The Islamic Fanatic's (Fascist, Nazi, Fundamentalist, Extremist) War on the world targets those who most want to surrender in Iraq as Dinesh D'souza eloquently points out.

So isn't it amazing that the ones who most want to run away are the first ones that a Sharia conquest would target.  Cindy Sheehan would lose her head nearly immediately for her public and unveiled antics.  George Soros would be put to death as an atheist.  Barack Obama would be executed as an Apostate.

Sure the conservative and libertarian Christians would be dhimmi and subject to excessive taxation and government control.  So would the practicing Jews.  They are "people of the book".  They wouldn't be executed out of hand like secular humanists and atheists would be.

Where does the *tolerance* logic of the liberal, loony, left stop?  It is like tolerating (nor defending yourself from) the home invader who intends to rape and kill you and your family.  The one who CALLS YOU beforehand to announce it too.

The radical islamists aren't shy about their intent nor their wishes for world domination (caliphate).  Yet the ones most opposed to fighting and defeating them are the very ones the islamists will first kill.

Talk about self-defeating, WOW!!

Very interesting reponses to recent Townhall commentary by Ken Connor and Mary Grabar.

See FA Hayek Fan's reactions and the comments elicited.

More Content:
The American Freedom Web Log
Nik's MySpace Blog

I agree with Mr. Garthwaite on these being more than worth the time to read.  See his "Top 10" Selections.

More content:
The American Freedom Net Web Log
Nik's MySpace Blog

As usual, Thomas Sowell nails it. 

How come more people in their greed/envy or ignorance don't get it?  How come politicians foster it with their hyperbolic politics of envy.  CEO pay or gas prices, cable rates or medical costs.  All are very simply related in what can and is produced versus the demand for same.  If Megacorp doesn't offer Harriet Whizbang 20 million plus options and a plane and a house for her services then you can bet that GiantEnterprise will.  That's because Harriet has a track record of performance that cause the big companies to compete for her, of which there is only one. (Granted the normal pool is larger but so is the number of corps.)  When a circumstance causes the supply of gas to dry or demand for it to increase, why is it "gouging" to charge more?  If you charge a dime and everyone else charges a quarter, everyone will by your tiny percentage of the supply and you won't be able to resupply as effectively as those who have adjusted their prices to compensate for the supply/demand changes.

Artificial statist manipulation of prices (unconstitutional infringement of property rights) just removes the incentive for people to excel and/or produce.  People are motivated by gain.  Altruism springs from success not from coercion.  That's why conservatives give more than liberals do freely.  Liberals think what is confiscated from them is adequate and they don't have to work at vetting the worthiness of the cause.

Ken Blackwell's observations on Liberal's failure to make a success of talk radio reinforce the leftists' very apparent lack of economic understanding and acumen.

As good as it might make one feel, equal outcomes, equal incomes etc. hurt everyone equally and doesn't help anyone.  Trying to use the power of the State to ensure "equality" enslaves all equally.

Of course Dr. Sowell explains it much better than I.

Tim Hardaway has dominated the sports talk genre on due to his strong negative comments regarding homosexuals and homosexuality.  The thing I've heard virtually EVERY talking head say is that "I don't condone his remarks" (paraphrased) followed by their point supporting (rare) Hardaway's opinion or right to express it or the more frequent condemnation and excoriation.  Of course they are sure to have thier kid race gloves on if they don't happen to be black.

I'll grant that Hardaway's comments were harsh and even intemperate.  He probably could have expressed the opinion with more skill and tact.  So what?  It is HIS OPINION and he is entitled to it.  He is a free person.  The NBA is free (though stupid) to exclude him from their activities.  It is a FREE COUNTRY and so many of the talking heads, "activists", professional offense takers and lawyers who feed on them don't know that.  Or wish it wasn't.

I completely *CONDONE* Hardaway's remarks and opinions.  Condone means, "To overlook, forgive, or disregard (an offense) without protest or censure."  Something many won't acknowledge is that Hardaway's opinion is shared by a large proportion of Americans.  Probably not exactly and many would deny any "phobia" associated with their dislike and/or disapproval of homosexuality.  It is an aberrant lifestyle choice and many if not most people recognize that.  Some people's opposition/dislike/disgust is more visceral than others.  Hardaway obviously disapproves of it and wants the behavior to not be around him.  Others (such as I) simply want to oppose governmental and societal endorsement/approval of it in law.  People's sexual preferences are their own business but that doesn't require others to approve of it or protect it by law.  I'm not in favor of laws against homosexual practices between consenting adults even though a strong public health case could be made.  I am against redefining age-old institutions and against the cultural push to approve of homosexuality and to equate an aberrant (physiologically) practice with heterosexuality.  I'm against trying to legislate people's thoughts and opinions by government.  Private (or psuedo-private) enterprises such as the NBA may decide to exclude or punish people for incorrect thoughts and speech but are stupid to do so.  People and businesses are free to be stupid.

I don't endorse or agree with Hardaway's opinions necessarily and I certainly don't agree with his means of communicating them but I certainly condone the free and honest speech of all Americans.  It is amazing to see the intolerance of those screaming loudest for tolerance.

In Michigan a lawmaker is proposing electronic monitoring of those ACCUSED of domestic violence.  Here is a brief news link , a newspaper article and a Lansing editorial supporting this outrageous proposal.  The first comment on the editorial is by the person who brought this to our attention. State Rep Bill Caul is proposing this.  Perhaps Mr. Caul hasn't ever heard of due process.  Perhaps the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" is foreign to him.

I have no problem with his justification, keeping victims of domestic abuse safe from their abusers.  I do have a problem with ANY justification that violates our Constitutionally guaranteed and inherent rights.  How many innocent men (or women) would be *monitored* for every guilty one.

While domestic abuse is a serious problem it is also one of the most over and mis-reported allegations that there is.  Following Mr. Caul's slippery slope why not *monitor* everyone?  Isn't everyone a potential law breaker?  How would those falsely accused who are monitored be compensated for the damage to their lives and reputations?

An acquaintance phoned Mr. Caul's office to decry, rightly, what the Rep. calls "Mary's law' as an overweening intrusion of government on the rights of the citizenry.  Here is the reply he received in email:
==================
First of all, thank you for contacting us regarding your concerns over Representative Caul's proposed legislation. 
 
Though the piece of legislation is still in very rough draft form, the overall purpose of the bill, if passed as designed, would allow the discretion of the judge to assign tethers to individuals who are awaiting trail and have been accused of domestic abuse by a spouse if he or she deems it necessary in any given case.
 
Representative Caul was motivated to propose such a piece of legislation following a tragety that occurred in district he represents.  A few months ago, Mary Babb, an employee at the Mt. Pleasant Morning Sun Newspaper, was on her way to work.  Her husband, on whom she had a personal protection order, met her in the parking lot, ran into her car with his truck, and shot her.  She died at the scene.  The part of this situation that was the most disturbing was that Mary had left her husband to seek safety living on her own and had underwent every effort to protect herself from him by requesting a personal protection order.  As displayed by this case, these personal protection orders are not enough to protect an individual from the violent, abusive actions of their spouses.  As I stated before, the tethers would be used in a situation like this, wherein the abusive victim was awaiting trial for the accused crime.  Many have claimed that if such options were available to Mary, she would have never been killed, and her husband could have received help to correct his behavior after awaiting trial.
 
In your phone call, you expressed a fear that men would be specifically ostracized in this piece of legislation.  However, it is the intent of the legislation to allow judges in the state to employ the use of tethers in the above described situation for any individual in the case suspected of domestic abuse.  Therefore, an abusive wife could be required to wear the tether, just as could an abusive husband.
 
I hope that I have satisfactorily answered all your questions, and I hope that you will contact us in the future if you have further questions or comments.  Thank you for contacting our office.
 
Sincerely,
 
Constituent Aide
State Representative Bill Caul
MI House District 99
===============

More on this will be posted at the American Freedom Net Web Log.  What do you think about *monitoring* people accused, not convicted, accused of domestic abuse?  Remember this from William Pitt, “Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants.”

The arguments for homosexual marriage just don't make sense to me.  An age old institution (marriage) isn't and shouldn't be arbitrarily redefined just because people "want it" to be.

Gregory Koukl states the case of what advocacy of homosexual marriage really means very well.

An interesting and thoughtful debate was argued on Public Square
I found the arguments against homosexual marriage Mary Jo Anderson much more logical, well formed and supported than the arguments in favor by David Link.

The main points from the links that are compelling to me relate to the fundamental change in an age old institution that redefining marriage would result in.  That and the actual motivation of those advocating homosexual "marriage".  Homosexuals want APPROVAL (societal, political and cultural) for their aberrant lifestyle choice.  They want to EQUATE homosexuality and heterosexuality.  It has never been so, nor should it be.  Particularly since homosexuals already have the same EXACT rights that heterosexuals have and heterosexuals have the EXACT same limitations homosexuals do.

More content:
The American Freedom Net Web Log (in depth commentary and analysis on many topics)
The Amfree Townhall Blog (reaction to recent news and opinion)
Nik's MySpace Blog (fun, laughs, entertainment, inspiration)
"No matter where you go.....There you are"

When life makes posting various places onerous we will provide a weekly catch set of links with topical references.

Diagnosing Donkeycrats (Progressive/Liberal Collectivist/Socialists)

Message on actual Constitutional Government

How come people are so "dissatisfied"?

Immigration Wisdom

The intolerance of secular progressives regarding open scientific inquiry

More content:
The American Freedom Net Web Log (in depth commentary and analysis on many topics)
The Amfree Townhall Blog (reaction to recent news and opinion)
Nik's MySpace Blog (fun, laughs, entertainment, inspiration)
"No matter where you go.....There you are"

A friend sent me a snopes link on a speech given by Dick Lamm (2005) that snopes believes is a true "urban legend".  You should read this analysis of how to destroy America. 

I never thought I'd have much to agree with Dick Lamm about but he identifies several serious problems very well.  The bane of "diversity" at the expense of a common American identity.  An "underclass" of essentially unassimilated foreign people.  He also notes the rich and "powerful" organizations that fund, promote and perpetuate the balkanization of the U.S.  A sacrifice on the altar of PC multi-cultural, statist, collectivist sheople herding.

Worth the read.

An anonymous contributor with the nom de plum of "Free Trader" sent an anonymous comment to The Amfree Net main site via the sendmail function. I will add my opinions to his contribution. His will be italic and mine will be normal text. I encourage "free trader" to send me email so that future contributions are easier for his/her participation

=================

Comment or Question: We all benefit from cheap immigrant labor, whether it's legal or illegal.

Do we "all" benefit? I don't think so. The 4.5% of the workforce that is unemployed doesn't.

Any good immigration "reform" should not result in "illegal aliens" who work here being rounded up and deported or their employers being fined, since this work is beneficial to our economy.

So breaking our laws should just be overlooked? Ignored? Please elaborate on these "benefits" to our economy. The drain of their dependents on our local, state and federal infrastructures outweigh any real or imagined "benefit".

Rather, the reforms should include making these workers legal so they (and others like them) can continue coming here to contribute to our economy.

Many would agree with your position on legalization (called "normalization" or "amnesty" by most). I don't. That is rewarding people for blatant disregard of our laws. It is unfair to the many who wait and follow the law to pursue opportunity here. Further, legalization would eliminate the "cheap labor" benefit that you cite as employers would then have to declare the workers, pay taxes, benefits and minimum wages in accordance with U.S. laws.

All competition is good because it benefits consumers.

I would say that all LEGAL competition is good and benefits consumers. Illegal competition is unfair because the competitive field isn't level or balanced

I'd like to get replies to this in your website and argue with the immigrant-bashers, but I'm not sure how I go about getting such a debate going.

Send me an email with an address by which we can correspond. Comment here anonymously or, better, with an email so our contributor group can engage in the debate with you. If you're interested, you may be invited to be a participant. See our "Guidelines" link for more information.

More content:
The American Freedom Net Web Log (in depth commentary and analysis on many topics)
The Amfree Townhall Blog (reaction to recent news and opinion)
Nik's MySpace Blog (fun, laughs, entertainment, inspiration)
"No matter where you go.....There you are"

Some questions posed in an email thread about immigration and voter apathy.

See the entire debate on the Amfree Net

Should we (all Americans) be "ashamed" if we think that illegal aliens should be deported?
Are voters who are "ignorant of issues" only ones who vote for republicrat elefinks?
Are the millions who voted for Bush ALL "ignorant of issues".
Are Americans in general apathetic about politics and the affairs of their country?
Does calling an illegal alien an "undocumented immigrant" make the alien any less illegal?

See the entire debate on the Amfree Net

While we don't know the specifics, the tragic unfortunate death of Darent Williams gives pause for consideration.  By all accounts of teammates, coaches and friends, Darent was a personable and wonderful 24 year old.  Gifted with athletic talent to be an NFL starter and who was actively planning big things to "give back" to his communities in Colorado and Texas.

According to the news, Williams and friends were at a nightclub for New Year's Eve.  There, some sort of "minor" disagreement occurred.  Williams' party did the smart thing and left, piling in to a large stretch hummer.  At a downtown Denver intersection a "White SUV" that purportedly belongs to a "know gang member" in Jail drove up and filled the Williams hummer with bullets, killing the young Football star and injuring others.

The questions I have are this.  Did Williams choice of friends have an impact on this incident?  Did the choice of party location?  Was it known to be a place where "gang" activity was common?  What could Williams have done (or those he was with) to avoid such potential for conflict?  Was "urban culture" or "gang culture" to blame?  Was the stupid and immature insistence on unearned "respect" a cause for the attack?

It is a tragic shame that this happened.  We must consider the larger cultural questions that have hardly been addressed.  Should athletes get away from the urban culture they came up with.  Do their "posses" contribute to the potential for violence?  What is wrong with a subculture where is is expected that perceived "disrespect" warrants shooting someone?  The larger culture of feelings over intellect contributes to this.  As do the instant gratification aspects and entitlement expectations that many young people and liberal people believe in and act on.  I'm entitled to feel good and be "respected" no matter what the circumstances or my behavior reflects.  If you broach that, I'm entitled to shoot you dead.  THAT is a sick, sick cultural symptom.

Death by association and culture snuffed out a young person who all liked and who was turning his "potential" in to things that would make him and his community better.  The murder is outrageous, the cultural sickness that may have caused it is even worse.

More content:
The American Freedom Net Web Log (in depth commentary and analysis on many topics)
The Amfree Townhall Blog (reaction to recent news and opinion)
Nik's MySpace Blog (fun, laughs, entertainment, inspiration)
"No matter where you go.....There you are"

I am frustrated by those who cavalierly claim that the U.S. is "losing" in Iraq.  This opinion isn't to belabor the correctness of the decision to invade Iraq, it is focused on the reality of NOW.  Until a couple of days ago I too was infected by the MSM and "National Opinion" makers enough to be of a position that we aren't losing but we aren't winning.  That position is incorrect.  We aren't losing, we ARE winning, we just aren't winning fast enough for the U.S. *fast food* give it me now culture.  Again, this isn't commentary on the rightness or wrongness of the plan being executed in Iraq.  It is opinion of how harmful the (purposeful?) misrepresentation of the situation in Iraq today.  We ARE winning according to a major commander (Marine 1 Expeditionary Force). We ARE winning according to people I know WHO ARE THERE and have been there.  We ARE winning according to the many military (active, guard and reserve) member commentators.  We ARE winning according to the infrastructure demographics and economic facts of Iraq.

Arguing about the past is generally pointless when done in the context of day to day reality.  It is only good for application against FUTURE decisions to be made.  The metronome, right and left, of "we're losing" is harmful to the Country and harmful to our Service Members serving.  The only way we are losing is in political will and National determination of a spoiled, ignorant by choice and shallowly partisan populace, a media determined to keep them that way and a governing class more interested in personal aggrandizement and power than what is good for the country.

More content:
The American Freedom Net Web Log (in depth commentary and analysis on many topics)
The Amfree Townhall Blog (reaction to recent news and opinion)
Nik's MySpace Blog (fun, laughs, entertainment, inspiration)
"No matter where you go.....There you are"

Dennis Prager makes a case for the Torah (5 books of the Old Testament) being the basis for the current American "culture war".  The difference maker that joins religious Jews and Christians in a firm moral grounding based on the divinity ("not literalism according to Prager) and authority of God's word.

A respondent to his article calling self "TheLeftIsEvil" answered this way:
"examine the reasons why we in the Secular Right believe what we believe, including...

Individualism. We are not groupists. We don't believe men and women are inherently different; we believe individuals are inherently different. Each and every mind contains worlds of thought and experience. Groupism denies this.

Freedom. Individual cultural, political, and economic freedoms are profoundly an American creation. It isn't Biblical at all. Freedom and a theocratic state don't belong together in the same breath.

The open universe. The Bible describes a mythos, much like other world mythos, of a scripted, planned, orchestrated universe managed by God for God's own pleasure.

Secular American conservatives believe science got it right when the various sciences discovered the many, many systems of self organization in which we live, including human culture.

The open universe means we aren't puppets or actors in a play. We aren't handed our scripts by Divine power or given stage directions. The open universe means what we think, decide, and act upon are all freely chosen by us, and through which we freely experience all of the freely flowing effects.

Free minds, free markets, free societies, free universe. It all fits together so well. We reject both the statism of the Secular Left and the scriptedness of the Religious Right. We are Hayekian secular conservatives. We are Americans."
=============
I don't see Prager's position and the respondent's as mutually exclusive, just in disagreement as to from where these principles are derived.  I see it differently.

Individualism: There is nothing to disagree with.  God clearly states in the Bible our uniqueness and INDIVIDUAL value to him.

Freedom: While Judaism is predicated on "law" to honor and love God, Christianity is predicated on FREEDOM.  Freedom to choose to believe or to not believe, to accept Christ's gift or not.  Its the ultimate in personal responsibility and accountability.  It is TOTALLY biblical and throughout.  Similarly Jews are FREE (and have demonstrated it frequently) to choose to adhere to the "Law" or to not obey God.  Prager makes no case and has stated his opposition to "theocracy".  Theocracy and faith aren't the same and one doesn't lead to the other.  The  respondent doesn't seem to understand this.

The "open universe":  The Bible is God's word in the belief of most Christians and Jews.  It is only a "Mythos" to those who choose to ignore or not believe. That's fine.  It appears that the respondent objects to the concept of an omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent God.  That's fine.  Also, it is inaccurate to describe God as operating for "God's own pleasure".  This is refuted frequently in the Bible.  Further, it anthropomorphizes God in a way not reflective of him or his Word in the Bible.

Science: Believers know that people organize themselves in various ways.  There is no singular "human culture", there are many diverse cultures.  Believers understand that all cultures aren't equal in value and contribution but that some are SUPERIOR and that it is ok to make that distinction.  Science didn't discover cultures, cultures pursued science.  Particularly, Christian European culture kept ancient science alive and then provided the seed beds (Universities) for the rebirth of scientific exploration.  Nothing in faith precludes science and nothing in science disproves or invalidates God.  That is a personal choice.  Many, if not most, of the scientists revered in history were faithful Christian or Jewish believers.  Many are today as well.

Puppets:  The "open universe" (what does that mean anyway?) doesn't "mean" anything.  It is an undefined and unquantified platitudinous substitute to fill an emptiness of spirit/soul/faith as I see it.  The only difference is that the "open universe" doesn't have thousands of years of study, adherence and commentary accrued to it.  Most if not all Jews and Christians don't believe that we are all "puppets or actors in a play" nor do most believe that we are "handed our scripts by Divine power or given stage directions".  I can't speak for Jews (except by my understanding of their history, religion and culture) but as far as Christians, in my experience, for them too it "means what we think, decide, and act upon are all freely chosen by us, and through which we freely experience all of the freely flowing effects".  The exception I would take is to substitute *consequences* for "effects".  I would also point out that a central premise of Christian belief is the FREEDOM of choice salvation entails.

The stereotyped, undefined *lumpengruppen* of "religious right". 
The respondent refers to "the scriptedness of the Religious Right".  Where is the "script"?  Who wrote it?  I haven't seen anyone anywhere who can give me a solid definition of who composes "the Religious Right" beyond the occasional "Jerry Falwell" and "Pat Robertson".  How about a demographic here please?  It certainly isn't all Christians.  I assert that it isn't all (or even a large minority) of "Christian Conservatives" either.  At least I've seen no proof.  What are the attributes of the "Religious Right"?  What are the policies of the "Religious Right"?  Who does the "Religious Right" represent and how is it organized?  I think that the term is a general term used whenever a person doesn't like an argument made by a person of faith or used to try to invalidate the inherent right of people of faith to participate in our political processes.  In the context of the respondent, it appears, that he/she sees two types of the political right, the "secular" and the "religious".  Well there is nothing wrong with that.  Nor with those on the left espousing their views.  A belief system, religious or not, doesn't preclude anyone from political speech or activism.  Nor does a lack of any particular belief (which I've never seen).  People's political views are driven by their economic situation and, even more so, by their core system of values, ethics and morals.  It is very clear where that system comes from for people of faith.  What isn't nearly as clear is where that system comes from in "secular" or "atheist" or "humanist" types of people.  That isn't a value judgment, its an observation that one group (People of Faith) have clear moral underpinnings from which they derive their system or values, ethics and morals.  For the other groups/types listed there is no such clarity.

That is the thrust of Prager's article as I see it.  He is simply pointing out that people of faith, who are socially conservative, predicate much of their political viewpoint from their faith and based on the Biblical books of Moses.  As noted above nothing put forth by the respondent is exclusive to "secular" people as far as political values go.  The difference is that Jews and Christians have a belief that their political views, based on their values, ethics and morals, are based on solid accountability to God.  Secularists/Humanists/Atheist types of people appear to have their values underpinned by nothing more than the malleable changeable and arbitrary positions on humankind.  Judeo-Christians *know* what is right based on the Word of their God.  Secular/Humanist types *DECIDE* what they think is right.  Jews and Christian believers all *know* that God's Word is unchanging and that Human decisions are EVER changing.

Finally, I'd like someone to explain to me where any mainstream U.S. people of faith have prescribed, recommended or demanded any "theocracy" as a form of Government.  Why does faith somehow invalidate the political positions of believers in the eyes of many of the "secular"?  If law isn't to be made based on some set of *values*, then what is it to be made based upon?  No Christian I know thinks or wants to *force* anyone to Christian belief because that is impossible and the Christian Savior made that clear.  Freedom of choice is REQUIRED.  That doesn't make it wrong for Christians to seek and work for laws that adhere to their own values and morals.  That truth doesn't and shouldn't preclude others from striving for the same thing based on their own beliefs or lack thereof.

More content:
The American Freedom Net Web Log (in depth commentary and analysis on many topics)
The Amfree Townhall Blog (reaction to recent news and opinion)
Nik's MySpace Blog (fun, laughs, entertainment, inspiration)
"No matter where you go.....There you are"

As I prepare to send a child off to college in the Fall of 2007 it shocks and amazes me how inflated the costs of tuition and books are at American Universities.  These prices far outstrip the inflation rate of other goods and services.  This is driven by the surfeit of "government aid" (low interest loans and outright grants) that many if not most students apply for and receive.  Since actual cost has no bearing on most students due to this largesse from Uncle Sugar costs are free to skyrocket.

One has to wonder though.  What do we get for these exorbitant prices?

Here is the "Dirty Dozen" PC College Courses published by the Young America Foundation followed by a commentary by Jason Mattera on topic which will give you a great idea of the quality of "investment" you and your kids are making when going to a College or University.

Something bad about how our culture has developed is that businesses, organizations and enterprises value the pieces of paper issued by higher education establishments much more than any demonstrated skills or abilities.  The defenders of Academia will tell you that the "paper" issued is proof of some skill or ability.  This just isn't true in many if not most cases.  All it demonstrates is that a young adult sat through a lot of the CRAP listed above in order to get the coveted "sheepskin".

More content:
The American Freedom Net Web Log (in depth commentary and analysis on many topics)
The Amfree Townhall Blog (reaction to recent news and opinion)
Nik's MySpace Blog (fun, laughs, entertainment, inspiration)
"No matter where you go.....There you are"