? To change the contract (constitution) so as to give the bouncer more power? Certainly not. The solution is to get the bouncer back under control, or, as a last resort, replace him. This is essentially the choice we have today in America. The federal government has become like an out-of-control bouncer who has subjugated the owners. The solution offered in your article - the wrong solution -- would change the contract to give him more power. That would be like throwing gasoline on the fire in an attempt to control the fire. No- the answer is to restore constitutional order by holding the government accountable for its usurpations of power and putting it back inside the cage of the U.S. Constitution, making the people safe once again from its predacious nature. Alexander Daube Thursday, November 03, 2005 Fed Up! What about the latest 9th district decision in California? Parents apparently have no right to monitor sex ed. from schools! Romney Dickinson A Constitutional Amendment Wish List Dear Mr. Whitehead: I read with extreme interest your October 10th commentary regarding constitutional reform. Unfortunately, you did not state what specific changes you advocate. What changes for the Constitution would you like to see adopted? Have you drafted any text for proposed constitutional amendments? The following is my wish list of constitutional amendments I would like to see adopted: 1. A REAL equal rights amendment that explicitly prohibits preferential treatment or quotas on account of sex, race, or color, and abolishes the aboriginal status of all citizens so designated (Native Indians, Native Hawaiians, Eskimos, etc.), thus making them truly EQUAL citizens of the United States, and not the special favorites or wards of the federal government. (As an anti-affirmative-action activist, I am opposed to the proposed Marriage Amendment, which would have the effect of writing a fifty-percent sex quota into the Constitution whereby half of all married persons, or each married couple, must be male and half must be female. That is blatant sex discrimination, and it absolutely has no place in the Constitution. I ask you, Mr. Whitehead, are gender quotas more acceptable than racial quotas?) 2. An amendment revising the Fourth Amendment to prohibit any governmental surveillance or search of any person or abode without individualized suspicion and probable cause, and to provide for a general right to privacy. 3. An amendment that revises the supremacy clause to make it VERY clear that the Constitution is THE supreme law of the land over all federal laws (including international agreements), treaties, state constitutions, and state laws; that treaties are subordinate to conflicting federal laws to make the Senate-only, treaty-ratification process subordinate to the more arduous bicameral process necessary to enact federal laws; and that the United States is governed solely in accordance with the United States Constitution, and not by any external body or organization whatsoever (read, United Nations, World Trade Organization, NAFTA, CAFTA, etc.); and that no treaty to which the United States is not a party shall have any application to the United States or to any person within its jurisdiction (read, International Criminal Court, which purports to have jurisdiction over all nations, even those that did not ratify the ICC Treaty). 4. A citizenship amendment that would make it very clear that persons born in the United States or any place subject to its jurisdiction are citizens of the United States only when at least one natural parent is a citizen of the United States at the time of birth, and further provide that no citizen of the United States shall also be a citizen or subject of any foreign state, and shall have sole allegiance to the United States. 5. A constitutional amendment that revises the Tenth Amendment by prohibiting the appropriation of any federal funds for any purpose not within the explicitly prescribed powers of the Congress, and to prohibit the disbursement of any public funds to any party except for the provision of providing public services by that party. (Education, for example, is not one of the constitutionally prescribed powers of the Congress, and any appropriation for that purpose would be prohibited, except for educational institutions that exist to meet the government's own needs, such as the various military academies.) 6. An amendment that abolishes the Electoral College, which currently makes a mockery out of our presidential elections. 7. An amendment that repeals federal income taxes, including Social Security and Medicare taxes, and that explicitly limits the taxing power of the Congress to only those taxes listed in the amendment, and prescribes a simple formula for each type of tax in which the Congress would only decide whether or not to impose a tax at all, and if so, the rate. The Congress would have no other power relating to taxes, except to prescribe criminal and civil penalties for failure to pay. 8. An amendment to establish a very strong initiative and referendum process whereby the citizens would have direct power to draft and propose federal laws, treaties and constitutional amendments, and qualify such proposals for ballot placement. (I envision a federal, not a "national," I&R process whereby a proposal would go through a complete filing, signature collection, and vote process within each state. A law would be enacted (or a treatywould be ratified) if at least a majority of those voting on the proposal in each of at least a majority of states vote to approve the proposal. A constitutional amendment would be adopted if at least a majority of of those voting on the proposal in each of at least three-fourths of the states vote to approve the amendment. Steven A. Panteli A Return to a Constitutional Government Department of Defense, Justice Department and maybe the Department of commerce. A. Mason Where is the Reckoning for the Guilty Parties? Anno Domini MMV Rule of Law, Not Rule by Men I read with interest your commentary “It’s Time for Constitutional Reform.” I was especially intrigued by the following statement: “We must keep in mind that what was important to the so-called founding fathers—that is, ‘the founders’ vision’—does not really square with who and what we are today. In fact, those who wrote the Constitution were not advocates of a democracy. They were, to a large extent, a landed aristocracy that was intent on protecting property interests.” The way you phrased this implies that our founders’ aversion to democracy was something negative. However, I do not believe this is the case. A democracy is, in essence, majority rule. This means that whatever the majority decides is imposed on the minority—for good or ill. Ultimately, it is nothing more than mob rule. For instance, if the majority of the population voted to legalize slavery, then it would be lawful for Americans to enslave their fellow citizens. In a pure democracy, if enough people wanted to take your house, they could simply vote on it and you would be out on the street. Our founders gave us a Republican form of government, that is, rule of law, not rule by men. They had studied history and understood the fragile and turbulent nature of democracies. James Madison wrote, “Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have…been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.” Sincerely, Julie Daube Colorado Springs, CO Tuesday, November 01, 2005 The Character of Courageous “Hate Speech” Character has always been the test of a meaningful life. For the nth time my wife and I watched the movie A Man for All Seasons. Its star is “character”— personified by the life of Sir Thomas More. In the story, More (Lord Chancellor of England) encourages Richard Rich, a young Cambridge graduate who seeks from him promotion at Court, to become a school-teacher. Rich objects: no one sees a good teacher. More retorts: “your students will see you; you will see you and God will see you.” Later, the same Rich, in exchange for a plum position as Lord Chancellor of Wales, perjures himself and sends More to his death. As Rich walks by, the condemned More utters one of the best lines of the movie: “Richard, what shall it profit a man if he gain the whole world, but Wales!?” According to the Dartmouth student speaker, Noah Riner, character is still the great issue and ultimate goal of true education. To this point, he had the freshman crowd with him. Then he pointed out that each of us is flawed: “In the words of Cassius in Shakespeare's Julius Caesar, ‘the fault, dear Brutus is not in our stars but in ourselves.’” He went on: “Character has a lot to do with sacrifice, laying our personal interests down for something bigger. The best example of this is Jesus. In the Garden of Gethsemane, just hours before his crucifixion, Jesus prayed, ‘Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.’ He knew the right thing to do. He knew the cost would be agonizing torture and death. He did it anyway. That's character.” We see here an example of modern-day character from this Christian student who knew he would be “crucified” for his plain speech. He went on: “Jesus is a good example of character, but He's also much more than that. He is the solution to flawed people like corrupt Dartmouth alums…Jesus' message of redemption is simple. People are imperfect, and there are consequences for our actions. He gave His life for our sin so that we wouldn't have to bear the penalty of the law; so we could see love. The problem is me; the solution is God's love: Jesus on the cross, for us.” Had Riner mentioned the Buddha, the Dalai Lama, or Mother Teresa, he would have been fine. But the mention of Jesus, not only as model but as Savior brought the wrath of Dartmouth down upon him. How things have changed. Dartmouth was established with a royal charter to evangelize the Indians of North America. Now the very mention of Jesus is the equivalent of hate speech. A petition drive against the young student-body president is being contemplated. A vice president of the Student Assembly wrote to him, “I consider your choice of topic for the Convocation speech reprehensible and an abuse of power. You embarrass the organization, you embarrass yourself.” The erstwhile Sixties architects of “free speech” are now crafting laws outlawing “hate speech.” Masquerading as tolerance and inclusiveness, an almighty totalitarian agenda intends to impose its “spiritual” values on the culture, whether we like it or not. The Jewish commentator, Don Feder states that “the ultimate goal of the homosexual movement is to use the state to crush dissent.” In Scandinavia and Canada, discussion is already outlawed. Ministers have been threatened with jail for expressing the biblical teaching on homosexuality. In the USA in 2004, four members of the evangelical group Repent America were arrested for preaching, displaying banners and singing hymns at Philadelphia’s “OutFest 2004.” Though a judge ultimately dismissed all charges, they could each have been sentenced to 47 years in prison. From a broader perspective, nothing has changed. Tacitus (AD 55-117) charged Christians with hate speech. He called them “haters of humanity.” It was their speech about the vanity of pagan gods, about humanity’s sinfulness and need of a savior that provoked such a violent reaction in the mind of this Roman orator. It was speech that disturbed the religious and social pax romana but eventually turned the ancient world upside down. I thank God for the Riners who are willing to face the struggle ahead and pray that we can train more young people with character, namely the courage to speak the truth about Jesus, whatever the cost, in an increasingly pagan world. Peter Jones |
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 |
|||
