Pridger's Blog - Pridger vs. The New World Order

BLOG
ARCHIVES

Wednesday, 30 April, 2008

OBAMA BEING BOMBED BY REV. WRIGHT
BLACK LIBERATION THEOLOGY – AN ANTI-OBAMA BOMBSHELL

Obama's campaign is a lot more about race than the media gives credit for. As Geraldine Ferraro truthfully pointed out, he simply could not have been where he is today had he had been white. It's pretty obvious that Obama has been held to a slightly different standard than a young, relatively inexperienced, white candidate would have been.

The proof of this is in the fact that it is so politically incorrect to mention such an obvious truth. Hillary immediately fired Ms. Ferraro from her campaign for it. And, of course, a black candidate can speak on certain touchy subjects with considerably more candor than a white candidate could without jeopardizing his candidacy.

Nonetheless, Obama has a serious problem. Reverend Jeremiah Wright, has become his Achilles heel. We couldn't even imagine a white candidate who belonged to anything like a "White Church" ever getting near where Obama is today. A white candidate who had chanced to attended Reverent Wright's Church only a few times, probably couldn't have got into the race?

Rev. Wright has preached some pretty politically incorrect sermons, as is his right. The problem is, he's is not only sticking to his guns, but is now firing them off indiscriminately without any regard for his parishioner, Barack HUSSEIN Obama's, presidential prospects.

Rev. Wright carefully emphasized Obama's middle name several times. He couldn't have picked a worse time to make his media grandstand. He couldn't have done his friend and parishioner any more damage had he been on Hillary or the McCain payroll.

But Obama's candidacy may survive and even come out ahead. But it is pretty certain the media would have immediately cremated a white candidate found to have such associations.

Perhaps Rev. Wright doesn't want to see Obama become the nation's first black president – at least not without publicly embracing his own, very racially charged and divisive, Black Liberation outlook.

Reverend Wright seems to want a racially divisive black president – not one that would heal the wounds and festering sores of race relations.

If he is to remain the Democratic front runner, Obama had little choice but to cave in to pressure to vigorously disown his pastor's controversial stance and rhetoric. His back has been put to the wall, and political expediency dictates that he decisively "distance himself" from a person to whom he had carefully cultivated a twenty year relationship.

It's Pridger's personal opinion that Obama probably does share some of Reverend Wright's more radical beliefs. If that were not the case, he would have left his church a long time ago. To say he was unaware of them is simply not credible – and doing so has been Obama's closest approach to outright lying on the campaign trail. (It's almost comparable to Hillary's story of her Bosnian War experience.) But he certainly cannot own up to it and survive as a presidential candidate.

Ironically (but certainly not surprisingly), both advisors and critics openly seem to agree – it's definitely better to openly lie to the American people on such matters than take a chance on losing the nomination. The goal is not truth – it's the nomination, and the presidency!

Much to his credit, Obama has thus far handled the situation as gently and gentlemanly possible under the peculiar circumstances. He remained as loyal to his friend as possible as long as circumstances permitted – until Rev. Wright seemed to try to sabotage candidacy.

And the circumstances are certainly peculiar, to say the least. Mainly (as already mentioned), it is a very strange circumstance that Obama should find himself on the brink of winning the Democratic nomination for president of the United States of America. It is also particularly peculiar that he has become so extraordinarily popular with so many white voters, both young and old alike. It's nothing short of amazing.

One of Obama's great appeals is that it actually appeared we'd "somehow stumbled" onto an honest, intelligent, and articulate, presidential candidate. That is pretty rare, whether the candidate is Black or White.

Race is unquestionably a very big factor in this. A white man could never have been as honest and forthright as Obama has been, and survived to first base. Honest and forthright white men appear to have become unelectable in American presidential politics. Our only hope for an honest man in the White House, it seems, is to elect a black president.

In spite of the fact that Obama may be the best man standing among the presidential front runners (as Pridger thinks he is) – the very fact that he is in that position he is in, seems downright farcical. At least that's how Pridger sees it. There were several other black notables available, who could have been recruited for the big push intended to deliver up the nation's first black president. Obama may be a good man, but he certainly wasn't a rational choice for the particular job being considered.

If Obama ends up as the Democratic nominee for president, his prospects for beating John McCain would seem rather weak.

Hillary's chances aren't all that great either, as Pridger sees it. But we can never tell. Everything depends on how the media handles the candidates. The winner will be the one who gets the most favorable coverage. And who gets the most favorable coverage has very little to do with who would be the best man or woman to lead the nation. It has everything to do with which emerges as the "anointed one" in view of the roadmap charted out for the nation by powerful people behind the scenes.

If popular pressures should ever manage to put the wrong person in the White House, the program will not be changed accommodate the new sitting president. Rather, he or she will simply have to buckle to the program laid out before them. If they don't, impeachment or worse, is the fore ordained solution. The vice president selected will be one who has been specially selected to fulfill the intended mission if the president is dethroned, or will be sufficiently malleable to properly adjust to the realities of the game at hand.

As we have seen, all the "dangerous" candidates (the ones who went to the heart of serious issues), were weeded out early in the game, or marginalized right out of the running. The three remaining are all considered "acceptable" candidates by the ruling establishment. This means they are already with the program, or are considered sufficiently malleable to conform to the program's major policy goals. A president may change the window dressing in the White House, but not major national policy goals.

McCain, seems to be a hundred percent with the program. He's dependable. Barack and Hillary would appear only a little less so. But both are exceedingly vulnerable, as Bill Clinton was vulnerable. When it was necessary to keep Bill from going astray, there was a whole array of personal vulnerabilities available to exploit to put pressure on him to get back in line. And when Bill got back in line, the impeachment proceedings collapsed, his problems went away, and he was reelected in a landslide.

A president who is a hundred percent with the program, like George W. Bush, can do no wrong. That's just the way it works.

SUMMING UP THE CHOICES

No two ways about it – it's a bizarre presidential race. In the mean time, the major choices seem to be limited to:

1. A relatively inexperience black man whose half-sisters and step-mothers on his father's side, are Kenyan Luos – who (despite his Moslem name), has attended a "Black Liberation" congregation for all of his political life – whose highly educated lawyer wife only became proud of her country when her husband became a Democratic presidential candidate. He's a heck of a nice guy, and his campaign isn't about race or Black Liberation, but about "Change."

2. The wife of the nation's very first X-rated president, who would very much like to spend another eight years defiling the White House. She's a woman with a lot of spunk (bravely dodged bullets in Bosnia, among other things), but her campaign is not about gender or proving anything, but about "Change."

3. The hundred percent, all American, white man – and only standing war hero. His campaign is neither about race, gender, or too much "Change," but very much about "Staying the Course" and not backing down from our national commitments – to others elsewhere.

Pridger cannot get enthused about any of the three. Neither of the "Change" candidates have brought any of the "Right Change" to the table. Their change would likely be to get us onto another wrong side-track. And the "Stay the Course" candidate promises more of the same – by staying on the present wrong track.

All other candidates – the ones who articulated the need for real, meaningful, change (even return to Constitutional principles of government) – are either already totally out of the race or are totally ignored by the media so that it seems they are out of the race.

John Q. Pridger

MORE TAINTED DRUGS FROM CHINA

Pets and people are dying from Chinese imports. Apparently that's what it takes to get people to think about what free trade is doing to us. Maybe when a few hundred people have died from tainted pharmaceuticals imported from China, it will dawn on somebody in a position of power and trust in Washington, that our whole free trade policy is tainted – and not only dangerous to our health but our entire economy.

There is no sound reason in the world why we should be depending on China to provide us with pharmaceuticals or the products used in them. There is no sound reason why we should depend on any foreign nation, whether friend or foe, for anything related to our public health.

But pharmaceuticals are just the tip of the iceberg. Their is no rationale, other than profits for multinational corporations, for us to rely on foreign imports for just about everything we need and use in our consumer society.

When will enough people wake up to what is going on to make some desperately needed policy changes? Our entire economy is on the brink of collapse, largely because of free trade policy – policies that had their roots in the present concept of globalism, going back to the beginnings of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), and have since metastasized into the WTO, NAFTA, CAFTA, and a whole raft of other sneakily crafted free trade agreements.

Free Trade has turned our nation into the market of choice for producers in a host of developing nations that ought rightly to be producing for themselves rather than us – making us into a nation dependent on others elsewhere for just about everything we need for national survival.

Our nation – the richest nation in the world – can no longer produce enough real wealth to pay its own way in a poorer world. We have to depend on others elsewhere for almost everything that has become dear to us – including the financing of our increasingly conspicuous nationally consumptive life-style, not to mention the tab on our costly wars.

We're willing to send our troops to fight for freedom and liberty in Iraq and Afghanistan, under the color of fighting for peace and security there and at home, but we are no longer willing to fight or sacrifice for the independence and "real" prosperity that we once enjoyed as a nation.

Now it's "Safety and Security at any price!" rather than "Give me liberty or give me death!" And we are losing our safety, security, liberty, and the very national independence so hard won in the Revolution.

Our Washington brain trust has willfully and intentionally thrown away almost all of our natural national advantages that we had – sacrificing them on the altars of globalism and Mammon. We have produced more millionaires and billionaires, but not a prosperous and secure citizenry. And we have not become any safer, more secure, or richer in the process. We have become immeasurably poorer and less secure. But we haven't been called upon to pay up yet.

We will be called upon to pay up in due time, and we won't like the cost.

John Q. Pridger

LOSING THE COLD WAR WITH CHINA

Ronald Reagan and International Capitalism won the Cold War with the Former Soviet Union and it's particular brand of Marxist Leninism, but we have not won any war with or against Communist China. We merely congratulate ourselves that China (though it is still "Communist China"), have "seen the light" and have come over to our way of making a fast buck.

We are perhaps in a Cold War with China right now that our Washington brain trust fails to perceive. If we are, it would appear China is certain to win in the end.

PAPER TIGERS
(Excerpts from "Quotations from Chairman Mao Tse-Tung")

...I have said that all the reputedly powerful reactionaries are merely paper tigers. The reason is that they are divorced from the people. Look! Was not Hitler a paper tiger? Was Hitler not overthrown? I also said that the tsar of Russia, the emperor of China and Japanese imperialism were all paper tigers. As we know, they were all overthrown. U.S. imperialism has not yet been overthrown and it has the atom bomb. I believe it also will be overthrown. It, too, is a paper tiger. Speech at the Moscow Meeting of Communist and Workers’ Parties (November 18, 1957).

U.S. imperialism invaded China’s territory of Taiwan and has occupied it for the past nine years. A short while ago it sent its armed forces to invade and occupy Lebanon. The United States has set up hundreds of military bases in many countries all over the world. China’s territory of Taiwan, Lebanon and all military bases of the United States on foreign soil are so many nooses round the neck of U.S. imperialism. The nooses have been fashioned by the Americans themselves and by nobody else, and it is they themselves who have put these nooses round their own necks, handing the ends of the ropes to the Chinese people, the peoples of the Arab countries and all the peoples of the world who love peace and oppose aggression. The longer the U.S. aggressors remain in those places, the tighter the nooses round their necks will become. Speech at the Supreme State Conference (September 8, 1958).

Imperialism will not last long because it always does evil things. It persists in grooming and supporting reactionaries in all countries who are against the people, it has forcibly seized many colonies and semi-colonies and many military bases, and it threatens the peace with atomic war. Thus, forced by imperialism to do so, more than 90 per cent of the people of the world are rising or will rise up in struggle against it. Yet imperialism is still alive, still running amuck in Asia, Africa and Latin America. In the West imperialism is still oppressing the people at home. This situation must change. It is the task of the people of the whole world to put an end to the aggression and oppression perpetrated by imperialism, and chiefly by U.S. imperialism. Interview with a Hsinhua News Agency correspondent (September 29, 1958).

Riding roughshod everywhere, U.S. imperialism has made itself the enemy of the people of the world and has increasingly isolated itself. Those who refuse to be enslaved will never be cowed by the atom bombs and hydrogen bombs in the hands of the U.S. imperialists. The raging tide of the people of the world against the U.S. aggressors is irresistible. Their struggle against U.S. imperialism and its lackeys will assuredly win still greater victories. “Statement Supporting the Panamanian People’s Just Patriotic Struggle Against U.S. Imperialism” (January 12, 1964), People of the World, Unite and Defeat the U.S. Aggressors and All Their Lackeys, 2nd ed., pp. 9-10.

If the U.S. monopoly capitalist groups persist in pushing their policies of aggression and war, the day is bound to come when they will be hanged by the people of the whole world. The same fate awaits the accomplices of the United States. Speech at the Supreme State Conference (September 8, 1958).

Over a long period we have developed this concept for the struggle against the enemy: strategically we should despise all our enemies, but tactically we should take them all seriously... In war, battles can only be fought one by one and the enemy forces can only be destroyed one by one. Factories can only be built one by one...

It is my opinion that the international situation has now reached a new turning point. There are two winds in the world today, the East Wind and the West Wind.

There is a Chinese saying, “Either the East Wind prevails over the West Wind or the West Wind prevails over the East Wind.” I believe it is characteristic of the situation today that the East Wind is prevailing over the West Wind. That is to say, the forces of socialism have become overwhelmingly superior to the forces of imperialism.

Monday, 21 April, 2008

FREE TRADE

We tend to like anything that's free. "FREE" is one of the biggest advertising pitch words – the lure of something for nothing.

Trade, of course, isn't something for nothing. It never is. It can't be. Trade is "Trade" – where something is exchanged for something else.

What the term free trade actually should mean is the "freedom to trade" if we want to. It should also mean "freedom not to trade" on unfavorable terms. Everybody, and all nations, of course, already have those rights. Trade is often desirable, but only when the trading is mutually beneficial to the trading parties.

As Ben Franklin pointed out, there is no "profit" in trade unless one party is somehow getting cheated. But there is potential benefit to the trading parties when the trade is fair. An equal trade is the ideal trade – especially when both parties feel they have "gained" by it.

Free trade is an unalienable right between mutually agreeing parties, but what we call "Free trade agreements" do not necessarily promote mutually beneficial trade. They are essentially special deals entered into by governments for the benefit of special interests.

In the case of trade between nations, the criteria considered should be the benefit to the citizens or subjects of the nations involved.

We have seen that all of our "Free Trade" agreements, such as WTO, NAFTA, and our Most Favored Trade status with China, favor multinational corporations rather than the people. Corporations have benefited, but the people have lost.

Many people are fooled, of course, and think that cheap imported Chinese made goods are an exceptionally good deal – thus "free trade" with China must be good. But the people are not apprised of the true cost of those cheap imports. The price doesn't register at the Wal-Mart checkout counter. The real price is in lost American jobs and whole industries, and in accumulating loss of our industrial base.

Our huge and increasing trade deficit costs us plenty. In effect, most of our "trade" with China is not trade at all but purchases in which our largest export is money. So the Chinese have a lot of our money – and they turn around and invest it in American Treasury instruments and American businesses, thereby gaining an inordinate degree of financial leverage over us.

But these things cost us collectively rather individually, so we, as consumers, don't notice. Workers who lose their job may notice, but they might not make the connection. The high and exponentially increasing costs of ship and port security are also costs of our "free trade." And, of course, part of the high costs of those "exceptionally good trade deals," come due every April 15th when we get our income tax bill. And what we don't pay now, because the bill is far too high, is debited to future generations of taxpayers.

In the case of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the Mexican people lost big time right along with the American people. We Americans know what we lost – hundreds of thousands of good jobs, and entire industries. Mexico gained a lot of corporate millionaires and the Mexican people gained some manufacturing jobs. But just as they went to work thinking it an extraordinary good deal, they lost most of their purchasing power when the Mexican peso conveniently collapsed. Coincidentally, this loss of purchasing power to Mexican workers greatly increased profits for "American" companies operating in Mexico, because the cost of already cheap Mexican labor took a great plunge when the Mexican peso cratered.

Then, when cheap American grains began flooding the Mexican markets, as part of the deal, Mexican farmers started loosing their livelihood. In the end, thousands of them have found it necessary to leave their farms and villages and join with hundreds of thousands of their countrymen in an effort to find better prospects north of the border.

It has been a lose, lose, situation for all of us – but not for the corporations that moved south to take advantage of the cheap labor down there. They have done very well – and it has helped Wall Street. But the rest of us have lost and will continue to lose.

"Free Trade" with Mexico and China meant that American corporations were "freed" from American labor and able to utilize Mexican and Chinese labor to produce American products for American markets. This is not free trade at all, but nothing short of a massive and diabolical hoax on the American people. It's a sell-out of American labor, American industry, and American business (and Pridger is not referring to American based corporations that produce "American Products Produced Abroad" (APPA) – American industry isn't really "American" unless it produces here, employing American workers).

Free Trade Agreements totally skew trading arrangements in favor of international corporations positioned to take advantage of them. And they are positioned to take advantage of them because, that's what the agreements were about in the first place. They are geared to serve capital, but not the people. Capital's great advantage is in wide international wage differentials. Carefully crafted propaganda alone, tells us they serve our interests.

It seems nobody in Washington has noticed yet, but all of our Free Trade agreements are a sellout of American national security at the most fundamental level. We maintain the world's most powerful armed forces, but no longer maintain the manufacturing base to sustain the nation. We no longer produce the wealth required to support our own economy. We have come to depend on foreign creditors to maintain our still increasingly consumptive national life-style.

With the more prosperous nations of Europe, things are a little different. The World Trade Organization merely hamstrings us by placing trade regulatory powers in the hands of unaccountable foreign regulators at the WTO. It deprives us of "our sovereign right" to protect our own markets, industries, and workers. Yes, it deprives us of our sovereign right to favor our own workers over foreign workers! And it provides market incentives for foreign interests to purchase our national assets and take the profits home.

Another example of what "Free Trade" has done, is in the means by which most of our foreign trade is carried out. The lion's share of it is moved in ships – almost all of which are foreign owned and foreign manned. Tens of thousands of them are plying the seas with the substance that fuels our national economy, from oil to our most essential consumer goods, and an increasing percentage of the very food we eat.

We only have a very few American flagged ships carrying our goods, and even most of them are foreign owned and operated! Literally all were foreign built. Thus almost all the freight revenue generated by our huge volume of trade go to the foreign competition! And most of the profits made in the entire array of related industries, from ship building to the manufacture of the giant container cranes that work the cargo, accrue to the foreign competition.

Ideally we should carry at least half of "our trade" in our own ships, so "real" American companies, American seamen, and the American economy, would get the benefit of the freight revenues. American industries should build not only our ships and everything that goes into them, but the container cranes as well. But practically all of the freight and construction industry profits go to the foreign competition. How's that for economic and national security planning? A total lack of common "horse sense"!

Real free and beneficial trade can only be carried out on a bi-lateral basis. We should trade only what we produce in excess for what we do not or cannot produce for ourselves. And we should be able to pick and choose what is traded according to our best interests – that is, in the interests of the American people.

"Cheap goods" should not be the goal of national policy, unless they are goods that Americans simply cannot produce. A national economic policy that focuses on "cheap" imports also focuses on cheap labor. And this is true whether the labor in "over there" or "over here." The pressure is on for American labor to produce more cheaply, so we can "compete in the international free market system." It has aptly been pointed out that this ultimately results in a "race to the floor."

There was a reason why we were at the top of our national prosperity at a time when Americans both manufactured and consumed what they produced. Back then, American workers made good American wages and they had evolved into the largest, most prosperous middle class in the history of mankind. They paid American prices in their own marketplace, of course, as was only fitting. And we never had it so good.

We had a favorable balance of trade, and the United States was the world's greatest creditor nation. The nation was prosperous and the economy was unassailably strong. But all of that has been thrown away by our Washington brain trust – fixated, as it is, on a New World Order.

There is no longer any free and fair trade. "Free Trade Agreements" have destroyed it in an effort to bring about a "Wonderful New World," managed by a combination of huge corporations and regulatory regimes that do not have any loyalty to any particular nation interest, or the interests of any "people" – least of all, our own.

There has been no benefit for Americans in any of our Free Trade agreements. They have been destructive of the very fabric of our free enterprise system. They destroy national, regional, and local economics and self-reliance. Not just here but in the trading partner nations too – making them dependent on global corporate machinery. And this global machinery is subject to catastrophic breakdown!

This is not only nationally suicidal, but it has the makings of massive global economic catastrophe. We may be fooled into believing that we've never had it so good, but when the system breaks down, as it certainly must in due course, we will find that we have rendered ourselves and everybody else helpless.

If climate change and global warming are really the problem that many claim, free trade and globalism are taking us further and further from anything like viable solutions. We trade altogether too much – far too much. And most of it is as unnecessary as the Iraq War. The multiple and increasing ten thousand mile supply chains – steamship routes, rails, and truck transport, are a huge and growing source of greenhouse gases.

And the New World Order is as much about developing industrialized economies in all Third World countries as it is about ultimately downsizing the prospects of American workers. The rapid, and dirty, industrialization of India and China is no way to solve the problem of air pollution and global warming – it's the way to compound the problem several fold.

As intended, we (as consumers), are hooked on cheap imports and free trade. We're hooked to the degree that fixing the situation seems all but impossible. But the situation will have to be fixed at some point, or we will be in for some hard times that will make the Great Depression seem like a holiday at the park.

Globalism and free trade are no substitutes for national independence. "Dependence" should never be a personal or a national goal. But that's what globalism, international interdependence, and "free trade" are all about.

Every nation, and every region within every nation, should be as economically self-sufficient as is practical with the available resources available. In the end, anything else is suicidal. Trade, especially in the case of large economically viable nations with ample natural resources, should be a luxury rather than a necessity. For if it should ever become a dire necessity, the Emperor may at some point find he has no clothes.

In the case of nations such as Singapore and (to a lesser degree), Japan, trade is critical and necessary for national economic survival. But in the case of large nations such as our own, economic self-reliance, to the extent practical, should be the national goal.

We don't need Chinese, Korean, or Japanese cars, and they certainly don't need ours. And we don't need Brazilian soybeans and Argentinean, Canadian, or Australian beef. Those are things we produce very well right here. We don't need Bangladeshi made clothing. We produce the cotton here! We don't need Indian knowledge workers answering our service calls, we have plenty of unemployed people in need of jobs right here.

ISOLATIONISM AND PROTECTIONISM

Those two words have naughty words, sort of like "McCarthyism." If a presidential candidate advocated either one, he or she would be hounded out of the running in a hurry. Yet all that is really meant by them is, (1) Minding our own national business and not meddling in the affairs of other nations, and (2) Protecting our own national "owner operated" market place on behalf of those owner-operators.

If we don't look after our own interests, nobody else will. In fact, others will soon step in and be profiting while we look on as disenfranchised "former owners."

The fact is, our nation grew up and became the greatest success story in the history of nation states during our so-called isolationist and protectionist periods (which included our entire national history until the advent of globalism). Since dropping our national commitment to those fundamental principles, our national fortunes have taken a precipitous dive into debt and national dependence on others elsewhere. And our politicians continue to stoke the fires of national dependence – increasing our debt at every step of the way.

We're no longer an independent, largely self-reliant, nation. Our economy is no longer producing the wealth necessary to pay its own way, much less manufacture the array of consumer goods being consumed.

The protective tariff was as importantly critical to our industrial development and sustainability as it was as a source of government revenue. Trade protection was even more critically important to our national security than the armed forces. Now we still have the world's most powerful military defense establishment, but not the industrial machinery to sustain the economy.

We've been sold a bill of goods, and sold down the river with them. And we've fallen for the idea that military and "financial power" are viable and substantive substitutes for productive power – even as our financial position in the world has become a literal house of cards founded in shifting sands, buoyed up by foreign creditors.

Isolationism of the sort our founders sought to instill, would have kept us out of Iraq and scores of other places where we really had no business. And it would keep us from having designs on attacking Iran. It would have kept us from being distrusted by even our friends and hated by those we habitually war against or threaten.

Isolationism in the American context doesn't mean crawling into an isolated hole and ignoring the rest of the world, it only meant that we looked to our own national resources and devices for our own national needs, and left others alone to do the same.

When we were a prosperous, productive, and economically secure nation, we were actually in a position to help other less fortunate nations and peoples in meaningful and positive ways – and frequently we actually did. For the more fortunate, we should have continued to provide an example of good governance and an abundantly productive free market system. But we've thrown all that away, while trying to force the rest of the world to conform to our presently failing system – and our increasingly debauched, materialistic, and hedonistic culture.

If they don't want any of it they are termed rogue states and are chastised with economic sanctions, threats, or invasion.

THE PROTECTIVE TARIFF

Let's just take a look at what is now considered the terrible abomination of the "protective tariff."

We maintain our defense establishment (supposedly), to defend the nation from invading armies. The protective tariff protected the nation from unwanted "import invasion." It didn't prevent us from engaging in desirable trade. Initially the protective tariff kept us from continuing to depend on England and European imports for our national sustenance. Without the protective tariff, our own basic manufacturing industries would have had much less incentive to develop. Without the protective tariff, many heavy industries may not have even to come into existence at all.

Once our industries were up and running, and (in many cases), able to compete with, or out do, foreign industries, the protective tariff could be adjusted to new realities. But in cases where commodities and manufactured goods could be produced much more cheaply abroad, due to cheap labor, the tariff would be kept in place to prevent unfair competition for destroying American producers.

But, in spite of protective tariffs, we have always been a robustly and vigorous trading nation. We imported what we actually needed from abroad, and sold our excess production to those who could afford our prices. And our nation grew and prospered. Protective tariffs were applied and adjusted according to our national interests.

Here's a simple example of how a protective tariff would be constructively applied today. Take the all-American corn broom for an example. From the earliest colonial era, we were naturally nationally self-reliant in corn broom production. We had a great corn broom industry. American forests provided the sticks, American farmers provided the broom straw, and when the time came to wrap the broom head with wire, American industry provided the wire.

Say it took fifty cents worth of locally produced materials to produce one broom, and fifty cents worth of labor. The company wants a profit, naturally, so let's say that the corn broom sold for $1.25, wholesale at the factory door (a $.25 profit).

Now, suppose an enterprising individual discovers that in China, that same corn broom can be manufactured for only ten cents (say, with five cents worth of materials and five cents worth of labor) – and it can be shipped from China to the United States for fifty-cents in freight costs.

He wants to make a profit, of course, so let's say he offers it wholesale at the landing dock in LA for only $1.00 (a $.40 profit). He's a free market genius, and is on track to becoming a millionaire, since all American household need a broom or two!

Let's now suppose the government didn't want to see all the American broom makers and suppliers to go out of business, because it was believed that it's better to keep Americans working, earning a living, and paying taxes, than to put them on welfare.

So they put a protective tariff on brooms imported from China. The tariff would be assessed based on the difference in the costs of production in China and the U.S. Since The American broom costs a dollar to produce, and the Chinese broom costs ten cents. The difference is ninety cents – thus a tariff of that amount would equalize the price at the water's edge, and the Chinese product would be unable to compete with the American product in our market.

Of course, if we wanted to give Chinese broom makers a break, the tariff could be lowered considerably without totally wiping out the American industry. If we really wanted to make sure no Chinese brooms came into the country at all, the tariff could be set so high enough to effect that purpose. This would be called a "tariff wall."

Go too low on the tariff, however, and the American straw broom industry would be wiped out. Unfortunately, that's about where we stand today.

TARIFFS FOR REVENUE

Tariffs served a much larger role than protecting American industry and American workers. The American Constitution did not provide the federal government the power to lay direct taxes on citizens. The was no income tax in the United States until 1913 (except for a brief period during the Civil War when it was tried and later ruled unconstitutional). The governments primary means of raising revenue was through taxing foreign trade. Tariffs and duties were the main source of federal revenue. Section 8, A, and C of the Constitution reads:

The Congress shall have Power (A) To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises, to pay the Debs and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States... (C) To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations...

Duties are a tax on imports and exports, and the tariff – which is a very similar tax, was a means of regulating commerce with foreign nations..

John Q. Pridger

Friday, 18 April, 2008

THE ELDORADO TEXAS NIGHTMARE

Granted, Warren Jeffs' particular brand of fundamentalist Mormonism is obviously quite bizarre, with all the earmarks of a warped personality cult. Such personality cults don't sit well with most of us who claim to operate on a strictly rational level. We are amazed that people like Jeff are able to lead whole flocks of followers into error – or what appears to be error to us.

There have been many examples of this in the past, however. There was Jim Jones and David Koresh. Then there was Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin. It isn't too much of a stretch to put George W. Bush in this category. But all he did was to lead a nation – the world's greatest superpower – into war on totally false pretenses. And gullible people (some of them quite intelligent), fell into lock-step and followed, calling for a head on a platter. They got the head on a platter – but we haven't got out of Iraq yet.

On the other hand, what rational being with a modern liberal education, would recognize the second coming of Christ? The Messiah would be well advised to make his appearance somewhere other than in the United States. Chances are, if he started evangelizing here, he'd end up permanently institutionalized – and that only if he somehow avoided being assassinated.

Jeff erred in failing to notice that even Jesus admonished his flock to abide by the laws of the land and "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's."

Maybe these are somewhat radical comparisons, but the principles at work are essentially the same.

As bizarre as the Yearn For Zion Ranch community may see to most of us, let's look at the raid in a strictly rational way. And let's ask this uncomfortable question: What if the YFZ Ranch cult is actually producing happier, more productive, offspring than mainstream communities are? Pridger is under the impression that nobody Jeff's numerous cult depends on welfare or food stamps.

A mysterious and unknown woman calling herself Sarah, called the authorities with a person complaint. Rather than carrying out an investigation to find Sarah, confirm her allegations, and perhaps proceed cautiously and rationally with a focused enforcement effort, some 416 children and 139 women were rounded up and summarily removed from their homes.

In spite of all good intentions, on the very face of it, the actions of the authorities amounted to a wholesale arrest and detention of all women and children in an entire community. It's magnitude could only be compared to a "police state" action, in response to a touchy, but relatively simple, "social problem." The almighty law, however, dictates that the social problem might be a case of extensive criminal activity. And the possible victims are victims whether they know it or not – and whether or not they are happy with their situation.

The raid and removal even bring to mind the tactics that were once employed during the "Indian Removal" period of our history. Perhaps it would come closer to how aboriginal children were once similarly removed from their families and communities in Australia. Those children, for their own good, were taken from their tribes, families, and homes, and placed into the "mainstream." Now those sort of actions are held to have been abominable and unjust. But is it not happening here?

Meanwhile, it's beginning to appear that "Sarah" may have been a spoiler and a crank, and her calls to the authorities a hoax – a hoax that has produced stupendous results, impacting the lives of hundreds of innocent women and children.

It should be noted that not much is being said of the men, who seem to be either invisible or elsewhere. But we can be sure they are very much in the cross-hairs of the law enforcement machine.

While the women and mothers have been released, the children remain in state "protective" custody – "for safe keeping." The rationale, of course, is that the children would still be at risk if they were allowed to return to their mothers and homes. Child Protective Services, of course, are bound to be much better at caring for them than their mothers – and loving foster homes await them beyond that.

Say what one will about the "cult," there has to be something seriously wrong with the way things are being handled here. Had the cult been suspected of human sacrifices, cannibalism, or ritual murder, it would be different. But there's no allegation or suspicion of violence or even ritual drug abuse.

The "many" abused under-age and pregnant wives, now in the process of being "saved," has turned out to be maybe five – 1.2% of the total. This is probably a lot lower than the abused and under-aged pregnant "unwed" girls in the overall outside population – and almost certainly much lower than in most our our inner city neighborhoods, and extremely backwards rural communities.

But there is another problem, and another angle. The authorities can't match up the children with their biological parents. So they are reverting to DNA testing – literally in hopes of matching birth dates to mothers who may have been under legal age at the time of their births. This, apparently, so they can go after the fathers and perhaps make them wards of the public as sex offenders. It seems the concept of a "statute of limitations" is not applicable in the case of "family affairs." Having under-aged wives may come in the category of murder, or at least statutory rape.

If "children being at risk" is the real criteria for removing children from entire communities, every community in the nation is at risk of being dismembered by the long and swarthy arm of the state – for they are all at risk.

In most of our inner city neighborhoods children are at risk of a lot more than just becoming under-age "wed" mothers, or "raped" by their husbands. They are at risk of becoming under-age "unwed" mothers, raped by "friends" as well as total strangers, hooked on deadly or debilitating drugs, and are perhaps more likely to become the victims of many other forms of abuse. The women in vast inner city neighborhoods are in danger of becoming drug users and prostitutes, and the boys are at risk of becoming drugs addicts, drug dealers, pimps, and casualties of gang-based drug turf wars.

How many of the men, women, and children in YFZ Ranch were at risk for all of those pitfalls? How many were on drugs or welfare?

The unwed pregnant girls in our greater city communities, if they don't kill their unborn children first, are in danger of becoming unwed mothers and wards of the state. And many of the boys are in danger of becoming wards of the state in state and federal penitentiaries.

All in all, it would appear that the children in cult-like religious communities, such as YFZ Ranch, have at least as many prospects of becoming productive citizens as those in the larger outside general population. The women are certainly productive, at least in the way God seems to have ordained. Who could deny that? They care for and teach their children, and keep their homes clean and wholesome. There's certainly nothing is wrong with that!

And Pridger hasn't heard any charges that the men are any less responsible and productive in providing for their families than their multiple wives in taking care of them. In fact, in spite of all the alleged abuses of Warren Jeffs, the YFZ Ranch community appears to be a very orderly and prosperous one. Certainly, nobody was clothed in rages or going hungry.

The women may marry and become mothers early, but that used to be the norm in our society – before our present multi-faceted and broad-based social malaise set in. Girls were encouraged to marry before they had a chance to "go astray." Boys were likewise encouraged to marry at a slightly older age, when they were prepared to become a good family man. While "Jeffs' women" won't likely ever become waitresses, lawyers, corporate executives, or president, they aren't likely to become prostitutes, exotic dancers, porn stars, or homeless bag ladies either.

As for the boys being ejected and discarded once they've lost their usefulness to the community (as is alleged by some "reformed" and "escaped" women), at least they go out into the world knowing how to read, write, and work – and perhaps with at least somewhat of a Christian outlook. Pridger suspects that, unlike many of the rejects from our inner city neighborhoods, few end up in jail or fathering multiple children (or abortions), by multiple unwed mothers.

So, though Pridger certainly isn't a champion of Warren Jeffs peculiar way of shepherding his flock (or any "cult" for that matter), on certain significant levels there are many more positive things that can generally be said of his "communities" than can be said of many of our own.

Texas law enforcement, and the Texas court, sure has a mess on its hands. Though the authorities will undoubtedly find excuse to lock a few individuals away, overall justice will end up being a major casualty.

John Q. Pridger

SPEAKING OF HEADS ON A PLATTER

We got Saddam's head on a platter – figuratively speaking, of course. But the main head we were supposed to be hunting, and getting on a platter, was that of Osama bin Laden, the alleged mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks.

Where is Osama? Osama is nowhere to be found. Pridger suspects he's in a comfortable penthouse somewhere – perhaps enjoying the fruits of the witness protection program. Well, maybe not, but one really never knows what is going on in this crazy, mixed up, world of great power politics. It may be a radical stretch, but it isn't beyond the realm of possibility that bin Laden is still on the CIA payroll. It may be unlikely, but it is possible. That's how much we who are out of the loop really know about things.

Of course, our main focus is on Iraq now. It's been there for five years and counting. And Iran is in our crosshairs too. Not a whole lot of time, or troops, for Osama bin Laden hunting.

From the very beginning, Pridger suspected that bin Laden accepted responsibility for 9/11 only after the fact. Since he was getting the blame anyway, taking full credit was the least he could do to enhance his image and stature. They very idea may be ridiculous conspiracy theory, of course, but what do we peasants real know? Nothing, actually.

The only knowledge Pridger can claim on such matters is his own ignorance. But things have always seemed a little fishy from his limited perspective. A lot of things seem fishy. For one thing, the "Government's" knowledge of the events of 9/11 just seemed a little too pat, too quickly – though our protectors seem to have been taken totally off guard on that particularly fateful day.

One thing is fairly certain, the American public won't get to hear much of bin Laden's testimony should he ever be captured. He'll likely be brought to justice rather swiftly, or at least kept well out of sight and hearing. We'll only hear what the government wants us to hear. They will protect us, and themselves, from Osama bin Laden's hateful lies.

Speaking of lies, the federal government really likes to prosecute citizens for lying – even those that might be termed "little white lies." Martha Stewart found out about that. Even President Clinton came under fire for a while due to lying to federal investigators. But, being a lawyer and a sitting president, he was able to outmaneuver them by challenging what the meaning of "is" is. He escaped impeachment by the skin of his teeth.

That's the way our federal law enforcement works though. If they're after you, and can't get you for some spectacular crime, they'll get you for telling a lie because you didn't want your wife to find out where you were on the particular night when the crime was committed. Clinton wasn't being impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, or for seducing a White House intern, and causing the nation great international embarrassment. He was being impeached for trying to cover it up. He didn't want Hillary and Chelsea to know.

Oddly enough, president Bush has not been inconvenienced by using deception to maneuver us into war in Iraq. This is different. If there was any lying involved, the matter is too important to address by calling him on the carpet. Besides, it has already cost the nation over 4,000 lives of our young men and women, untold thousands of innocent Iraqis, and multiple tens of billions of dollars.

Five years ago, maybe somebody should have spoke up. Never mind, everybody knows it anyway. No point in impeaching a president with all these accomplishments to his credit. Besides, they weren't "little white lies" anyway. They weren't intended to spare himself, is wife, or his loved ones, embarrassment. This being so, the Justice Department can forgive them. Congress, of course, isn't about to suggest that the president should be impeached.

John Q. Pridger

Thursday, 17 April, 2008

CONSTITUTIONAL EDUCATION

Here's one of Pridger's treasured relics of a previous era. It was a time when our nation was the greatest, most productive, industrialized nation in the world – with an increasingly prosperous working middle class. In those wonderful days, many major American corporations tended to a great degree of civic pride and duty. Not only were they proud of their products and profits, they were proud to be able to pay their workers well so they could buy those products. One way this civic spirit was reflected and put into action was in educating workers about how our wonderful American government worked – the government that had made our prosperity possible. It was a time when America's large corporations prospered, American workers prospered too.
	The booklet shown at left, is an example of how General Motors sought to instill patriotism among its employees. It was by Philip Doren Stern, with an Introduction written by Allan Nevins, and printed in 1953, by Birk & Company, of New York. The back cover states, "Published for General Motors Men and Women, by the Personnel and Employe Relations Staff." This copy was passed on to Pridger by his late step-father, who was a life-long GM employee (interrupted only by three or four years in the Army during World War Two). It remains one of Pridger's favorite Constitutional "ready references" with side by side "original text" and "Modern Everyday Language."

Few major corporations bother with such niceties today. They have other priorities, more in line with maximizing profits while minimizing the number of employees, along with their compensation. The most profitable "American" corporations today are the ones that have moved their productive facilities to Mexico or Asia, and are outsourcing their office work to India and China.

GM is still a great automobile manufacturing company, but (as in the case of all surviving old-line American manufacturing companies), the demands and contingencies of globalization have been taking a ghastly toll, and will continue to do so into the foreseeable future. The Constitution has been forgotten in most Personnel and Employee Relations offices. And that is just as well, since the Constitution has been forgotten in Washington D.C. too.

John Q. Pridger

Wednesday, 16 April, 2008

SPEAKING OF CHURCH AND STATE

Not only is our nation having trouble articulating it's own founding creed these days, the Churches are having their own troubles. Not just the Catholic and Episcopal Churches, but others too. The homosexuals are busily breaking down church barriers "honesty and openness" to their particular brands of carnal relationships. The say, naturally enough, that their intimate relationships are just as "sacred" and "natural" to them as traditional relationships are to regular people. And God loves them too. So, as some of them have put it, "We're queer, we're here! Get used to it!"

As in the case of of the ACLU vs. the American People, the "GLBT" (Gay, Lesbian, Bi-sexual, Transsexual, et. al.) "underworld" is challenging the faithful majority – demanding that the majority come around to their way of seeing things. Their message to the majority is, "You'll see it our way, and cave to our demands, sooner or later – whether you like it or not."

In the churches, homosexuals are playing the role of spoiler, much in the same way the ACLU and other groups play the spoiler in our "Separation of Church and State" battle. Homosexuals are seeking to overrule hundreds, or thousands, of years of church tradition in matters that were once "settled doctrine."

They effectively say, "To hell with what God might have been misinterpreted as saying in the Old Testament! Jesus associated with sinners and publicans – thus there are really no sins of the flesh that Jesus recognized. And, by the way, those twelve disciples weren't such straight-laced and perfect men either – and they are the ones that went on to establish the Christian Church."

These new truths are a little difficult for most orthodox church members to swallow, of course, but anything can happen in time. After all, we're looking at a full-blown "Civil Rights for GLBTs" movement here – just like the Civil Rights struggle for Black equality under the law in the 1950s and 60s (which brought the races together into complete harmony). Get over it people "morality is relative and flexible!" There can be no such thing as sins of the flesh in a truly progressive, free and open, society!

As in the case of national politics, Justice demands that you not only love your ideological enemies, but elevate them to positions of leadership over that majority.

The Episcopal Church is on the verge of splintering over the appointment or election of openly gay ministers and Bishops. If Pridger remembers correctly, they've already gone through a similar crisis with regard to female priests. Despite a jaundiced view of openly gay clergymen, Bishop Gene Robinson became the first openly gay Episcopal Bishop and serves in New Hampshire. He makes his case for GLBT clergy, bishops, etc., in his book In The Eye of the Storm. Though Pridger has not read it, no doubt Bishop Robinson makes his case good. "Moral relativism is all the rage these days." Tradition and fixed notions of right and wrong are out.

Meanwhile, the Catholic Church apparently still doesn't quite welcome homosexuals into the clergy, but they got plenty of closeted homosexuals into the clergy anyway – apparently through a "don't ask, don't tell" policy. As an apparent result, it seems there are about 5,000 clergymen accused of pedophilia in the United States, with some 12,000 or so "victims" – the overwhelming majority of them young boys.

Pope Benedict XVI just arrived in the United States yesterday, promising to clean up the mess. He felt obliged to apologize, stating that he is acutely embarrassed and shamed by the phenomena. Nobody is openly saying that it is primarily a homosexual problem, of course. That would be politically incorrect in this increasingly enlightened age. Homosexuals are normal too, you know.

Fortunately, the Pope is conservative enough to denounce "moral relativism" that he feels is gaining way too much ground in the United States Catholic Churches. He says he hopes to upgrade the clergy in the United States – quality being superior to quantity.

Unlike Episcopalian priests, Catholic priests are supposed to remain celibate. There may not be any data "proving" that GLBTs have greater difficulty with celibacy than heterosexuals, but it would obviously seem so.

This should not be surprising. GLBTs' very identity is literally centered on, and invested in, their sex drives. That's how they define themselves, and that's what they are! That's what they celebrate – and that is why they are so intent on forcing their "normalcy" upon a resisting society – so they can openly be themselves. And because that is what they are, their sexuality is less repressible and "demands" open expression. If that were not so, they would have remained comfortably in the closet, and there would be no great problem with celibacy in the case of priests.

In a recent National Public Radio interview, Episcopal Bishop Robinson, told of one reason it is so unhandy, and sometimes downright humiliating, to be a GLBT in a straight world. He relates that when on an international flight with his "partner," the flight attendant passed out customs forms – one per family. "Partners," however, had to fill out individual forms. Imagine that! Pridger feels their pain.

John Q. Pridger

Tuesday, 15 April, 2008

THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

It would seem that the federal government – "our" federal government – which is supposed to be limited in its powers by the Constitution (which in turn owes its existence and continued validity to the Declaration of Independence), would have a high stake in preserving America's most sacred heritage and the original intents our our founding fathers.

Without acknowledgement and adherence to those original intents, our entire national existence (that is, as far as we believed it to be), must ultimately be construed as nothing more than a farce and a fraud. And at some time the American people must certainly awaken to the fact that this nation and this government are no longer "theirs" in the contexts they had thought.

One would think that our collective "representatives" in Washington would have a great deal of loyalty to those who fought, died, and sacrificed for American independence. But not only are our so-called representatives allowing anti-Christian federal "jurors" and left-wing pressure groups, such as the ACLU, to redefine American values and America's religious heritage, for well over a generation they have been sacrificing American independence and America sovereignty itself – in the name of globalism.

In so doing, they are betraying not only our founding fathers and the Revolution, and those who have fought and died to preserve our freedoms for well over two centuries, but the entire living American public – and our posterity.

The "Spoilers," as Pridger calls outfits like the ACLU and Americans United for Separation of Church and State, would place government – pure government – in the position our founders very wisely reserved for God alone. Liberal judges, and the Supreme Court, of course, would very much like to negate all official reference to God and a "Higher Law," since that obviously puts them in an inferior position than the one they aspire to fill.

When will thinking Americans realize the importance of what's at stake here? Whether you are a Christian, Jew, Buddhist, Hindu, Moslem, agnostic, atheist, or just a Humanist, "your government" should not be allowed to usurp and occupy the throne of God – and government will do that if we permit it.

As Voltaire once pointed out, If there were no God, it would be necessary to invent Him – (and Pridger adds) – if for no other reason that to deny that position to tyrants. If you don't believe in God, it still isn't to your advantage to hand government the "ultimate" role of authority over mankind. For those who insist on denying God, the concept of "Heavenly Father" defaults to Big Brother.

Tyranny is simply in the genes of all governments. As several of our founders pointed out, all governments naturally progresses toward increased power – the ultimate destination, tyranny. So our founders put as many checks and balances into our Constitutional Republic as they could realistically devise. But the ultimate check (one which too many tend to overlook), was to acknowledge that God and a High Law, supercedes government – that governments are the creations of fallible men, but men are the Creation of an infallible and All Powerful God.

Men (and women, of course), derive their rights from God. But Governments (at least as expressed in the American Declaration of Independence), may only derive their rights and powers from governed. As our founders put it...

"...We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights... That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government..." (Declaration of Independence)

"Whenever any form of government becomes destructive (of its sacred trust)... it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government..." What gives them this right? God.

Lacking God, of course, men would have to consult the law books to find out what their rights are. And, chances are, they'd find out they have no right to alter or abolish their government – and maybe no rights at all.

In spite of a mile high stack of state statute law books and the Federal Register, we're fortunate in the fact that the "Supreme Law of the Land" is (officially), still the Constitution, which is short and concise enough for all of us to understand. And don't forget that the Declaration of Independence is actually what gives the Constitution its fundamental validity.

Statute laws have validity, of course, as long as they serve the public good; don't deprive the people of their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; or any of their constitutionally guaranteed rights. But, in the final analysis, lawmakers can pass, and the police powers will attempt to enforce, any law the public will stand for. We've already got a lot of them the public should not stand for – but as the Declaration of Independence points out...

"...mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations... reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their duty, to throw off such government...."

This is not Pridger suggesting a rebellion, mind you – this is our Declaration of Independence reminding us that it is, and should always be, an option. When the checks and balances to government power brake down and no longer function, however, maybe we should give it some thought.

Some of the checks and balances still function in a very jaundiced and lackluster way BUT – right before our eyes, we see the the courts and meddling pressure groups, diligently at work removing the most important check and balance mechanism of all. And we see our so-called representatives standing by over a matter of decades, not only letting it happen, but enforcing the whims of those who effectively say, "Now that we've grown up, our nation doesn't need God any more – and our peoples and their children should no longer be distracted by fairytales."

The construction of a broad and high, brick and mortar, "Wall of Separation" between church and state, is only one issue. But it is perhaps the most fundamentally important issue of all – for it goes to the very foundation of what is not only the "American Creed" but the very deepest foundation stone in the edifice of our nation and the ideals that brought it into existence. It is the stone that connects to the bed rock beneath the soil. A lot of the sma't people just don't get it. Some of them don't get it because they don't intend to get it.

Those hacking away most vigorously at our foundation stones, use twisted history and twisted logic to deceive the American people. They intend to convince them that "they" (the enlightened spoilers), are merely shining a light on the "true" intentions of our founders – finally getting things fixed right, after over two centuries of error.

The so-called "separation clause" of the First Amendment doesn't exist. It was invented by anti-Christian spoilers who claim to know more about the First Amendment than the men who wrote and adopted it.

Those stalwart nation and culture crackers particularly like to cite Thomas Jefferson on the issue of the Separation of church and state. "Twist" is the word for what they do with Jefferson's words and intents.

What follows should make clear Jefferson's views on religious expression on the nation's commons. Please excuse Pridger for putting his two cents in at intervals down such a well written text. Pridger is in total agreement with everything in the article, but adding his two cents in is what this blog is all about:

Don't Blame Thomas Jefferson for "Separation of Church and State."
From http://www.godresolution.com
http://www.godresolution.com/t_jefferson.htm

In 1774, while serving in the Virginia Assembly, Jefferson personally introduced a resolution calling for a Day of Fasting and Prayer.

In 1779, as Governor of Virginia, Jefferson decreed a day of “Public and solemn thanksgiving and prayer to Almighty God.”

As President, Jefferson signed bills that appropriated financial support for chaplains in Congress and the armed services.

On March 4, 1805, President Jefferson offered “A National Prayer for Peace,” which petitioned:

“Almighty God, Who has given us this good land for our heritage; We humbly beseech Thee that we may always prove ourselves a people mindful of Thy favor and glad to do Thy will. Bless our land with honorable ministry, sound learning, and pure manners.

"Save us from violence, discord, and confusion, from pride and arrogance, and from every evil way. Defend our liberties, and fashion into one united people the multitude brought hither out of many kindreds and tongues.

"Endow with Thy spirit of wisdom those to whom in Thy Name we entrust the authority of government, that there may be justice and peace at home, and that through obedience to Thy law, we may show forth Thy praise among the nations of the earth.

"In time of prosperity fill our hearts with thankfulness, and in the day of trouble, suffer not our trust in Thee to fail; all of which we ask through Jesus Christ our Lord, Amen"

PRIDGER: Wow! Born-again President Bush would undoubtedly be shocked and embarrassed by such a prayer! Could you imagine public school students being exposed to this text? The sky would fall down, and the ACLU would be outraged and have a field day!

The balance of the article was written by Ben Rast, Contender Ministries, March 26, 2003:

By Ben Rast, Contender Ministries, March 26, 2003 -- “Separation of Church and State.” These are five little words that, in their misuse, have become the rallying cry of atheists, agnostics, and others who wish to remove God from the public forum. Thomas Jefferson popularized that phrase, and in so doing has become an icon to those who believe that a free expression of faith in God is incompatible with any government institution, practice, program, or official.

In this article, we will explore the birth of the “separation” phrase, the establishment clause of the U.S. constitution, and some other lesser-known things that Thomas Jefferson said. The overall picture will be one that is much different than the one painted by American Atheists or Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

In June of 2002, the 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of California atheist Michael Newdow, saying that the United States Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional because it contains the words, “under God.” The decision was put on hold, pending a request that the court revisit their ruling. The appeals court refused, and school children in nine Western states will soon be stopped from reciting the pledge in school.

PRIDGER: Imagine that! In a democracy, where the majority is supposed to have the last say, an atheist – a person in the singular (with the ready and able endorsement of the "federal" 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals) – decided for the rest of the American people, that the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance are unconstitutional. How can that happen in a democracy?

The answer is that it can't. Yet that's how it goes – so maybe this is not exactly a democracy after all. In fact, the courts have taken it upon themselves to not only redefined their role, but redefine the intents of what was written into the Constitution. As Thomas Jefferson feared they would, the Supreme Court has effectively appointed itself an autocratic "more-equal" branch of government – and they've been trumping our lawmakers and founding fathers for multiple decades! The Supreme Court, not satisfied with being the "highest court" in the land, imagines itself the "Highest Law-giver" in the land – with no "Higher Law" above it.

For their part, the legislative branch of our government, the lawmaking branch, with the power to do something about it (its power having been justly derived from the people), simply lets it happen as if their hands are tied and their mouths taped. For fifty years and more they have bowed and scraped to the "High Court" and those holy "Justices." They also bow just about as cravenly to the executive branch. Where do we get such representation?

The same atheist, Michael Newdow, also filed suit against President Bush. Why? Because the prayer offered by Rev. Franklin Graham at President Bush’s inauguration was offered “in Jesus’ name.”

The American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United for Separation of Church and State have successfully sued to have displays of the Ten Commandments removed from government-owned property. They have recently attacked the governor of Alabama for having voluntary Bible studies in his office. They are leading the way in removing prayer and religious symbols from public schools. They are doing all of this under the banner of their favorite catch phrase – separation of church and state.

PRIDGER: The ACLU and "Americans United?" feel the Ten Commandments is an offensive document when posted out where a lot of people might see it. "Thou shalt not kill," steal, covet, lie, disrespect parents, etc., and other abominations – they proclaim such postings constitute obvious evidence of the cruel imposition of an official endorsement of a state religion when displayed on public property.

We the People, they tell us, don't have the right to play favorites with religious expression on "our" public property. The Ten Commandments might make a Hindu child feel rejected, and possibly shock and outrage an unstable atheist or agnostic.

The ACLU feels similarly about "common decency" rules and laws. Everything else, of course, is okay. Offensive language and smut are protected by the "smut and offensive language" clause embedded, by original intent, in the the words "freedom of speech." In this case, it doesn't matter how many people are shocked, offended, or outraged. The ACLU would have our children believe this was the intent of the founders of the Republic (and, if it wasn't their intent, they merely mention that those founders were just a bunch of self-serving elite slave owners anyway).

All of this makes one wonder just how the United States of America survived before outfits like the ACLU and Americans United? came on the scene. We must have been one heck of a backward nation. Why did so many people come here to better their lot in life and seek religious and personal freedom – particularly freedom of religion? Were they insane?

The First Amendment to the constitution addresses, among other things, religious freedom. Commonly known as the “Establishment Clause,” the First Amendment reads as follows:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Legal opinions have extended the meaning of the establishment clause to include not only congress, but also all branches of government. The framers of our constitution did not want the government to favor one religion or denomination above the others, and in so doing, establish a state religion. The Church of England served as an example of what the founding fathers wanted to avoid. They wanted each citizen to have the freedom to worship in whatever way he or she chose, without having religious beliefs or practices dictated to them by the government.

You will notice that “separation of church and state” is not mentioned in the first amendment.

In fact, it’s not mentioned in the constitution at all. That phrase comes from a letter that founding father and 3^rd U.S. President Thomas Jefferson wrote, that reads, in part:

“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.”

In this letter, Jefferson is actually responding to a letter he had received from the Danbury Baptists of Danbury, CT. They were a minority denomination in that area and were subjected to persecution for their beliefs. They feared that if the government were to adopt a state religion, as it had done in England, that their minority views would be trampled, and they themselves subject to further persecution. Jefferson wrote his letter to them to reassure them that they would remain free to worship as they wished, without needing to fear government interference in their religious beliefs or practices. In fact, he borrowed the term “wall of separation” from famous Baptist minister Roger Williams.

We can see that neither the constitution nor Jefferson’s “separation” letter ever intimates that religious expression must be kept out of the public arena. Yet the ACLU and Americans United continue to lift Jefferson up as a sort of historic “town crier” for their cause. They seem convinced that Jefferson would not have permitted any political recognition of anything remotely religious. . .

PRIDGER: So there we have the damning evidence that Thomas Jefferson mentioned "a wall of separation between Church and State" – the ACLU and Americans United?'s Holy Grail unveiled, and their duplicity unfrocked, as we have the context in which it was written. We further have evidence to what lengths anti-Christians with an agenda will go to twist the meanings of words and phrases to their own ends.

. . . As is evident, Jefferson’s belief in a separation between church and state did not preclude the very mention of God under state sanction. If he were not our third president, but our forty-third, I suspect Thomas Jefferson would find himself on the receiving end of a lawsuit for his sundry official statements that specifically mention “God” and “Jesus Christ.”

Nearly 160 years after Jefferson’s death, in the case of Wallace v. Jaffree, Justice William Rehnquist offered the decision of the United States Supreme Court:

“It is impossible to build sound constitutional doctrine upon a mistaken understanding of Constitutional history….The establishment clause had been expressly freighted with Jefferson’s misleading metaphor for nearly forty years....

There is simply no historical foundation for the proposition that the framers intended to build a wall of separation [between church and state]….The recent court decisions are in no way based on either the language or intent of the framers.”

Offering his dissenting opinion on Michael Newdow’s “pledge lawsuit,” 9^th Circuit Appeals Court Judge Ferdinand Fernandez said, in part:

“My reading of the stelliscript suggests that upon Newdow’s theory of our Constitution, accepted by my colleagues today, we will soon find ourselves prohibited from using our album of patriotic songs in many public settings. “God Bless America” and “America The Beautiful” will be gone for sure, and while use of the first and second stanzas of the Star Spangled Banner will still be permissible, we will be precluded from straying into the third. And currency beware!”

Sometimes, I am left to wonder what President Jefferson would think about Michael Newdow’s lawsuits, about the work of the ACLU and Americans United. I think I found just what Jefferson might say on that matter. In 1781, he made the following statement:

“God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the Gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever.”

This article is from: http://www.godresolution.com/t_jefferson.htm

Pridger is neither as wise nor religious as Thomas Jefferson was, but he believes that if God had not favored America, we would never have been able to say, "What a great nation we have!" and "We've never had it so good!" Millions would not have left their homes to settle here. Immigrants would not continue to risk everything to come here.

Had we not once believed in the source of our good fortune, we would never have considered this "One Nation Under God," nor declared, "In God We Trust." But now, are we not violating the high principles upon which our nation was founded? Are we not removing the only firm basis of our liberties? Pridger reiterates what Jefferson said:

"Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever"

John Q. Pridger

Friday, 11 April, 2008

HILLARY WANTS A HUNDRED THOUSAND MORE COPS ON THE BEAT

It seems we've heard that before. It was Bill Clinton then, but now it's Hillary who has the new and refreshing idea. She says we've got to fall back on what works, and get our crime situation under control. Pridger wonders if Bill's hundred thousand cops are still on the beat? If so, that means this federal crime fighting panacea is cumulative.

But when did local law enforcement become the venue of the federal government? There's certainly no mention of it in the Constitution. It seems the federal government ought to have enough to do fighting wars and operating umpteen dozen federal regulatory and law enforcement agencies – not to mention keeping the children properly head-started dumbed down.

Come think of it, that's not in the Constitution either. In fact, few federal programs are constitutional – except, perhaps, through creative interpretations of that much maligned document.

HATE CRIMES AND SEX OFFENDERS

Hillary wants to get tough on "hate crimes" too – and sex offenders. There is absolutely nothing further from "constitution think" than the idea of "hate crimes." The very idea is repugnant to everything that we could think of as just. We punish offenders for the crime – not what the criminal was thinking before or afterwards. The very word "hate" is bantered around today as if it's a dreadful new infectious disease visiting itself on white men, and it requires federal quick fixes – vaccinations. But passion cannot be regulated or rutted out of the human psyche.

In every war we have ever fought, large numbers of soldiers were taught, or otherwise learned, to hate the enemy. Were their acts, in defense of the nation, or obedience to their leaders, then hate crimes? Was the G.I. who yelled, "Take that you dirty Jap!" or "You Kraut bastard!" as he pulled the trigger or shoved the bayonet, guilty of a hate crime?

Pridger doesn't hate very many things, other than certain raw vegetables. But he hates certain types of criminals due to long held prejudices. Like Hillary apparently hates sex offenders, Pridger particularly hates people who commit murder just for the thrill of seeing somebody suffer and die. And, like most Americans, Pridger likes movies in which the good guys, white, black, red, or brown, kill the really bad guys, whether white, black, red, or brown.

However, movies sometimes do a lot to promote hate. Take the much acclaimed Shindler's List. By ten or fifteen minutes into the movie, Pridger felt a strong hatred rising up in his breast against Germans. It looked like the only good German would have to be a dead German. So he changed to the Western channel. After all, why would one want to hate his own kindred peoples – or, for that matter, any "people" at all? The way Pridger sees it, in the name of good, Shindler's List was a hate movie.

Such movies are produced by people who wish to reinforce their own cultural creed of "Never forgive, and never forget!" rather than the Christian creed which tells us, "forgive those who trespass against us."

The Germans committed some pretty horrendous crimes during World War Two, of course – the Holocaust undoubtedly being the worst. But so did the Japanese and the Russians commit horrendous crimes. So did the British – and so did we. Yet everybody has been forgiven long ago – but not the Germans. Their guilt, for that particular crime (against those, rightly or wrongly, considered their enemy), is constantly rubbed in the world's face – until most of us are sick of the memory of the Holocaust. But it's an unofficial hate crime to say that. At best, expressing such opinions, is considered evidence of latent anti-Semitic leanings – but it's quite alright to hate the German race (that is merely being anti-evil).

Of course, the German people in general are as innocent of the Holocaust as the American public is of fire-bombing places like Dresden, Germany and Tokyo, Japan – and nuking Nagasaki and Hiroshima. War is hell, and such things become the "natural" contingencies of battle, whether morally justifiable or not. Yet we are constantly reminded that the entire German population during the Nazi era shares a "collective," and even an ongoing, guilt.

Had Germany and Japan won World War Two, would we still be watching movies demonizing the Allied powers? Maybe – especially those damned murderous Yanks and Brits, who seemed to delight in the indiscriminate fire bombing of helpless civilian populations.

Pridger would hate it if a criminal broke into his house in the middle of the night (or any other time for that matter). He might even tend to be a little scared. And there is nothing like fear to incubate and produce a feeling of hatred in a hurry. He might even temporarily lose control of his diction when confronting such a person. He might say something that he would regret.

Supposing it was an Asian dressed in a black ninja uniform with a gun – or even just a pair of briefs and throwing stars. Pridger might slip and say something like, "Take that you damned Chinese bastard!" as he pumps him full of lead. This would seem only human. But Pridger's act of self-defense could be construed a hate crime because of his impassioned slip of the tongue. Wouldn't calling an Asian a "Chinese bastard" be considered a racial slur?

Is calling somebody a n(censored)r, really worse – any more hateful – than calling him a black bastard? Is calling anybody a bastard or a bitch really all that great a thing to do? Yet those terms are extraordinarily popular. But we speak of apples and oranges, of course.

Passion often mitigates criminal acts of violence. A murder committed during a moment of passion, be it love, hate, or just naked fear, is usually treated as murder in the second degree – in a totally different class than premeditated murder "for a purpose."

Which is the worst criminal: (1) One who kills an innocent person in cold blood because he hates him for some reason, or (2) one who kills an innocent person in cold blood because he just thought it would be fun – and anyone would do?

Is a white man who kills a black man because he hates all black people worse than a white man who kills a black man because he just felt like killing somebody regardless of race? Or because he hates everybody? No, but he'll serve more time under our hateful hate laws.

In Pridger's opinion, the crime is murder – not whether the killer hated the victim's race, religion, national origin, sex, or sexual orientation, or just merely loved to kill.

There are arguably many more racially motivated murders of whites by blacks than the other way around. But hate crime laws have been passed specifically to punish whites for alleged hate crimes against blacks – not crimes of blacks against whites.

The almighty "law," and people who promote hate crime legislation, seem to lose focus on what hate really is. They "indiscriminately" tar people with an overly broad brush. They confuse the word "hate" with such words as prejudice, bias, and merely being discriminating in associations. But these are not synonyms for hate, by any stretch of the imagination. It's very possible to have a dim view of certain races or other identity groups without hating anybody. Employing a racial slur against an individual, while not being a particularly considerate thing to do, in no way implies that one hates the entire race.

In any case, hate and "thought crime" laws, do absolutely nothing to bring the races into any sort of harmony. They do just the opposite. Hate crime legislation is itself a hate crime, because it adds fire to already held resentments on the part of both whites and blacks.

What's worse (it's really no secret), whites generally fear blacks in America, though most would not say it out loud. And what is resentment and fear but the raw material of perhaps unarticulated hatred? Suppressed hatred among masses of people is downright dangerous.

Certain blacks know that whites fear them, of course, and revel in the situation – some even brag about it – the way they see it, "It serves them right!" And they intend to keep things that way. They can count on people like Hillary Clinton to help them do it. (Barack Obama and John McCain too, of course.)

It's time we quit enlarging our festering "identity" problems by focusing "race" and other divisive categories. We should cease and desist legislative focus on nit-picky personality issues which purport to make "big problems" out of minor biases and preferences, and begin delivering just, colorblind, laws – where one doesn't have to be afraid of being condemned for expressing opinions, or being "caught" politically incorrect. This is nothing more than "gotcha'" politics – unworthy of a truly civil society. Under the law, each and every person should be considered just that – a person – no more or no less.

That the federal government should even be involved in multitudes of nit-picky issues is totally absurd from the onset. The federal government was intended to focus on other things – things enumerated in the Constitution. That it would, in the name of good, perpetrate divisive national policies, and usurp the constitutional prerogatives of not only the States, but the people themselves (as individuals!), speaks only of one thing – Big Brother. And big government cannot but be abusive government, despite all good intentions. At some point, "tyranny" becomes the descriptive term.

John Q. Pridger

GETTING TOUGH ON SEX OFFENDERS

The problem with getting tough on sex offenders is the term "sex offender." Just what, exactly, is a sex offender? And what all is covered by the words "sex offence"?

Of course, we've always known that forced and statutory rape were sex offences. They've been against the law, with very harsh penalties, for a long time. So were the whole array of sexual sins and perversions, from adultery, incest, and cohabitation, to heterosexual and homosexual sodomy through bestiality.

But sex crimes have been broadened to include much more than forced and statutory rape, while at the same time most laws against sex "sins" have been removed from the books.

In spite of the fact that perverts have been given license to do just about anything imaginable between consenting adults, and with animals – and though pornography has become a "respectable" major industry (very much symbolizing the nation in the eyes of many of our friends abroad) – we have more sex offenders doing hard time than ever before.

Sex offenders are in a class of their own. They never really finish paying their debt to society. Unlike murderers and other violent offenders, who are free once they have completed their incarceration or probation, sex offenders are "sex offenders" for life. They have to register as sex offenders, and their neighbors advised of their presence in the community – reminiscent of "witch branding" and the "Scarlet Letter."

Child molesters are considered the worst type of sex offenders. And this holds true whether they are guilty of violently raping children, or merely seducing and "pleasing" them – whether they left physical and emotional scars, or they had merely weakened and inappropriately "touched" a child – whether they "loved" a child a little too intimately, or violently assaulted, terrorized, and physically abused a child.

Pridger hasn't made a study of all this, but he figures it's probably like the war on drugs, where mere pot smokers are handled as if they are major threats to society. Many totally harmless people end up incarcerated for decades along with real criminals. The father, grandfather, or lecherous over-friendly uncle, who gets a little too intimate with children are locked away for long periods as if they had been violent rapists intent on doing bodily harm. Then, though they may be remorseful, repentant, ashamed, and totally reformed – in short, quite over their bout of temporary insanity – they are still branded as sex offenders for the rest of their life.

At least this is the way Pridger understands it. Not only does it appear unfair in many cases, and downright unjust, the problem itself seems to be the natural result of the very perverse sort of hedonistic, sex-crazed, society that we have been building for half a century.

Sexual stimuli literally permeates our society. The sexual revolution that accompanied women's liberation, Civil Rights, and the white counter-culture movement, has overturned all moral concepts that once gave our civilization moral compass in matters of sex, sin, and family.

The socially progressive ideal of "free love" has largely replaced the sexually repressive puritan society we once had. But there's still enough of the puritan left in our legal system and national moral psyche to continue to criminalize the commercial prostitution.

In fact, "natural" commercial sex is more restricted now than it was when sexual repression was still strongly promoted. However, almost all societies, no matter how conservative and sexually repressive, once realized that it was necessary to provide a relief valve for all the sexual energy naturally found in the genes of normal men. But now, with that the energy encouraged and further unleashed by our sex-crazed commercial and entertainment environment, no relief valves have been provided.

With popular culture in the gutter, the problem has intensified many fold, but we don't have the service industries nature, and a free market economy, would dictate are needed in such a society.

We have become a nation where both girls and boys are taught that it's perfectly alright for men and women to have the morals of whores and whoremongers – in fact those morals are almost universally encouraged. It's considered an integral part of "freedom and liberty" in the flesh. Casual sex of any kind is supposedly there for anybody for the taking.

But it doesn't work for everybody. But there are a lot of people with abundant appetite for "illicit" sex, who simply don't fit in to the present scheme of things. What about all the anti-social or neurotic men who have trouble of one kind or another with the kind of "hunting", "seduction", "superficial courting", "pick-ups", and "entangling personal relationships" that would be required to fulfill their sexual needs or fantasies?

Some men are repelled by the idea of sexual "conquests", false courting, false seductions, false vows, and the hypocrisy of false relationships in quest of simple "sex" encounters. What about the nerd that just can't make first base with the women? What about those husbands who have wives they love, but are no longer able, for any variety of reasons, to satisfy their perceived "needs"?

Then it is also a given that even most happily married men, as President Carter admitted, "lust in their hearts." Almost all at some point crave illicit sex while still wishing to be "true" to wife and family. This just happens to be the way men are constructed. Some can resist the urge, others can't, or don't.

Most men don't want to descend into the gutter and live there full time, but would very much like to take a dip from time to time. Our sex crazed society doesn't accommodate them – as it once did, even when our "greater society" was much more puritan and straight laced than it is now.

What about all those women whose natural calling, especially in a liberated environment, would be to prostitute themselves in a quest for both pleasure and honest profit? Their God-given capital asset is rendered worthless to them by law. Some do it anyway, of course, but many more don't, simply because it is illegal – thus doubly dangerous.

Pornography isn't the panacea. It does serve some purposes, however. Besides being a drug-like vice to many, pornography stimulates and feeds the sexual appetite, particularly in men – and, for many, it serves as a quick and easy substitute for illicit sex itself.

Unfortunately, it does the former more effectively than the latter. Additionally, it often stimulates desires for perversions and activities that might never have come to mind otherwise. So there is a lot of stifled, pent up, frustrated, and sometimes explosive, sexual energy in our society that finds no legitimate outlet.

Both men and women engage in sexual activities earlier than ever before – after all, it's advertised all the time in the movies, on TV, and even in the public schools. Those who marry, generally marry much later than in former times. So there is a much broader period where "free love" becomes the lifestyle of choice. And there are more and more who never marry at all, or only marry for varying periods of time (perhaps only when the "urge" becomes briefly overwhelming). But some unfortunates simply don't "get any" or don't get nearly enough.

The result appears to be that that a lot of sexually frustrated men (apparently many more than in former times), are taking chances with rape and child molestation. Not all of them are that unstable or criminal-minded. But they take chances – sometimes very discrete chances. Sometimes, those chances lead to taking bigger chances – and one thing leads to another. And there are more traps set for them now than in former times – so sex crimes are perceived to be a much bigger problem now than ever before.

The remedy people like Hillary seek, of course, is not to get to the root of the problem, and perhaps make some sensible accommodations that would at least significantly alleviate it, or make it more manageable, but to get tougher on more and more sex offenders. This, in a society seems very intent on breeding and engineering a lot more of them.

John Q. Pridger

THE FUNDAMENTALIST CHURCH OF LATTER DAY SAINTS

A polygamist cult compound has been raided by an assortment of Texas law enforcement agencies and some 555 women and children removed from their homes.

At least it wasn't the feds going in with tanks, APCs, and blazing guns. So far our trusty Federal paramilitary forces (who are not yet officially involved), have kept a low profile.

The tragedy, in spite of all good intentions, is that the state probably didn't do many of them (or even itself), any favors and it will probably go on to totally wreck the lives of most of them. Perhaps many (maybe even the overwhelming majority), had been happy with their lives.

Unfortunately, there was ample reason to do something – even if it ultimately turns out to do much more harm than good. As is usually the case, the community's "Prophet" seems to have had ulterior motives for gathering his flock together, and (men being like they are), his "church" seems to have attracted some members with ulterior motives for membership as well.

But when you have a rather large number of people gathered into a community, there are bound to be some bad eggs. And bad leaders are not all that rare either, even in the most highly respected institutions – even government itself.

Of course, when there are young damsels in distress, men are naturally moved to intervene and try to rectify the situation. When a distraught sixteen year old called for help, an entire community came down – for better or worse.

On the face of it, it seems rather strange and very extreme to enter a community in response to a single phone call (which could have even have been a hoax or planned "attack" on that community), and take over 400 children, along with their mothers out of that community.

Going into the YFZ Ranch was very similar to the rationalization used to go into Iraq. We didn't just go in to take out the leader, we also intend for "them" to think and live just like we do. And their women are supposed to be "liberated" like ours. In the end, Iraq will probably have gone from a relatively stable, secular society and form of government, where women enjoyed a great deal of freedom, to a fundamentalist Islamic society, where women already have less freedom than before.

Another way of looking at it is that it's like going into a aboriginal jungle village in South America or New Guinea and hauling all the women out to be liberated into a more enlightened and progressive modern society. Those daughters of nature should be free to become corporate CEOs, soldiers, porn stars, or president if they want to. They first must be made to realize it, of course.

Ironically, in this day and age, when even same sex marriage is becoming respectable (if not not yet universally accepted), polygamy really doesn't present the moral dilemma it once did. "Spiritual wives" are not "legal wives," so anti-bigamy laws are not technically violated.

In any case, if men can marry men, and women can marry women, "marriage" no longer has any relevance at all to the purpose of tradition of marriage. Why stop at same sex marriage?

What is polygamy compared to same sex marriage? Historically, polygamy is much more traditional and natural – and much more widely accepted. But, this country, it seems it's only a matter of time until men and women can be legally married to whole flocks of sheep and herds of horses.

Maybe traditional marriage will have to be redefined with another word – to differentiate it from the debauched term "marriage." Maybe it could be called a "Procreative Family Contract," or "Holy Begetrimony" – the old idea of begetting children and raising them up in a two parent family. Thankfully, we're not there yet. And in spite of living in a warped, desensitized, materialistic, sex-crazed, society, we still have a few moral scruples.

Almost everybody still draws a firm line in the sand when it comes to such things as "forced" marriages – and especially forced marriages of women who are still children. When we hear that those young women are also forced to have sex with their husbands – husbands who are sometimes old enough to be their father – we tend to see red. "Rape" is even used to describe the nuptial conquest – and, it goes without saying that we're still very much down on rape.

Of course, we just naturally don't like "dirty old men." Dirty young men are okay most of the time, but a dirty old man is more morally repugnant than a whole pornography production company. That an older man should lust for a young body, or a young wife, is considered inappropriate lechery, approaching mental pedophilia. Old men can dream of such things, but they'd best not mention it.

Pridger has always been infected with this opinion too – but now that he's retired, he can empathize with the old reprobate stereotypes. In fact, now that degenerative mind and body diseases have set in, Pridger admits he wouldn't mind having a couple of extra fine young wives, himself. But this is an idea he pretty much has to keep to himself.

Of course, in the case of the YFZ Ranch raid, we'll hear all the horror stories first. This is necessary to gain public support for the raid. We'll hear from "abused", "reformed" and "escaped" former wives of church members – and we'll hear from an array of righteous vultures. We'll hear quite a bit from both lesbians and feminists posing as champions of women's rights. These are the ones who will have the first and last say, and most of the media attention – and it will be on their testimony that the larger public and prosecutors will pass moral judgment.

This was the case of the Branch Dividians at Waco, and that will be the case here. We've already heard echoes of Waco and Jonestown – that maybe a much larger tragedy has been prevented by the timely raid and dismemberment of the community.

We won't hear very much from those women, young or old, who were happy with their husbands, families, homes, and community at the ranch. And if we do, we'll hear much more from spokeswomen who claim such women are merely deluded because they have been brainwashed from the cradle on – the very same things that have been said of happily married "traditional" housewives since the dawn of women's liberation.

It takes an extra-special woman to make a good homemaking housewife and mother these days. They either have to be too dumb to know that they could be president, or brilliant enough to see to recognize that the highest calling of a woman is to have children with someone she loves, and nurture their family through thick and thin. They must be both relatively pure of heart and selfless, for they are the ones who make the home a home and the family a family. It takes a good husband too, of course, equally as devoted and selfless, to make it work.

It seems a little strange to most of us that a husband should be able to have what we consider more than his share of wives. But if the system works, as it apparently does in many cases, at least they should be congratulated in being fruitful and multiplying – especially since most of the rest of us have pretty much given up on that sacred duty.

If it turns out that abuses at the YFZ Ranch were the exception rather than the rule, it will make little difference – perhaps no difference at all. The public and the prosecutors will pass judgment based on the few abuses and the entire community will be condemned.

We in the greater society simply don't like "cults," and the powers that be don't like any sizable private "community" (particularly religious community), that is self-regulating, self-sufficient, and able to thrive without taking advantage of everything "outside" society takes for granted as the "American way of life."

The real crime that has been committed may be a crime against the American way of life itself – the way of life that says unborn babies are nothing more than disposable bodily tissue, fit for the land fill – but the ones lucky enough to be born are potential social workers and presidents.

There is something repugnant about a "Temple of God" with marital consummation rooms and beds, of course – but there is also something repugnant about a society that worships at the altars of Mammon and pornography, gives Viagra the hard sell, and encourages the mass slaughter of unborn children.

Could it be that we have a double standard here? Wasn't Bill Clinton known to have abused his position with a young intern? She may have been "old enough" but she was working in the White House and should have been fairly safe from executive, Commander-In-Chief, seduction.

Well, okay, the intern was willing and ambitious. She apparently thought her affair with the President might pave the way to a brilliant future. But, aside from that affair, Bill was accused of several rapes and inappropriate groping too. But nobody was ever inconvenienced over those allegations. Bill passed impeachment (for lying to federal investigators), and went on to be re-elected to a second term.

Bill's alleged crimes were not sex crimes – he was just a fibber, that's all. He brilliantly dumbfounded the investigation by posing the brilliant defensive conundrum, which pivoted gracefully around what the "meaning of 'is' is."

Hillary, as concerned as she is with sex offenders, wouldn't have him locked up even if she becomes president, but in all likelihood the female interns, and other female visitors, will remain under careful protective surveillance.

Let a school teacher or G.I. be accused of half as much and see what will happen to their career. For the Clintons, they have gone quickly on to become multi-millionaires.

The people at YFC Ranch probably won't be so lucky.

John Q. Pridger

Monday, 7 April, 2008

A NOSTALGIC MOMENT – REDISCOVERING PAT BOONE

Back when Pridger was a child-hood in the 1950s, the rock-n-roll craze cranked up. Elvis Presley, of course, became the biggest rage of the era, but Pat Boone, who maintained a clean-cut collegiate appearance and style, was a near second.

Elvis was the mover and shaker who sent his young fans into a frenzy, and Pat was the mellow, easy-going, counterpoint who also brought shivers up the neck of the ladies. His style of music moved people in a much more subtle way. He appealed to young and old alike, for while his music and songs were full bodied and seductive, they stopped short of being overly tribal in cadence. And they often conveyed a sobering spiritual message.

Elvis was religious, too, but his major successes were due to the more hedonistic beat he followed in both music and personal style. Tragically, he died in 1977 at the age of 42 – a victim of his own success and the excesses of his life style.

A few days ago Pridger got to wondering what had ever become of Pat Boone – what he was doing in his retirement years – for Pat had simply disappeared from Pridger's radar screen for a matter of decades.

It turns out that he is very much alive and well, looking very young and healthy for his years, is a successful businessman, and is involved in a whole host of positive activities. He's authored several books on inspirational subjects and has been very active in a number of organizations and causes. And, of course, he's still selling recordings.

Additionally, Pridger was very pleasantly surprised to see that, among his many other activities, Pat is doing what Pridger is doing right here – only doing it much better. He's a gifted, articulate, and prolific, writer – on many of the subjects Pridger enjoys pontificating on with these blog pages.

Pridger recommends reading Pat Boone. He writes for World Net Daily and his articles start at Here.

Pat Boone, descendant of the legendary pioneer Daniel Boone, has been a top-selling recording artist, the star of his own hit TV series, a movie star, a Broadway headliner, and a best-selling author in a career that has spanned half a century. During the classic rock & roll era of the 1950s, he sold more records than any artist except Elvis Presley.

Additionally, Pat Boone has at least two commercial web sites at: http://www.patboone.com/ and http://www.patsgold.com/.

Pat weighs in right alongside Pridger on most Cultural War issues. But there are significant areas where Pat and Pridger part company. Pridger isn't quite as evangelical as Boone is, nor as devoted to the Republican Party, though he pretty much shares Boone's views of the Democratic Party and the two democratic presidential candidates.

PAT IS NOT ONLY A CHRISTIAN, BUT A "CHRISTIAN ZIONIST"

Rather than writing on where we agree on issues, Pridger feels compelled to pick an area where we are not quite in total agreement. Pat is obviously very much what has become known as a "Christian Zionist."

When Christian Zionists write on Culture War issues, they take care to always refer to our "Judeo-Christian" religious and cultural roots, and that America was founded on the Judeo-Christian tradition.

Attaching Judeo to Christian in the context of the "American Creed" is somewhat of a stretch. Jews were scarce in the colonies. None of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were Jews, nor were any of the other Founding Fathers. It is only fair to say, however, that there was one or two Jewish financiers, if Pridger remembers correctly, who did help finance the Revolution, though few, if any, Jews fought in it.

Otherwise, Jews had very little to contribute to the founding of the nation, for their share of the population has always been rather small, and it was a great deal smaller then than it is today – and, percentage-wise, it's still in the lower single digits. Their religion has never influenced the nation. They have always maintained their religious separateness.

Of course, there is ample rationale for using the term Judeo-Christian in the broader context of religious history. Christianity is obviously rooted in the older Judaic religious tradition. Jesus, as they say, was a Jew, and the Old Testament is a collection of Judaic religious scriptures. Fundamentalist Christians believe as fully in the Old Testament as the New. And Moses' Ten Commandments are still very much in the forefront of orthodox Christian belief.

But, nonetheless, the term Judeo-Christian is a misnomer and contradiction in the religious context – particularly when referring to what might be called the American Creed. Christ rejected traditional Judaism and established "New Laws" and essentially, a whole new religion. Or at least a new way of looking at religion.

Christians believed that Jesus was the Christ. That Jesus was the Messiah the scriptures had prophesied is the central tenant of the Christian religion. The Hebrews that did not buy Jesus' claim and become Christians, rejected that idea, and are still waiting for their Messiah. Two separate, and essentially mutually exclusive, religions were formed where only one had been before. And the two are very distinctly separate to this day.

Under Christian doctrine, Christians are "saved" and Jews are still "lost." Whether Jesus would put it that way or not is uncertain, but that is how Christian Churches universally put it. Even most Christian Zionists believe Jews are yet to be saved, and must accept Jesus as their Messiah if they are to go to Heaven.

Christian Zionists are Zionists because they believe that today's Jews are the direct descendents, or at least the spiritual descendents, of the biblical Hebrews – God's "Chosen People," to whom Palestine was promised in the Bible.

There are many complicated issues that enter the picture, which we won't get into here. But many Christians believe the Hebrew fell out of favor with God when they rejected His Only Begotten Son, as their Messiah. The Judaic Hebrews were driven from the Promised Land and dispersed among the various nations of the world. The Judaic religion itself supports this, as do the events of recorded history.

The Children of Israel claimed The One and Only God, as "their God" – and only they were His Chosen People. Other peoples were not included – Judaic Law, and the Laws handed Moses by God, applied only to and among God's Chosen People. Others could be slaughtered or driven from the Promised Land, under orders from God.

Jesus changed this, effectively saying, "God is the God and Father of ALL peoples – He is not exclusive to the Hebrews of Judaic faith. We are all the children of the same God and have been created in His image. And God does not play favorites based on race." Salvation came through accepting this "Truth," and observing God's Laws as redefined and clarified by Jesus.

So, in the religious context, the term Judeo-Christian is a contradiction. There is no such thing as a Judeo-Christian. There are Christians and there are Jews, and their religion and world views are distinctly different.

The terms "Zionism" and "Zionist" have both religious and political meanings, the latter being the modern application, meaning support for Israel and belief that Israel is the rightful Homeland of Jews, based on Old Testament Promises made by God.

Ironically, almost all Zionists (that is, the founders of modern political Zionism and those in positions of influence), were and are secularist. Most did not accept or practice their religion. Yet, strangely, they nonetheless cling tenaciously to their racial/religious identity and (and, stranger still), the belief that they are God's Chosen People to whom Palestine was promised as a Homeland.

Christian Zionists support that belief and thus feel that modern Israel is the continuing manifestation of biblical prophecy, and thus must be defended, at all costs, by all Christians – and most particularly by the United States.

Who is Pridger to question such things? He just can't help thinking that somebody is being duped.

Anyway, Pat Boone sings the praises of Israel in his "Israel, World MVP" (Most Valued Player) – excerpts follow, with emphasis added:

Israel, World MVP
October 27, 2007

By Pat Boone
© 2008

Read the whole article here: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=44225

...I've written here before about the innumerable contributions Israelis have made to the world, in virtually every category – literature, chemistry, medicine, physics, economics, every science and technology, Internet and communication, and efforts for world peace. Twenty-one percent of all Nobel Prize winners worldwide have been Jews! The list of achievements and astounding contributions is endless.

Every day, virtually every person in the civilized world benefits from these contributions, in areas relating to food, medicine, overall health, knowledge, security, great literature (including of course the Bible) and music – almost everything that we think of as "quality of life." It has long been established, and is obvious on its face, that in every nation motivated and influenced by Judeo/Christian principles, the population has prospered and the culture flourished. The reverse is also true: Societies and cultures that have rejected and even opposed those principles have lagged behind, even drastically suffered in all the same areas and quality of life.

And the pace has greatly quickened in the last several decades. Consider: Israel is the 100th-smallest country, with less than 1/1000th of the world's population – but its $100 billion economy is larger than all of its immediate neighbors combined. It also has the fourth-largest air force in the world (after the U.S., Russia and China), with over 250 F-16s and very powerful weapons – to defend itself against the announced and very serious threats of some of those same neighbors.

Out of its own necessity, but also to help all peaceful societies, Israel designed the airline industry's most impenetrable flight security. U.S. officials now look to Israel for advice and technology in handling airborne security threats. Fly anywhere safely lately? Thank Israel...

Look further: Israel has the highest ratio of university degrees to its population in the world; she produces more scientific papers per capita than any other nation by a large margin – 109 per 1,000 people – as well as one of the highest per capita rates of patents filed. With more than 3,000 high-tech companies and startups, Israel has the highest concentration of high-tech companies in the world – apart from the Silicon Valley, USA.

How does this matter to you and me, and every other citizen in the world of the 21st century? The cell phone was developed in Israel by Israelis with Motorola, which has its largest development center in Israel. Most of Windows NT and XP operating systems were developed by Microsoft-Israel. The Pentium MMX chip technology was designed in Israel at Intel, and both the Pentium-4 microprocessor and the Centrino processor were entirely designed, developed, and produced in Israel. Voice-mail technology and AOL's Instant Messenger were developed by young Israelis.

Medical technologies, diagnostics, pharmaceuticals and treatments that offer healing in almost every area of disease and disability are just too many to list here. But let's note that when Stephen Hawking, generally considered to be the most brilliant thinker on the planet, visited Israel recently, he shared his deep musings with scientists, students and even the prime minister. But the world's most renowned victim of ALS, or Lou Gehrig's Disease, also learned something: Due to the Israeli ALS Association's advanced work in both embryonic and adult stem cell research, as well as its proven track record with neuro-degenerative diseases, the Israeli research community is well on its way to finding a treatment for this fatal disease affecting 30,000 Americans and tens of thousands worldwide!

Israel's Givun-Imaging has developed the first ingestible video camera, so small it fits inside a pill; it's used to view the small intestine from the inside, to detect cancer and digestive disorders. And other Israeli researchers have developed a new device that directly helps the heart pump blood – an innovation with the potential to save lives among those with heart failure. There's also a revolutionary new acne treatment, the Clear Light device, that causes acne bacteria to self-destruct – without damaging surrounding skin or tissue.

An Israeli company was the first to develop and install a large-scale, fully functional solar electricity generating plant, in Southern California's Mojave Desert. What does that portend for an energy-guzzling, oil-stained world?

Truly, the accomplishments – too numerous and complex to list here – are staggering; I've only scratched the surface, and I've already noted the pace is accelerating exponentially. Israel is just getting started. Proportionately, no other country in the world can match her creativity and her massive contributions to the world's standard of living – not even the United States.

And I haven't even mentioned that the three largest religious faiths in the world are expecting the appearance soon of a Messiah...

In this game we play on earth, called life, though many players have contributed great things, the MVP – the Most Valuable Player – has been clearly revealed.

It is Israel.

Now that's really singing the praises of Israel! There's little doubt that Jews are among the MVP (Most Valuable People), on the planet. They have contributed, and continue to contribute, inordinately to our civilization. But most of it had been, and is still being, done as enlightened and scientifically minded "Jews" rather than as "Israelis." Most of the contributions Jews have made have been made during their residency in other nations – in their continuing Diaspora.

The nation of Israel is a relatively recent phenomena – officially dating only from 1948. Since it is a "Jewish State," it naturally has acquired the world's greatest concentration of Jews residing in one geographical area – and thus has an exceptional concentration of talent.

Israel has become a very prosperous nation in spite of perennial internal trouble and strife and external threats to its existence. Pat fails to mention, however, that the wealth required to build Israel came largely from wealthy Jews who had prospered in the Western host nations.

It cannot be said that Israel is exactly a self-made success story. In spite of Israel's wealth and prosperity, it's first rate universities, laboratories, industries, formidable armed forces, weapons of mass destruction, and other institutions, it continues to be subsidized by U.S. Taxpayers to the tune of multiple billions of dollars per year in economic and military aid, as well as generous assistance "loans" that are often forgiven.

Israel could not survive without the active monetary and military support of the United States. Not only is it surrounded by resentful enemies, the nation itself was plopped right down on enemy soil with the coercive assistance of England and the United States, without consulting the owners or neighbors. That is the real crux of the problem, and that is why the problem simply won't go away.

When modern political Zionism was born in the last decade of the nineteenth century, it developed into a plan for Jews to immigrate to a "Jewish Homeland" in Palestine – the ancient biblical Promised Land – where they would set up their communal farms and peacefully co-exist with Palestinian Arab neighbors who had occupied the land since biblical times. Less than fifty years later, the "Jewish State" of Israel was proclaimed where only Arabs had lived before.

In short, in less than a half of a century, the Jews did in Palestine what it had taken several centuries for Europeans to do North America. The "Palestinian Problem" is the Jewish equivalent to our former "Indian Problem."

There were some big differences, of course. Israel was surrounded by bigger hostile Arab nations who had fought against the Jewish takeover of Palestine from the very beginning – long before the advent of the Jewish State.

But there is another big difference – a very big problem. Times had changed. It was no longer "politically correct" for a superior race to displace a presumably inferior one. In fact, it is now practically "a hate" crime in the United States to even suggest such a thing might be acceptable. Genocide and aggression had already been codified as criminal in international law. Colonialism was already crashing and was in its death throes at the very time Palestine was being conquered and subjugated by an invading alien race.

Ironically, the Jews had provided one of the loudest and most effective voices against European and American imperialism and for self-determination for European colonies. And the Jewish State itself was intended to be an ideal "socialist state."

Of course, England and the United States had their own non-Zionist motives in helping in the birth of Israel (Though England had endeavored to maintain control of Palestine under its League of Nation's Mandate, it nonetheless [just prior to Israeli's declaration of independence] finally found itself fighting Jewish nationalist terrorists).

The vast oil riches of the Middle East had already been recognized, and the idea of having a "friendly client state" as an outpost, with modern Western values, in the Arab world was very strategically attractive. It hasn't worked out all that well, but you'd never know it to hear our politicians sing the praises of the only "democratic" nation in the Middle East – and their commitment to defend that friendly Western bastion of freedom right or wrong.

Thanks to the Nazi Holocaust (not to mention the exceptional influence of rich and powerful Jews in all Western nations), Jews were more or less granted exceptional status by the allies who won World War Two, and uniquely exempt from those international laws. And this has become a major problem ever since – one that won't go away.

Ironically, Jews had figured very large in bringing international laws against genocide and aggression into existence. They have gone out of their way to champion all the causes defending the weak and disenfranchised in America, against the governing and "oppressive" majority. They continue to promote such things as "hate crime" legislation in the United States and Europe, but exempt themselves in their own Jewish State, with national security and self-defense providing justification.

In the United States, Jews are among the primary champions of the strict "Wall of Separation" between church and state, and the notion that "The United States is not, and never has been, a Christian nation." They have fought for prayer-free public schools, against the posting of the Ten Commandments, and against Christmas nativity scenes on public property. They have fought to have "In God We Trust" and "One Nation Under God" expunged from the American landscape – but "their" State is, and must continue to be, a "Jewish State" – the world's only secular "democracy" based solely on religious identity.

We may sing the praise of the Jews, and even praise the accomplishments and abundant talent invested in Israel. Nonetheless, it does seem to be a pretty dangerous place to keep all that talent.

It's very difficult to imagine that there will ever be peace and harmony in Israel. There has simply been too much hatred, bloodshed, and injustice for too long – and no "two state solution" will ever be able to overcome those lamentable past and ongoing events. There is little doubt that Theodor Herzl, the father of modern political Zionism, and author of The Jewish State (1895), would be appalled and greatly saddened at the course of events that have followed the dream he had fathered.

America is already known to many as the "New Jerusalem." If Armageddon is to be avoided in the Middle East, maybe Israel and the United State ought to get all of their eggs into one relatively secure basket – as far from the Middle East as possible. Why send multi billions to support Israel in Palestine, and thereby insure the continuing problems with Arab and Gulf States, when Israel in the New Jerusalem could very easily not only support itself, but probably turn a profit for everyone concerned?

As Pridger suggested some time back, we could probably save considerable money, and perhaps much bloodshed, by giving the our former Spanish Southwest to the Jews for a new Homeland. The terrain is much like that of Palestine, and there's a lot more room. It would also probably stop the problem of illegal Mexicans crossing the border. The Israelis know how to guard a border. Let the Arabs have the entire Middle East with all its oil – after all, it's theirs to begin with. And when we finally wean ourselves from foreign oil, the Arab nations can return to being peaceful, non-threatening, nations of warring nomadic tribesmen.

Maybe this is the Promised Land after all.

John Q. Pridger

Saturday, 5 April, 2008

HAMSTRUNG BY GOOD INTENTIONS

When the federal government, in the name of guaranteeing social justice for all citizens, began to dictate to state governments and weigh in on almost every aspect of American life, the federal republic – and constitutional government – and all notion of "limited" government died.

The Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution (the Income Tax Amendment, passed in 1913), was the definitive end of limited government, though the working classes would not enjoy the full benefit of this until the advent of payroll withholding during World War Two. A government that has its swarthy hand on the pocketbook of every gainfully employed citizen in the nation is, by definition, an unlimited government.

But it was when it became more generally believe by a significant number that "the federal government exists to take care the people" and "enforce social justice for all" that the Constitution was effectively totally abandoned. This abandonment of adherence to the Constitutional occurred in several giant steps and an ongoing stream of incremental baby steps.

By far the biggest steps were Federal Reserve/Income Tax (1913), and the Emergency War Powers Acts (FDRs New Deal, 1933). Ironically, the Federal Reserve Act removed a great deal of Constitutional responsibility from our elected government and handed those responsibilities to private bankers, and a quasi-governmental Federal Reserve Board. This was effectively a system designed to enrich an small exclusive elite class at the expense of the masses.

The Income Tax Amendment provided the mechanism by which that elite would be paid, under cover of everybody paying their fair share of the costs of government. When Federal Reserve Notes replaced Greenbacks (United States Notes), National Banking Notes, and Gold and Silver Certificates (and coin) – and once all pretense of a gold standard was finally abandoned – our currency became a pure fiat currency, with interest accruing to somebody on every note or book keeping unit issued into the national (and later, world), economy.

Still, the economy boomed, at least during and after World War Two. But then other shoes began to drop, further eroding constitutional governance. These came in rather quick succession, with familiar names. Among them (beyond the New Deal): The New Frontier, Civil Rights, The Great Society, War on Poverty, war on illiteracy (Department of Education), War on Cancer, War on Drugs, and so on – all of these various national social wars were back dropped by a Cold War and a series of small hot wars. Each was another nail in the coffin of limited constitutional government.

Now we've just about totally lost sight of the Constitution. The only supposedly constitutional issues that come to mind in recent memory have to do with voting rights, abortion rights, gun rights, and building a broader and higher brick and mortar Wall of Separation between the political agenda and the religious expression of the people – as the Supreme Court, with assistance from such patriotic groups as the ACLU, seek to twist the very wording and meaning of the Constitution to conform to various "modern contingency plans."

All of this means that government is involved in just about everything that the Constitution was intended to prevent, and less and less of what it was intended to do – such as coining money and regulating the value thereof, regulating trade with foreign countries, and collecting tariffs and duties. Government has become a helpless juggernaut that conducts itself like a bull in a china shop. Not only does it exist to take care of us, it presumes to take care of the world. Limited government indeed!

John Q. Pridger

Friday, 4 April, 2008

ASSASSINATION DAY

This is the 40th anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King's assassination. Pridger has sung praises for Dr. King in the past, so won't get into that here, other than to say that MLK was a true hero to his constituency, and an eloquent speaker on behalf of Civil Rights and social justice.

He was cut down in the prime of life, supposedly by a lone gunman. And James Earl Ray spent the rest of his life in prison for the crime. As in the case of President Kennedy, there is a considerable amount of doubt in the public mind with regard to the "lone gunman" story. Ray had plead guilty to avoid the possibility of a certain death sentence – but maintained that he was innocent thereafter until his death. Many, including MLK's family, and such notables as Andrew Young, eventually came to believe him.

Many still believe Dr. King was terminated with great prejudice (literally), by not-so-rogue elements connected to federal law enforcement. After all, there's little doubt he was a rebel rouser – if not a rabble rouser – and though his intentions were certainly good, his personality and words inspiring, and his means peaceable, he had the advantage of Communist friends – a not so strange coincidence that J. Edgar Hoover was quick to condemn and exploit.

Significantly, MLK was also an anti-war activist while we were in a desperate struggle bracing up the dominoes in Southeast Asia against the Communist onslaught – and this errant activity happened to be the government's number one priority at the time. So there were two equally damning motives for what had already become Vietnamese War vernacular "termination with great prejudice."

After the assassination, blacks showed their colors and went on a rampage in most major cities in the nation, and the government realized it had a bigger problem on its hands than it had previously thought. Martyrdom, combined with a large enraged minority, is impossible to ignore.

Yet, even after 40 years, MLK still isn't Pridger's hero. Pridger admires him for his courage and his message of justice, but still wouldn't vote for a national holiday in his memory. If Pridger were black, of course, the story might be different. But since Pridger is white, he'd vote for a holiday honoring George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, or even Abe Lincoln, first. And if we still didn't have enough federal holidays, there would be many other names that would come up before Martin Luther King – the names of George Washington Carver, or Booker T. Washington, for example.

Most Americans (at least forty years ago), would have felt the same way. If democracy had been involved in proclaiming a national holiday for Dr. King, there would be no such holiday. Nonetheless it became a Washington imperative to declare a holiday in honor of Martin Luther King, regardless of the preferences or will of the majority.

Among other things, the government probably owed MLK and his family something. Whether it did or not, it wanted to put a lid on a lot of ugly rumors as to who really killed Dr. King. A martyr deserves his due.

John McCain was brave enough to vote against the King Holiday four decades ago. Unfortunately, as a twenty-first century candidate for president, he is now compelled to make apologies for that honest vote. No doubt his apology is sincere – after all, he's running for president, and the vote against the King holiday would definitely be used against him in a race against an African-American.

The apology is not only politically expedient, but a requirement in order to become president. White Americans with political ambitions can no longer voice their true feelings on matters of race. Barack Obama can voice his opinions, of course, but he is black. White men and women must lie, unless they really happen to be "self-hating" whites.

We have become a very divided nation. We have a fractured electorate with racial and gender loyalties rather than singularly national loyalties. All presidential candidates must pass a "politically correct" test, and pander to a array of minority voting blocks before any real issues of national importance can come into the debate – and some simply can't come into the debate at all.

Perhaps we have come to that point in our history where it is appropriate that a casual alien visitor touring our nation should come to the conclusion that Marin Luther King was the father of the nation – but somehow a white majority has managed to evolve and prosper. But Pridger still has a problem with the idea.

John Q. Pridger

For those who would peg Pridger as a racist because of his perspective on Civil Rights and multiculturalism, check out some Black views at Elizabeth Wright's Issues & Views web site. It might surprise many whites to learn there are blacks who think independently – outside of the standard "Black Establishment" victimhood box.

Issues & Views – The Blog
http://issuesviews.blogspot.com

A black conservative's place for independent thinking and common sense -- Not the place for political party zealots

DIFFERENTIATING BETWEEN "THE WORLD" AND THE WORLD

As both a preeminent professor of linguistics and political thinker and writer, Noam Chompsky, has a way with words. Take the difference between "the world" and the world, for instance. This just happened to catch Pridger's eye. See: Chomsky's articles. (Highly recommended reading.)

Chomsky is one of those thorns in the side of the "politics as usual" Wonderful New World crowd. As a liberal academic (sometimes called an anarchist), he's particularly an embarrassment to many liberal academics who do not believe in quite so much candor. He has a pretty accurate bead on just what is going on the world and why. And he lays it on the line. You might say he is sort of the secular intellectual establishment version of what people like Reverend Jeremiah Wright are to the Black Liberation Theology.

"The world" (in quotes), is "the world" as President Bush, the neo-cons, and the right wing New World Order people see and refer to it. The "regular" world is the world as most of the rest of us (including foreigners), see it.

So, when the likes of President Bush and his handlers refer to "the world" or "world opinion" they are referring not to the real world, but to "the world," and the New World Order, which they are diligently building – the one that "their" United States of America intends to rule though whatever means are available to the world's only Superpower; the world's biggest consumer market; the world's biggest stock market; the world's largest corporations; and the global comptroller of the world's dominate reserve currency.

In view of this, what our administration and the movers and shakers behind it promise "the world" is likely to be much different than what most Americans imagine.

These are very good things to keep in mind.

Pridger isn't totally aligned with Professor Chomsky's world-view, of course, since he isn't what could be called an American nationalist. He's a little too intellectual and leftish for that – thus more in line with "American" global progressives who may celebrate a renewal of nationalistic self-determination in Bolivia and Venezuela, but not in these United States. But there is sufficient unvarnished truth in his focused opinions to make his political writings valuable reading.

John Q. Pridger

P.S. Also see: http://www.zcommunications.org/zmag

APRIL FOOLS' DAY! 2008

Funny that what is being termed a great lack of cohesive federal regulation and oversight is now being blamed for our current housing mortgage and banking and financial crises. Not all that long ago, deregulation was considered the best thing since sliced white bread. Free up the financial markets and let the markets rule – that was the watch word!

Our trusty leaders are toying with the idea of maybe creating a new federal agency to serve as a watchdog over our economy. What a brilliant idea! Just what we need – another federal agency with sweeping powers. Well, maybe not.

April Fools! The Treasury is apparently favoring a plan which proposes to give the Federal Reserve Board the power to regulate financial services, and the economy's overall long-term "systemic risks."

We already have the Federal Reserve Board and a Federal Reserve System! Look how the Fed has managed to keep the lid on the gathering storm so far. They can do it! The Federal Reserve might be the perfect "agency" to handle the job. So maybe we won't get a whole new agency after all – just new sweeping new oversight, regulatory, and financial powers, for the Federal Reserve System.

Maybe the Fed can do for the national economy what the Department of Homeland Security, and companies like Blackwater, are doing for homeland security.

Nobody mentions that the Federal Reserve System is, in effect, a private contractor – somewhat more like Blackwater than tends to meet the public eye – but with significantly more ties to the federal Goliath and our Treasury Department.

Senator Dodd, said of the proposal (in effect), is "A wild hit... not even close" to what is needed. We can, however, be fairly certain that whatever solution the government settles on, it will further empower the global money power.

In "Noted," in the April 21, 2008 issue of The Nation, William Greider pointed out, "Let the Federal Reserve become the 'supercop' of Wall Street. That's a hoot. The Fed is a principle culprit – the bankers' friend – that looked the other way, then showered billions on the failing financiers... They will be sorry if they do. Putting the Federal Reserve in charge is not reform but surrender."

Significantly, Ron Paul has proposed the abolition of the Federal Reserve System rather than expanding its roll in managing the money supply and economy. This is probably closer to a long-term solution to our systemic financial woes than any other single thing (but Pridger has yet to see any comprehensive plan, or the mechanics of just how that proposed abolition and return to a gold standard could be made to unfold).

Maybe we should keep the Federal Reserve Board as an oversight committee, and merely strip it of it's money creation functions – it's the private money monopoly that is really destroying our economic prospects.

John Q. Pridger

IS THE "NEW" IRAQI GOVERNMENT UNRAVELING?

The troop surge has apparently worked! April Fools! And there's no end in sight for the quagmire we've created for ourselves in that tortured one-time sovereign, functioning, nation (under our old friend and anti-Iranian ally, Saddam Hussein).

We've "broken" Iraq in the most fundamental ways – something we failed to do in Vietnam. Vietnam, in fact, fell quickly into "order" once we vacated (tough though it might have been for some time). But Iraq will likely be a totally different story. It's already in chaotic disarray, as various factions try to carve our their own pieces of the pie, killing each other in the process.

The only possible advantage we gain by staying in Iraq is defined only by falling back on the old "light at the end of the tunnel" metaphor – and a mighty dim and distant light it is. The only thing we have to gain by leaving would be to perhaps lessen the collateral damage our sophisticated weaponry inflicts on innocent people, and save the lives and health of a lot of American servicemen and women. That would seem sufficient motivation and payback for most of us.

The costs would continue to be high if we leave, of course, but not as high as if we stay. In fact, if we succeed in taming Iraq, we'll definitely have a moral obligation to rebuild the nation and lavish it with foreign aid for decades to come. But if we leave it in chaos (now chaos of their own making), we might be able to wash our hands of it entirely and save some money, at least until they get their house in some sort of order.

If fighting and killing has to continue in Iraq, it should be done by Iraqis. If people have to continue to die in Iraq, it shouldn't be Americans.

Can something that's already raveled come unraveled?

John Q. Pridger

Ye Olde Email Bag

IS THIS A CHRISTIAN NATION?

CONSERVATIVE: This is a Christian nation.

ACLU: No! This is NOT a Christian nation, and never has been! The very thought is dangerous to our liberty!

LIBERAL: I agree with the ACLU. You can't have tolerance and understanding, or even freedom of religion, in anything but a secular nation with a high, brick and mortar, Wall of Separation between church and state.

IRRITATED REDNECK: Yes, we are a Christian nation, and you liberals and ACLU cranks are lucky that we are!
     But sometimes I wish to God we could quit being a Christian nation for just six months. Then we could really make some changes and clean house! We'd start by ridding the nation of ACLU lawyers, liberal judges, leftist intellectuals and college professors, abortionists, pornographers, atheists, Jews, Blacks, Muslims, and illegal aliens – and do it with a great degree of un-Christian prejudice!
     And while we're at it, we could bring the troops home and bomb the whole Middle East plumb off the map. It would be back to eye for an eye law – only it would be ten thousand eyes for an eye, and twenty thousand teeth for a tooth.
     After this, we could repent and go back to being Christians again – and maybe the next time around we could remain faithful to our creed.
     Being Christians, in a Christian nation, however – and still faithful to our religion – we can't do any of these things, because our religion teaches us that we must be tolerant of others and love our enemies as well as our friends and neighbors. As children we're taught the difference between right and wrong, and to forgive the shortcomings of others.
     The "Wall of Separation" of church and state has already been too broad and too high, for too long. Our national store of Christian tolerance is already wearing mighty thin. Thanks in part to the ACLU and like-minded activists, we're building a majority generation without a smattering of Christian scruples.
     When a non-Christian majority finally develops in this country, Watch out!

PRIDGER vs. The New World Order
John Q. Pridger's COMMENTS ON NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS Politics, economics, and social issues as seen through Pridger's mud-splattered lenses.
E-Mail pridger@heritech.com Why Pridger writes this Blog?	WHAT PRIDGER'S CRUSADE IS ALL ABOUT The question is no longer whether or not there has been a conspiracy to bring about globalism and the new international economic order (a.k.a. New World Order). Whether you believe in a grand conspiracy or not, the New World Order materialized, ready or not – whether we like it or not – and it effects all of us intimately. It arrived as a "done deal," a fait accompli, compliments of a combination of our elected misrepresentatives and unaccountable global movers and shakers. It came with no advanced public advertisements; no public assessment period; no comment period; and, of course, no up or down vote. In other words, both democratic processes and the "informed consent" of the governed were scrupulously avoided. Ignorance, apathy, and complacency, provided the only "consent" required – that, and a rush to buy cheap imports. If it was not a conspiracy, then what was it? An act of God? Little doubt there is evidence of "Intelligent Design." But, of course, the New World Order is still a work in progress – being accomplished without the informed consent of any electorate. And along with the "building" it is a process of destruction, and of burning bridges, to insure that we cannot easily correct our course or go back to what has worked well in the past, for it entails the end of local economics, and local self-reliance. Interdependence and dependence for all, self-reliance and independence for none. For all the high sounding rhetoric and possible good intentions on the part of many, the New World Order is about consolidation of global corporate hegemony, under the regulatory umbrella of United Nations agencies – world governance with international finance and capital interests in the driver's seat. This is what globalization and our current Crusades abroad are essentially all about. Pridger laments that we Americans have been sold down the river by the collective national leadership, and that the nation of our founders – of which we were rightfully proud – has effectively ceased to exist!
Pridger's Home Page Pridger's Web Host Heritech.com NAAAP Archive	The question now is: What are we going to do about it? Is there any way for We the People to regain control? And, is there any hope for a return to government of the people, by the people, and for the people? Is there even a place for government of the people, by the people and for the people anywhere in a globalized corporate world? A pretty comprehensive history of the New World Order can be read on the Overlords of Chaos web site. The material presented is very extensive, and the annotations well written. Though presented with an obvious religious bias, the facts presented stand on their own merit. Even the most pragmatic and skeptical will find the information very enlightening. (See: Why Pridger writes this Blog?)

WHAT PRIDGER'S CRUSADE IS ALL ABOUT