|
|||
 |
|||
| Saturday, December 31, 2005 Freedom Under Fire This kind of thing has been going on for a long time. I do not think we especially had exact freedom here, but the United States had a good reputation for sustaining it until now. The situation is the same as that of Germany in the 1930s and people do not appear to have that watchfulness that should have gone everywhere after that happened there. This Giles Country newspaper, however, is very conscious of freedom and publishes articles that illustrate what freedom is—and means. Libraries have always been a sanctuary and what goes on in them is private—but not anymore as you mentioned. I opposed the invasion as soon as it started and I am sure many librarians and teachers do also. It is critical. The incidents you quoted are examples and I know there are many others. Bush is not a king and the coteries of criminals around him are like a bunch of Capone gangsters. The man is a moron and manipulated by them because all objection has ceases except for people and papers like this one. My friends in Australia wrote you should not use key words that cause them to put you under surveillance, but what the words actually are is only a guess. I can suspect and I try to avoid them, but I am literate and use languages in many ways to describe many things and the choice of words is my own and large. I do not want to think that I should avoid certain words through I do not use them in a silly way or to inflame people. In fact, I resent and oppose any who say I do not have a right and an obligation to criticize whatever I choose. I am not going to be dominated by a stupid president or a gang of would-be thugs and for them to go into a school, or a library and harass a student for what they say or print is indeed criminal and I would hope there would be such a vociferous outcry that Bush would be pushed back into his little hole until the next election. The matter of Selen A Jarvis is beyond belief and totally in opposition to an American way and constitution. Rolf T. Friday, December 30, 2005 Worth Reading Dear Mr. Whitehead: I read your column in the Crossville Chronicle and yesterday's column headlined, "Government surveillance, intimidation," was really wonderful. I belong to a study group — a bunch of extremely liberal old ladies (the youngest is 50) and they have repeatedly told me that you are ultra conservative, but your column is worth reading. For sure! I was a Republican for many years of my life, but during George H. W. Bush's administration, I became a Democrat because of my fear that Roe v. Wade would be overturned. I am old enough to remember what back-room abortions did to women And to tell the truth, even though no one believes that abortions are ever good, I don't want that right taken away. Women will get abortions for one reason or another. No one ever does it lightly. I am very concerned about the all too real erosion of our basic freedoms in this country and have been since September 11, 2001. I was in Belgium when that horrible event occurred and my first response was, "Oh Shit. I wish Bill Clinton were still president - and I am so sorry that Al Gore isn't." I've been worried since that horrible election of 2000 and I dread the next three years. I am so very frightened about what kind of country my children and grandchildren will have. Please keep your voice loud and strong. Keep writing. Thank you for voicing my very real concerns. Sincerely, Sandra H. Undermining Our Democracy Dear Mr.Whitehead; I came across your article in the Santa Monica Daily Press. I am a lucky survivor of the Nazis and a refugee from communist Hungary and as such I am really heartened to see good people from all political persuasions recognizing the push by the Bush/Cheney cabal to undermine our democracy and publicly calling them on it. It seems like in every generation there is an attempt to exploit peoples inherent desire for safety, order and predictability which a largely free-for-all, open society such as ours, do not fully provide. Hence the yearning in some people for a strong leader, a strong central authority. That is what Mussolini promised the Italians in the thirties of the last century. And indeed, at least, he did succeed in giving them trains that ran on time. Of course, and thank god, America is no Italy and Bush is no Mussolini no matter his posturing : "My job is to protect you, the American people." Your article contributes to the raising of Americans awarness of the danger of totalian tendencies by stealth of this Administration. I thank you and have a happy new year. Tibor W. Thursday, December 29, 2005 Victims of the Darkness...... Terror, torture and treason all have to dealt with by those in authority. Those dealings must be honest and bound by law. Rev. James L. Thursday, December 22, 2005 Telling America the Truth Tommy F. Tuesday, December 20, 2005 Christian Activity Dear Rutherford Institute I realize that you feel you are helping people with this Christmas thing but you do not help me and I am a very conservative Christian. I'm a member of the Church of Christ and we DO NOT celebrate Christ's birth. You make it sound like all Christians should take offense at not saying Merry Christmas at this time of year, but I assure you that in no way do all Christians agree on this matter. We do not celebrate for these reasons; 1. Christ was not born in the winter months, he was born in the spring. We know this, as we know when Jews were to pay taxes and Mary and Joseph were going to pay taxes at the time of Jesus's birth. 2. Nowhere in the Bible are we asked, commanded or encouraged to celebrate Christ's birth. 3. December and the Solstice was a Pagan celebration and Catholics borrowed it to celebrate a special Mass or Christ-mas and as such is not a Christian activity. My church celebrates Christ's life everyday of the year, with no day being greater than another. So Please do not speak for all Christians-YOU DO NOT! Mayme T. Spiritual Darkness John: I respect your opinion about the government's international phone suveillance of calls with suspected terrorists, but must you quote Wild Bill Douglas? No matter the eloquence of his (or his clerk's) language in support of the position which suited him at the moment, this man's personal life, as well as his later opinions, destroyed any credibility he might otherwise have deserved. Or does that matter anymore - especially to a Christian audience? Your choice of this source does color my opinion of your remarks on this issue. The quote could describe any number of situations but I believe it best describes the process of our society's fall into its present moral oppression and spiritual darkness (a fall for which Justice Douglas deserves not a little blame). Guy S. Monday, December 19, 2005 Constitutional Rights Mr. Whitehead: Thank you for your recent commentary on the violation of Constitutional rights by our current administration. It is so refreshing to see a conservative Christian who is willing to step back and look at Bush's policies with a critical eye, and not just slavishly agree with everything he does. I agree wholeheartedly with your assessment of the current climate where it is viewed by our government as acceptable to breach the Constitutional rights of its citizens. Thank you for your work to protect the most precious thing we as American citizens have: our Constitution. Sincerely, Leann D. G. Post 9/11 Jack L. F. Friday, December 16, 2005 Christmas Giving John: Thank you for your reminder on December 12, 2005 of our responsibility and opportunity as Christians to give to those in need -especially on the occasion of our Saviour's birth. It was a welcome re-direction in the area of Christmas giving. I do want to address your statements regarding the war in Iraq. I am not acquainted with your position on this issue except from this 12/12/05 letter but I think it is clear from your remarks there that you are critical of the U.S. position and actions in this regard. You also make the statement that : "--- Irag, where living conditions of the average Iraqi have greatly declined since the American occupation." I do not claim any special knowledge about the comparison of the condition of the average Iraqi under Saddam and in the current situation. There is considerable controversy, however, about this question. I do consider you as a credible source for the truth in this regard. Can you give me statistics (and the sources thereof) that would reasonably lead to the conclusion that you have stated? Thank you, John. Guy R. S. Merry Christmas Christmas is at best a stolen pagan holiday. I'm surprised that Christians even still celebrate it considering its origin and history. I just hope they don't bring back human sacrifice. Marc P. Fighting Cancer with Band Aids We are fighting cancer with band aids. The cancer is the wrong interperation the court gave to the first amendment. Christianity is not a religion it is a belief. Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved. Period, no works, no rituals. Religion says do these works and rituals and you shall be saved. They are opposites. Our mission is to get the High Court to understand this and redress the religious clause. Of course we don't want buddism, islam chanukah, kwanzaa, hinduism or any of the multitudes of religions established. Thank You, D.E.B. Tuesday, December 13, 2005 Supposed Christmas Cards I hope Rutherford will look into this and call him on it. I already threw mine in the waste basket but now I wish I had sent it back to him with a comment. Dale D. Wednesday, December 07, 2005 Distinction Without A Difference Once again, the court made a distinction without a difference. It continued Justice Powell's fallacy of "diversity" as a "constitutionally permissible goal." Diversity is fine as long as it is not intentionally directed. Once we get into the area of intentionally directed "diversity," what we are really talking about is discrimination. Another problem with the GRUTTER ruling is Justice O'Connor's outlandish notion that what is "constitutional" now will be unconstitutional 25 years from now, even if not one word of the Constitution were changed during that time. The equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment simply mandates the EQUAL protection of the laws. It does NOT allow, much less mandate, the Orwellian notion of PREFERENTIAL "protection" until some abstract concept of "equality" is reached. Powell's diversity fallacy and O'Connor's purely fabricated 25-year period to, in effect, suspend true compliance with the Fourteenth Amendment need to be challenged and delegitimized at every opportunity! The court has stepped completely outside the Constitution in both the BAKKE and GRUTTER cases. All people are equal, but for the next 25 years, some people will continue to be "more equal" than others. (Sound familiar?) Sincerely, S. A. Tuesday, December 06, 2005 An Open Secret It's an open secret that the United States is engaging in the torture of many of those captured in connection with our military actions against terrorists or those believed to be terrorists or their supporters. (See aclu.org to view the massive documentation of this fact from information the ACLU received under various FOIA lawsuits.) Throughout the debate over the torture of captives, I have neither heard nor read any mention of the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The courts and others may conveniently interpret "punishment" under the Constitution to mean only those actions related to the post-conviction treatment of persons under our criminal laws. I, however, have a much different view. The text of the Eighth Amendment makes no distinction whatsoever between "criminal convicts" and "detainees," "enemy combatants," or "unlawful combatants." This means the Constitution ABSOLUTELY forbids torture by ALL governmental entities at all levels, without exception, including the military and intelligence services. A government that violates its own constitution in order to "defend and protect" it is not a constitutional government at all. Those in power, especially those in the White House and on the Supreme Court, as well as certain members of Congress, need to be forcefully and continually reminded that the Constitution is not a document of convenience, but a document of MANDATORY COMPLIANCE! Intelligent Design From my understanding, Intelligent Design study *is* the study of scientific and natural phenomena. It involves more than a question of 'What' and how to manipulate it, but also inquires into some 'Structural Design Analysis' and the probability of that structure evolving ....using accepted statistical methodology and constraints of proven scientific LAWS (like Einstein's or Planck's or Newton's, etc). The results of that analysis lead to questions yet to be answered, "How did the structure form? WHY does it do that? What is the probability and time required to randomly form or evolve?" ...from 'evolving' or 'not-evolving' or 'undetermined'. It is left to the honest researcher/student to formulate his opinion or additional question. Exciting is what it is. It leads to open-ended study ...deep stuff. Where is the religion? I think the effort of design analysis raises VERY interesting philosophical and scientific questions that Socates or Aristotle would enjoy ...given the breadth and depth of detail scientific micro-data that is now available for analysis and discussion. What seems to be missing is scientific curiosity ...replaced by shallow, knee-jerk reactionary advocates of a THEORY ...*still* unproven ..*still* with scientific data voids ...*still* with wide-eyed vociferous intolerant advocates. The question dances before us ..why are those advocates of evolutionary theory so vociferous and defensive and unwilling to entertain even the possibility of an alternative and complementary study? I would suggest that the evil words anticipated by the Evolution Adherents are "God" and "Creator". Does Intelligent Design Study lead there? The challenge ought to be Prove It "so", or Prove It "not so" or leave it "undetermined". But by all means, for intellectual honesty, study the basic question(s). JP English Torture JP English All Men are Created Equal This class of humans can not request mercy, run away, hide or defend themselves. They are not given the right to life. They are slaughtered for the convienence of the nation. Would the Senator speak out for them? Is there honor in slaughtering the innocent and defenseless? We gave our honor away decades ago for political correctness. Stanley S. What is Wrong With a Prayer? You are right because having forced prayers at a secular school is patently unconstitutional. Right wing religionists make the specious claim that thay are being persecuted, but, in fact, they are the persecutors. They intend to force their religion on everyone else. And they hate the US Constitution, which protects those who don't accept their religion from mob rule. Religionists can stand in the park and rant and rave all they want as is their right to do so. But this is a secular government, and Americans have been individually sucessful because of the US Constitution, which gives each citizen what no other previous society had enjoyed. Freedom from Government, and freedom from religion. Any religion that wants to destroy our Constitution is laying the seeds to destroy themselves because whatever the major religion is, it will then turn on and destroy the others. And religionists hate science because every new fact that science uncovers weakens religions claims to having any credibility. The intelligent design proponents claim that it should be presented in public schools as an alternative to evolution. But how can it be. Intelligent Design is not a theory by any definition, but it is a belief system, so it has no credibility to be presented in a science class. If it is to be presented, than so should the opinion that Santa Claus exists and created the universe. That belief is as credible as Intelligent Design. Rather than read bibles, religionists should start reading world history. Historically, anyone with a credible IQ knows that, historically, relligion has been the enemy of the common man. Our founding fathers, who were mostly Deists or Atheists, wrote the Constitution to allow freedom of religion. But, they knew that you can' t have freedom of religion without first having freedom from religion. That is why prayers can't be sanctioned in publilc secular schools. If you need to pray before the meeting, you have that right, but not force prayer in the meetings. If you want your children to pray in the morning, then get up early and make them and see what the results. But not in a public school by government mandate. Enjoy your right to believe whatever you want, but when you reach the secular school door, you are supposed to be intelligent enough to know that is where the line is drawn and rightly so if you want a free society. Most people who are religious know and recognize the wall of separation between church and state. The minority of religious people who make the most noise don't deserve any special rights because they are too stupid to understand American and World history. They are potential tyrants, as are all religions by definition, and deserved to be stopped thereby protecting every individuals Constitutional rights. Monday, December 05, 2005 Thoughtful Commentary Thank you for sending this wonderful article on John Lennon and the cult of celebrity--It was probably the most thoughtful commentary I have read on either subject in a very long time..I only wish we could run it in our little community paper! Pathetic There's nothing about Lennon that haunts me other than the fact that people won't let this atheistic marxist die. How pathetic! |
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 |
|||
