My normally bubbly, expressive little girl was extremely quiet and still when I gently went over the basics of "where babies come from." As I scanned her face, struggling for signs to help me determine what I should say next - like how much detail to add or what words to use - she gave me absolutely no guidance. Throughout my 20-minute gut-wrenching lesson (I was as cool as a cucumber on the outside!) she said but one word when I finished, "Yucky."

I expect Kristin and I will laugh together about our memories of "the talk" someday.

To be sure, I would much rather have waited until later to explain the mystery of procreation. But in today's world, I knew time was against me. Our children are bombarded with sexual information - there's no escaping it in our modern culture. What a shame that we have polluted their innocence with images and false information about love and human sexuality.

According to recent research, our children are paying with their bodies for the pathetic reality that adults have failed in our role to protect childhood innocence. The National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy found that almost 20 percent of children have had intercourse before their 15th birthday. One in seven of these sexually active girls became pregnant.

Having sex at such an early age leads to many problems, the study notes. Sexually experienced children were far more likely than virgins to engage in other risky behavior. They were six times more likely to drink at least once a week. They were three times more likely to smoke and four times more likely to use marijuana. Worse, only about a third of parents were even aware their children were putting their health in jeopardy by having sex.

Parents and kids alike often squirm in conversations about sex. But the truth is kids need to hear from you about the beauty of sex in marriage, and they need you to protect them from images that say otherwise. It is a constant but worthy battle that must be waged on many levels every single day.

For example, my own children are well aware of the policy at our house when it comes to renting films: If it has worse than a PG rating - Mom or Dad will watch it first to determine if our teens can see it. R-rated movies are off limits. Yet, because many of their friends' parents have given in to the "battle over the ratings," my teen-age sons will frequently present me with a popular PG-13 or R-rated movie at the video store, just to see if it would be OK, this one time. I always respond, "The answer is the same tonight as it was last weekend, and last month, and the month before that: NO." It's become sort of a game for our family, but it's really a lesson for all of us in the importance of setting standards and keeping with them.

Like it or not, we're teaching our children from the moment they come into the world. They watch us like hawks. As they see us obey laws, treat others with respect and remain faithful to our spouse, they learn to do those things, too. If we engage in watching raunchy videos, use foul language or cave-in to the cultural pressures on us as adults, how can we expect them as children, to not give-in to pressure?

For those parents who have the fortitude to fight the battle on behalf of their kids, there isn't a lot of reinforcement to be found. Abstinence-education in schools can be helpful, if the programs truly teach kids to say "no." But beware: Many programs have the word "abstinence" in the title but send a mixed message - instructing children what to do if they decide to have sex, instead of making them realize that their health and happiness depend on waiting.

As a Heritage Foundation study last year found, "many traditional safe-sex programs now take to calling themselves 'abstinence plus' or 'abstinence-based' education. In reality, there is little abstinence training in 'abstinence-based' education. Instead, these programs are thinly disguised efforts to promote condom use."

Heritage Foundation research also proved that real abstinence education can help cut sexual activity among youth. But as the example above shows, it's up to parents to make sure the program their children are in is a good one.

As parents, most of us would do anything to protect our children if we saw they were in danger. Unfortunately, this survey proves that too many children today are in danger. Parents are the first - and often the only - line of defense for today's youth. Your mission is clear, Mom and Dad. As Dr. Laura would say, "Now go and do the right thing."

This is the first of a series of occasional columns I will write ripping to shreds every single Democratic candidate for president.

Why just the Democrats? Because they are all evil. They are all rotten to the core. They are all miscreants not even deserving citizenship in our great country, let alone the privilege and honor of serving as president of the United States.

They are liars - one and all. They are thieves. They want to steal more of your money. They want to steal more of your freedom. They want to steal your country away from you.

They are moral reprobates. They would sell their souls to gain the White House if any of them had one.

I say this not as a Republican. I am not a Republican. I am registered to no political party. I did not vote for President Bush in 2000 and I am not at all persuaded to vote for him in 2004. I'll probably have a few choice words to say about his ill-conceived domestic and foreign policies between now and then.

But let's not kid ourselves. He's head and shoulders above his predecessor and any of the donkeys seeking to replace him from the party of jackasses.

So here goes. Here's my first swipe.

As the author of "Taking America Back," I'd like to set the record straight about a politician who just threw his hat into the ring for the presidential nomination.

Former Florida Gov. Bob Graham launched his presidential campaign this week promising to "bring America back."

Sound familiar?

Who is this fake, phony fraud trying to hijack my words?

Any similarity between this politician's catchphrase and mine is purely exploitative. Here's what Graham stands for:

A friend, whose son is currently serving in the U.S. military in Iraq, shared the following letter with us. This young man is making a sincere appeal for humanitarian help for the Iraqi people, with whom he has come into close contact as he serves his country there.

It is our belief that we could not do other than present this letter and hope that readers will be moved to do all in their power to alleviate suffering and show the Iraqis that the American people are a kind and generous people. —The Editors, Unravelling the New World Order.

24 April 2003

Dear Friends,

As most of you know, I am serving [in Iraq] with the United States Marine Corps as a Forward Air Controller. Currently, the hostilities have subsided and we are in what experts refer to as the “nation building” phase. The length of time that this particular phase of “Operation Iraqi Freedom” will take is unknown. What is known is that there is much to accomplish.
The United States Marine Corps is woefully unequipped to complete most of the current objectives; we are an organization skilled in war fighting, not nation building. I can assure you that the greatest of effort is being given; however, very few of us have any training in this particular field. The Iraqi people, at least in this region, are being as patient as possible, yet they have needs that must be addressed. Their requirements are the reason for my correspondence.
The unit that I am assigned to (2nd Battalion, 5th Marines) has been given responsibility for the region around a city in southern Iraq called As Samawah. The city is located approximately 240 kilometers south of Baghdad. The recent history of As Samawah is relatively peaceful and now is no exception. Since our arrival here on 19 April 2003 this city has seen absolutely no fighting. The situation here is classified as “permissive.” This term will become more important later.
I am sending this letter via email to my personal address list, and I apologize in advance if I do not contact some of you directly. I have attempted in my relationships with all of you to ask for as little as possible except for your friendship. In most of our relationships this will be the first favor that I have asked. I am hoping that the network of friends and family that I contact will spread the word far and wide. Some of you may have significant political or economic influence; some of you may know others who do, and in either case I am asking for help.
This phase of nation building is normally the mission of the United States Army. Due to the Marine Corps’ relative inexperience and the speed with which the people in this region are attempting to embrace democracy, the bureaucratic juggernaut is having a difficult time keeping up. The people here need infrastructure rebuilt, curriculum rewritten, school supplies, and an operational police force; most of all they need what the military refers to as Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO’s). These worldwide organizations are equipped to handle the kind of humanitarian needs displayed by this community. What I need from all of you is help getting the word out. I am asking in the sincerest manner that I know for you to use every power at your disposal to encourage, influence—bully if you must—NGO’s, politicians, and bureaucrats to cut as much red tape as necessary to help the people here.
This community needs assistance now, not a month from now when the military finally gets the word out that this community is a “permissive environment.” It seems that the term “permissive environment” is a buzzword required by NGO’s for their arrival in a given community—and rightfully so, as this term assures them of their relative safety to conduct humanitarian operations.
There are of course proper channels for the NGO’s to operate through. Many of these organizations may have personnel already in the country, or en route. They can contact the military, specifically the United States Marine Corps, and work through these channels to get representatives here in As Samawah. They can skip these channels and just show up in As Samawah and look for the Marines. The latter technique has been successful for at least one organization, GOAL, based in Ireland; we just bumped into them and they are beginning to help.
It matters not to me how they get here to help, just that they arrive here immediately. The longer it takes to get the right assistance here, the greater the chance that seeds of discontent will take hold and grow. It would truly be a shame if more people here were hurt because extremists were allowed to infiltrate this community and fester growing frustrations with our inadequacies. The people here are genuinely kind, gentle, and friendly. They have lived under an oppressive regime for decades. They have endured unspeakable atrocities. They deserve the best that America can offer them now in the early moments of a budding democracy.
I beg you; I implore you to use all methods at your disposal to speed the proper organizations along to this community, specifically the International Red Cross/Red Crescent. A more opportune time, a more prepared community cannot be found in this country. There exists an opportunity here to make an example that other cities in this country can follow. There exists an opportunity here to make a small difference in an unjust world. Please do everything that you can to help, and please do it today.

Respectfully,

Probably the most belligerent of those nations who have opposed U.S./British military action against Saddam Hussein’s regime, France has distanced herself almost completely from the military aspects of the global war on terrorism. In fact, French leaders seem to believe their nation’s position as leader of the worldwide opposition to war in Iraq has given it a measure of shelter from terrorism. Time will tell whether Chirac can manage this volatile situation without risking the loss of political power to a radical force—Islam??that shares little common ground with France other than its militant anti-Americanism.

On the international front, Chirac is desperate to reinstate lucrative oil contracts and other trade agreements that were netting billions in revenue for France prior to “Operation Iraqi Freedom.” Terrified that their pre-war trade arrangements with Saddam’s Iraq may be nullified by a new Iraqi government, Chirac hopes to parlay the current anti-American sentiment around the world, much of which has been generated in and by Arab nations around the world, into a strong post-war power position for France in the rebuilding phase. Chirac and his foreign minister Dominique De Villepin have been vociferous in their insistence that the UN is the “sole source of legitimacy” in the postwar rebuilding, even going so far as to claim that coalition forces should have no voice in the restructuring process of post-war Iraq.

In answer to that, Wesley Pruden, editor of The Washington Times, shot back:

According to his superiors and acquaintances, Akbar's attitude was bitterly anti-American and staunchly pro-Muslim. So how did this devout follower of the so-called Religion of Peace work out his attitudinal problems last weekend?

By lobbing hand grenades and aiming his M-4 automatic rifle into three tents filled with sleeping commanding officers at the 101st Airborne Division's 1st Brigade operations center in Kuwait.

Akbar is the lone suspect being detained in the despicable attack, which left more than a dozen wounded and one dead. Surviving soldiers say Akbar, found cowering in a bunker with shrapnel injuries, was overheard ranting after the assault: "You guys are coming into our countries, and you're going to rape our women and kill our children."

"Our"? At least there's no doubt about where this Religion of Peace practitioner's true loyalties lie.

Naturally, apologists for Islam-gone-awry are hard at work dismissing this traitorous act of murder as an "isolated, individual act and not an expression of faith." But such sentiments are willfully blind and recklessly PC.

Sgt. Akbar is not the only MSWA - Muslim soldier with attitude - suspected of infiltrating our military, endangering our troops and undermining national security:

Victor Mordecai is the pen name of an American-born Jew who immigrated to Israel in 1968. He completed a BA at Hebrew University in 1973 with a major in Soviet, Russian and Eastern European studies, and a minor in Spanish and Latin American studies. In the course of his Russian and Spanish studies, Mordecai discovered a common and pervasive thread between the two nations: centuries of war with Islam.

Mordecai speaks six languages, and has extensive background in international media and in the Israeli military. Two main thrusts of his work as senior editor and translator in the Israeli Government Press Office under Yitzhak Shamir's administration were the preparation of a daily press survey from the Israeli press, and translating Islamic press material into English for foreign journalists.

Victor served 12 years in the Israeli Defense Forces as an Army Spokesman in the Judea and Samaria Command and for 15 years as an artillery crewman in the IDF reserves.

Over the course of the last eleven years, Victor Mordecai has come to the firm conviction that a Judeo-Christian alliance is crucial for Israel to survive and vanquish the Islamic threat to its existence. He believes that radical Islam is a threat not only to the Jews and the Christians, but to the rest of the world as well.

Because he is fluent in a half-dozen languages, Victor has been able to escort and lecture to countless Christian groups visiting IDF bases in Israel. Those contacts have facilitated opportunities for him to speak privately in churches in the U.S. and Canada. Mordecai sees his mission as a battle for Israel, for Judeo-Christian western civilization and democracy--and finally, for the survival of the entire world.

For over thirteen years, I have been traveling the world, especially the U.S., and investigating the movements and plans of Islamic terrorists whose goal is a global Islamic empire and the annihilation of all other systems.

I started my travels, mostly in Texas at first, and accumulated testimonies in the churches from people who worked with the military, law enforcement, or other government agencies. These people had no reason to lie, but simply came forward with sincerity when telling me about Islamic attempts to infiltrate the U.S. from Mexico. This is detailed in my first book, Is Fanatic Islam a Global Threat?

The first major terrorist infiltrations into the U.S. that I heard about in Texas were Palestinian terrorists who came across the Rio Grande River at Boca Chica. These infiltrations started in the 1982-83 period, at about the time of "Operation Peace in the Galilee" (the Israeli incursion into Lebanon to terminate the PLO mini-state). It was also at this time, just after the 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran, that the Iranians started their invasion of the U.S., also with inimical plans for America. The two remaining Islamic revolutions which brought in terrorists were (1) the defeat of the Soviets in Afghanistan, which released tens of thousands of Al-Qaeda type terrorists to infiltrate the U.S. and (2) the turning of Iraq into an enemy in 1990 with the invasion of Kuwait. Many divergent groups of Moslems were now aligning themselves together into one army of Allah with which to defeat the U.S.

With the election of Bill Clinton to the presidency in 1992, a new ideology evolved: "It's the economy, stupid." The purpose of this ideology was to subordinate all other ideologies to one important goal: economic growth and prosperity. There was no room for God or for gods of any kind other than money, or "mammon," as it's known in the Bible.

Bill Clinton's thinking went like this: The only thing that interests Americans and the world is money. Wall Street must only climb. Therefore, Americans must be encouraged to invest. Investments only come about when the people have confidence in the economy. Any threat to that confidence will shatter the fragile economy. If there is a threat to the economy, it can and must be bought off with money. (This, in Mafia
terminology is called "paying protection.")

When the World Trade Center underwent its first attack in February 1993, all the blame was placed on Sheikh Omar Abdul Rahman, an Egyptian cleric who preached Islamic Jihad, or Holy War, and urged the assassination of Egyptian President Anwar Sadat in 1981. Fourteen other co-conspirators were also given life imprisonment, but the "big fish," Ramzi Youssef, an Iraqi agent who built the bomb, got away.

It was easy for the American people to accept a "sealed and shut" case against 15 terrorists and leave it at that. But spreading the blame to include Saddam Hussein would have caused a no-confidence vote in Wall Street. Clinton succeeded in avoiding that.

In 1995, Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols were apprehended after the bombing at the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. All blame was pinned on McVeigh at first; then, after his execution, the blame was extended to Nichols as well. I received information first-hand about Islamic involvement in the Oklahoma City bombing while I was in Tulsa, Oklahoma, at the time of the attack. But no one wanted to consider the Islamic or Iraqi connection to the blast. (For more information, see page 265 of my book Is Fanatic Islam a Global Threat? as well as my November 2001 newsletter, which can be viewed at www.vicmord.com.)

An Oklahoma City investigative reporter by the name of Jayna Davis was working for NBC at that time and accumulated over 1,000 pages of evidence regarding the Iraqi involvement in the bombing. The FBI refused to accept the evidence. Why? Because: "It's the economy, stupid." The American people could accept two individuals like McVeigh and Nichols as being the guilty parties, but to extend this to include Saddam Hussein would "open up a bag of worms" which would threaten confidence in the U.S. economy. Americans don't like bogeymen, and don't understand foreign ideologies. That was the thrust of the Clinton Administration from 1992 to 2000.

In 1996, a day before the TWA800 disaster, Saddam Hussein spoke in his national assembly in Baghdad and said: "Tomorrow is Iraq's National Day, and we are going to give the world a big surprise." On page 266 of my book, Is Fanatic Islam a Global Threat? I give many proofs that the plane did not fall out of the skies because of a fuel injection problem, but was shot out of the skies by a missile--an Islamic Saddam Hussein missile. But the Clinton Administration ignored or, rather, covered up this terrorist act by Saddam in order to prevent a panic in which Americans would be afraid to fly. This, in turn, would lead to the collapse of the airline industry and the tourism industry in America.

According to the book by Yossef Bodansky, Bin Laden, the Man Who Declared War on America, Clinton paid bin Laden "protection money" to keep his terrorists away from American soil. This was exactly the manner in which the Saudis, Egyptians, and Europeans behaved to "buy time, to buy protection" for their economies.

When the Texas Cowboy, George W. Bush, became president in 1991, he claimed to be a born-again Christian, and definitely made no claims to pay off the terrorists. To make a long story short, the deal which had served Clinton so well in the 1990's was now off. The chickens came home to roost with the 9/11 attacks.

In July 1994, information appeared about the counterfeiting of U.S. $100 bills by Iran and Iraq, because in addition to enjoying extra greenbacks, the way to destroy the U.S. economy was to cause a lack of confidence in the "greenback" -- the U.S. currency. This information appeared in the Israeli English language daily, The Jerusalem Post.

Bill Clinton's response was the creation of a new currency, a new dollar bill. But Americans were only to know about this change in currency two years later, in 1996. Again, why? Clinton did not want a panic. But he did know that Islam was trying to destroy the U.S. economy, either by destroying airplanes and tourism, or the U.S. currency. What was his solution? Buy off the Islamic terrorists, whether they were led by Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, Yasser Arafat, or Ayatollah Khomeini.

Another form of the solution was to back Moslem causes in Bosnia, Chechnya or
Kosovo at the expense of the Christians, and to force Israel into an untenable situation with an Oslo "peace process" that would lead to the destruction of Israel and another Holocaust of the Jewish people. In 1998, the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were blown up by bin Laden's terrorists. In 2000, the U.S. Cole had a hole punched in its side by more of bin Laden's terrorists who committed suicide by driving their
explosives-laden dinghy into the side of the U.S. Navy destroyer, killing 17 U.S. sailors. What was Clinton's response? He shot a few Tomahawk missiles into empty tents in the Afghan desert and into a pharmaceuticals plant in Khartoum, Sudan.

According to U.S. Rep. Rohrabacher, President Clinton twice knew the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden. Rohrabacher begged that Clinton "take him out,” but Clinton looked the other way, because attacking the U.S. abroad was OK. Killing bin Laden would
be "stirring up the hornet’s nest." The only thing that mattered was that there should not be attacks against the U.S. on U.S. soil. This was the deal with the Moslem terrorists so that the U.S. economy would not be unhinged by a vote of no confidence from the American people.

As we look [back] at the economy of the U.S. and of the world in September 2002, we see the economies of the world floundering because of the lack of investor confidence. There is also a recession, which actually started during the last year of the Clinton Administration. President George W. Bush inherited a terrible legacy from Bill Clinton.

The attacks of 9/11/2001 had a two-fold intent: to cause, first of all, the toppling of the two towers in New York City, with the potential death toll reaching over 250,000 people. Praise God there was a miracle; most people either were not in the buildings or succeeded in escaping. The second, and even greater, plan of bin Laden was to cause the towers
to crash on Wall Street, literally a "crash on Wall Street." This would have destroyed the U.S. economy and brought down the great Christian Satan (in the eyes of Islam).

In recent months, there has been talk of nuclear fissionable materials getting into the hands of Saddam Hussein. There is talk of biological and chemical weapons in the U.S. and other western countries in the hands of Islamic terrorists, backed by Saddam Hussein. What happens to the U.S. economy if a nuclear or "dirty" bomb goes off in Manhattan?

So, we see that this war is [an Islamist] religious war with the intent of destroying the economy of the U.S. The Judeo-Christian West must be destroyed by first toppling the U.S. The U.S. must be destroyed by an economic crash brought on by Islamic terrorists with conventional, atomic, biological or chemical weapons.

Two of the most significant (and terrible) legacies President Bush inherited were (1) the blinding and "dumbing" down of the CIA, NSA, FBI and the State Department, as well as local law enforcement and the military during the two Clinton terms; and (2) Islamist radicalism and Islamic demographic growth worldwide--like growing cancers, harder to deal with today than they were in 1992 when Clinton came to power.

President George W. Bush's approach has been: Terrorism is the enemy, not Islam. Now, of course, I couldn't disagree more. Islam is the root cause of the terrorism. But his strategy has been to work with the so-called "moderates" such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan, and Syria to root out the Al-Qaeda and those related to them; for that, he needs the support and cooperation of the "moderates."

Unfortunately, however, I feel that these countries are part of the problem and not the solution. There are those in the U.S., Canada, Europe, Russia and even Israel who believe that the way to deal with rampant Islamic growth and conquest is to "do business with them."

My belief is that we all need to grab the bull by the horns and defeat global Islam. If you want to get rid of the mosquitoes, you need to drain the swamp. I do not see this happening in Washington, London, Paris, Berlin, Moscow or even Jerusalem.

But the day will come, I believe, that 5/6 of the world's population will wake up and will deal with the 1/6 (Moslems) who want to destroy everyone else. The answer is either the genocide of the Moslems or their forced abandonment of that satanic religion, Islam, which is at the root of the world's problems today.

Further, there must be the realization that the so-called god Allah is not just another name for God. Allah is the opposite of God. Allah is Satan. This is a war between God and Satan. The good news is that God has already defeated Satan, and we are the victorious side if we remain loyal to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and recognize the above facts.

###

Note: The article above has been edited slightly for publication here, due to its length. Readers will find the original article in its entirety at www.vicmord.com.

Mordecai has authored two books, Is Fanatic Islam A Global Threat? and Christian Revival for Israel’s Survival. Both books are available by calling the FAMC publications office at 1-800-336-7000. A third book, compiled from the last twelve issues of his website newsletter, will soon be released.

Let’s say that you really get your way and we destroy all our nuclear weapons and stick daisies in our gun barrels and sit around with some white wine and cheese and pat ourselves on the back, so proud of what we’ve done for world peace.

Let’s say that we close down our military bases all over the world and bring the troops home, increase our foreign aid and drop all the trade sanctions against everybody.

I suppose that in your fantasy world this would create a utopian world where everybody would live in peace. After all, the great monster, the United States of America, the cause of all the world’s trouble would have disbanded it’s horrible military and certainly all the other countries of the world would follow suit.

After all, they only arm themselves to defend their countries form the mean old U.S.A.
Why you bunch of pitiful, hypocritical, idiotic, spoiled mugwumps. Get your head our of the sand and smell the Trade Towers burning. Do you think that a trip to Iraq by Sean Penn did anything but encourage a wanton murderer to think that the people of the U.S.A. didn’t have the nerve or the guts to fight him?

Barbra Sreisand’s fanatical and hateful rankings about George Bush makes about as much sense as Michael Jackson hanging a baby over a railing.

You people need to get out of Hollywood once in a while and get out into the real world. You’d be surprised at the hostility you would find out here. Stop in at a truck stop and tell an overworked, long distance truck driver that you don’t think Saddam Hussein is doing anything wrong.

Tell a farmer with a couple of sons in the military that you think the United States has no right to defend itself.

Go down to Baxley, Georgia and hold an anti-war rally and see what the folds down there think about you.

You people are some of the most disgusting examples of a waste of protoplasm I’ve ever had the displeasure to hear about.

Sean Penn, you’re a traitor to the United States of America. You gave aid and comfort to the enemy. How many Americans lives will your little, “fact finding trip” to Iraq cost? You encourage Saddam to think that we didn’t have the stomach for war.
You people protect one of the most evil men on the face of this earth and won’t lift a finger to save the life of an unborn baby. Freedom of choice you say?
Well I’m going to exercise some of my own. If I see any of your names on a marquee, I’m going to boycott the movie. I will completely stop going to movies if I have to. In most cases it certainly wouldn’t be much of a loss.

You scoff at our military whose boots you’re not even worthy to shine. They go to battle and risk their lives so ingrates like you can live in luxury. The day of reckoning is coming when you will be faced with the undeniable truth that the war against Saddam Hussein is the war on terrorism.

America is in imminent danger. You’re either for her or against her. There is no middle ground.

I think we all know where you stand.

What do you think?

God Bless America!

Charlie Daniels

The USA-PATRIOT Act introduced a plethora of legislative changes which significantly increased the surveillance and investigative powers of law enforcement agencies in the United States. However, many civil libertarians are concerned that The Act did not provide for the system of checks and balances that traditionally safeguards civil liberties in the face of such legislation.

The final legislation included a few beneficial additions from the Administration's initial proposal. One was the so-called sunset provision (which provides that the sections of the act automatically expire after a certain period of time, unless they are explicitly renewed by Congress) on some of the electronic surveillance provisions. Another was an amendment providing judicial oversight of law enforcement's use of the FBI's Carnivore system.

The USA-PATRIOT Act of 2001 retains provisions that significantly expand government investigative authority, especially with respect to the Internet. It also introduced other sweeping changes to U.S. law, including amendments to:

The Wiretap Statute (Title III)
The Electronic Communications Privacy Act
The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
The Family Education Rights and Privacy Act
The Pen Register and Trap and Trace Statute
Money Laundering Act
Immigration and Nationality Act
Money Laundering Control Act
Bank Secrecy Act
Right to Financial Privacy Act
Fair Credit Reporting Act

Other troubling aspects of the Patriot Act of 2001 include authority to conduct secret searches (Section 213); expanded scope of subpoenas pertaining to electronic communications (Section 210); and “roving wiretap” authority (Section 206), which could have a significant impact on the privacy rights of large numbers of innocent users, particularly those who access the Internet through public facilities such as libraries, university computer labs and cyber cafes.

These and other sweeping changes noted in the list above are by no means an exhaustive list of the concerns that continue to be expressed by civil libertarians and watchdog groups regarding the USA Patriot Act of 2001.

Patriot II?
Now, the USA Patriot Act of 2001 appears to have a follow-up version, nicknamed “Patriot II,” which has brought intense scrutiny from civil rights groups who claim the proposed bill would gut the Fourth Amendment.

The Justice Department, denying that a bill is in the works, released a statement that said, “It should not be surprising that the Department of Justice . . . discusses additional tools to protect the American people.”

However, privacy advocates and civil rights groups say that the Justice Department circulated internally a confidential 120-page summary and text of what was entitled the “Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003” in early January, 2003. The Center for Public Integrity published a copy of the leaked document early in February this year.

The TomPaine.com website stated on February 7, 2003 (www.tompaine.com) that the proposed sequel to the U.S.A. Patriot Act would “give the government broad, sweeping new powers to increase domestic intelligence-gathering, surveillance and law enforcement prerogatives” while simultaneously decreasing “judicial review and public access to information.”

Other groups such as the ACLU, the Center for Public Integrity, CNET, OMBWatch and the Friends Committee on National Legislation (to name just a few) have recently published warnings about increased executive police power that they believe would be instituted with Patriot II, were it to be enacted.

Wired News, an Internet wire service (www.wired.com/news) warns in a recent article (“A Chilly Response to ‘Patriot II,’” February 12, 2003) that “Patriot II” would create a terrorist DNA database, and would allow the U.S. Attorney General to revoke citizenship of those who provide “material support” to terrorist groups.

Further, the Wired News article claims that the legislation, if enacted, would allow the government to:
· Conduct domestic wiretapping without court order for 15 days following a congressional authorization of use of force or an attack on the U.S.
· Secretly detain citizens.
· Deport any alien, including green-card holders, who are convicted of drug possession or an aggravated felony.
· Access a citizen’s credit reports without a subpoena.
· Abolish federal court “consent decrees” that limit police surveillance of non-criminal organizations and public events.
· Criminalize the use of encryption software in the commission or planning of a felony.
· Apply strict gag rules to those subpoenaed by a grand jury.
· Extend authorization periods for secret wiretaps and Internet surveillance.
· Ease restrictions on the use of secret evidence.

Some do not find the draft ominous or threatening. Mike Scardaville, a policy analyst for the Heritage Foundation, commented, “We need to come back and see if the Patriot Act’s tools need strengthening. This is not a program for total government secrecy.”

There has been some degree of misinformation about “government secrecy” surrounding what is seen by some as a stealth attempt to further diminish Americans’ liberties in the name of anti-terrorism protection. Some news accounts have incorrectly reported that the legislation was sent to Vice President Cheney and House Speaker Dennis Hastert. The control sheet (PDF) indicates only that the document was sent to 10 internal divisions of the Justice Department. (Wire News states by way of explaining the apparent discrepancy that, “Although the control sheet appears to be addressed to and from Rep. Hastert and Vice President Cheney, those are actually just suppressed recipient lists. Both Hastert and Cheney deny receiving the draft.”)

Given the intense attention the proposed bill has already generated, some in Congress doubt such a bill will be introduced soon.

Readers with access to the Internet and Acrobat Reader can access the 120-page draft published by The Center for Public Integrity at: www.publicintegrity.org/dtaweb/downloads/Story_01_020703_Doc_1.pdf.

A classified U.S. intelligence report revealed recently that Iraqis in Canada have been ordered to recruit Arabs and other foreigners for espionage missions in the U.S. and to carry out anti-U.S. demonstrations to stop a war against Iraq. According to the report, the Iraqis are willing to spend “large sums” to back the effort (WordNetDaily, Jan. 30, 2003).

In the real world, we know there will be espionage and other hostile actions from our enemies. But a more insidious form of attack comes from within--through members of the United States Congress, some of whom have supported terrorist groups for years.

On February 4, 2003, Insightmag.com published information gleaned from their investigation into the connections between terrorist organizations and some members of Congress (J. Michael Waller, “When Politicians Support Terrorism”).

Undermining Rule of Law
Some readers may remember the case of Muslim militant Mumia Abu-Jamal, convicted of murdering Philadelphia police officer Daniel Faulkner in 1981. Mumia had shot the 25-year-old policeman point-blank in the face and once in the back.

Tom Ridge, Governor of Pennsylvania at that time, signed the execution warrant for Mumia. A handful of leftist congressmen attacked Ridge for this lawful act, and mounted a long campaign to “Free Mumia.” One of them, Rep. John Conyers, Michigan Democrat and a member of the Democratic Socialists of America caucus, has been on the “Mumia campaign” from the beginning.

Twenty-term Conyers, long known to be a prominent friend of radicals and revolutionaries, has also taken up the cause of Leonard Peltier, convicted murderer of two FBI special agents. Conyers argues that Mumia and Peltier are “victims of a racist and bigoted system.”

The Insight investigation found that a half-dozen sitting members of the House and Senate have provided active support to terrorist organizations and regimes that sponsor terrorism. Unfortunately, would-be critics do nothing for fear they will be labeled racist, since many of the advocates for these cop-killers and terrorists are members of ethnic minorities.

“Hate America” Bunch in Power Positions
As the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, John Conyers shares oversight of the Justice Department and the FBI and has the power to write and amend anti-terrorism legislation.

There’s much more. According to the Insight investigation, Barbara Lee (D-CA), who sits on the House International Relations Committee, is another “Free Mumia” member of Congress with long-standing ties to Marxist groups and terrorist-supporting regimes.

In the early 80’s, Lee was a staffer to left-winger Ron Dellums. She and Dellums worked actively to support the revolutionary efforts of the Marxist regime on the Caribbean island of Grenada. That island was a strategic threat to the U.S., as it served as a trans-shipment point for Soviet weaponry to guerrilla and terrorist organizations in this hemisphere.

Other U.S. lawmakers have supported FALN, a domestic terrorist group that is working to persuade Puerto Rico to secede from the United States and adopt a Marxist-Leninist regime. The FALN was responsible for more than 130 bombings and the murder of at least six people during the 1970s and 1980s. House members Jose Serrano (D-NY), Nydia Velazquez (D-NY) and Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) all left-wingers of Puerto Rican ancestry (and all members of the Democratic Socialists of America caucus) have supported the cause of 16 convicted FALN members serving time in federal prison for terrorist activities. Serrano is the ranking Democrat on the House Appropriations panel in control of the FBI budget.

Bill Clinton granted clemency to the convicted FALN members in August 1999, just as Hillary Clinton was campaigning for the Senate in New York. However, Clinton’s clemency offer did not poll well in New York State, and Mrs. Clinton hastened to deny that she was in any way involved in the decision.

Another terrorist group that has had active support from members of the U.S. Congress is the Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front (FMLN) in El Salvador. That group is known to have assassinated American military trainers, U.S. Marines at the embassy in San Salvador, American businessmen, and CIA personnel.

Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), now House minority leader (and a member of the Democratic Socialists of America caucus), has supported the FMLN, according to the Insight investigation. Insight also identified FMLN supporters Christopher Dodd (D-CT), who secured the release in the 1980s of an operative with the FMLN after Salvadoran authorities found her house in San Salvador had been used as an FMLN arsenal; John Conyers, active in a group that channeled medicine and first-aid to FMLN groups; and Senators Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) and Tom Harkin (D-IA).

Unravelling The New World Order has reported more than once that nearly sixty members of the Democratic Party are members of the Democratic Socialists of America caucus. It should not be surprising that individuals who are wholly dedicated to changing America into a socialist state might support violent and subversive methods for accomplishing that goal.

To be fair, some of the roughly two dozen lawmakers involved were drawn unwittingly into supporting terrorist organizations. However, some are hard-core extremists, such as Conyers, Dellums, Lee and Serrano, and knew very well what they were doing.

Few, if any, of the establishment news organizations identified the organizers for what they are: communists with a long record of support for terrorist organizations and their leaders, which list has included such luminaries as the Ayatollah Khomeini, Slobodan Milosevic, Saddam Hussein, and Kim Jong-Il—to name a few.

One of the featured speakers ranted, “We have to stop America’s war against the people of Iraq, and the people of Palestine, Colombia and the world. . . . As revolutionaries, as progressives, we have to resist American imperialism.” (Sound familiar?)

Then there was the Imam Mussa, who had denounced America last August in the Millions For Reparations March as a “racist, imperialist monster.” On this occasion, the Imam made a point of supporting regime change--but in Washington, D.C.—not in Baghdad. “It’s revolution time, brothers and sisters. We have to get rid of greedy murderers and imperialists like George Bush!” The Imam then led the crowd in the chant that suicide bombers use as they blow up innocent men, women and children: “Allahu Ahkbar! Allahu Ahkbar!”

Another speaker, head of “Black Voices for Peace” ranted, “Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld—that’s the Axis of Evil!”

One cause familiar to anti-American activists and revolutionaries--and virtually guaranteed to generate a fevered rage among the uninformed--reared its head as one of the key figures in organizing the Millions for Reparations March led the crowd in chants to free two convicted murderers, Mumia Abu Jamal and Jamin al Alamin (better known as H. Rap Brown).

Most disturbing (but not surprising) is Horowitz’s report that there were prominent Democrat officials on the platforms. In San Francisco, the most powerful Democrat legislator in the state, John Burton, screamed, “the President is full of s - - -” and other obscenities, all the while denouncing America, rather than Iraq, as the outlaw state. In Washington, D.C., presidential hopeful Al Sharpton was in attendance, along with ex-congresswoman Cynthia McKinney who railed, “In no other country on the planet do so many people have so little as they do in this country!”

Powerful members of the House of Representatives--Charles Rangel, the potential head of the Ways and Means Committee, and John Conyers, potential head of the Judiciary Committee--were also in attendance. Twenty-term Conyers from Detroit has been a communist icon in the Democratic Party for many years, and is the author of the Reparations Bill.

This anti-American movement has deep roots in the Democratic Party. Again, we call attention to the fact that 56 congressional Democrats are members of the Democratic Socialists of America, including Nancy Pelosi, who recently ascended to the powerful position of Minority Leader of the House Democrats. (Two others who were recently members—Paul Wellstone and Patsy Mink—died within the past few months.) Many of those people have been actively involved in support of Fidel Castro and in Marxist organizations operating to seize power in several other countries in our hemisphere and in Puerto Rico.

We must end the dangerous pretense of calling this a “peace” movement and recognize it for what it is: an anti-American movement whose objective is the overthrow of the United States government and the destruction of America.

A warning about the dangers of complacency was shared recently in a tribute to Hungarian-born concert pianist Balint Vazsonyi, who died on January 17, 2003. Gary Aldrich had this to say:

“Balint Vazsonyi was a concert pianist of international renown . . . [but] his fierce conservative activism . . . is how I knew him best. Balint had a special kind of credibility . . . that enabled him to speak with authority about how things really are today . . . He had first-hand knowledge of how a strong central government could remove all freedom from a society and make living there more like a slow death . . . He could talk with authority about how Nazis and Communists participated in the mass slaughter of more than 100 million of their own citizens in the last century . . . He knew the dangers of giving the government too much power . . .

“He also insisted that words are important. One of his biggest gripes was that Socialists operating openly in this country were generously given the label “Democrat.” He knew the names described very different ideologies, and he implored other Conservatives to notice the differences and to call them what they are: Socialists!”

While we solemnly anticipate the prospect of impending war in the Middle East, it is all too obvious that we are at war here at home, as well. We are engaged in a battle to present the truth, and our success or failure will determine the future of our nation.

The main protest group is A.N.S.W.E.R. (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism), an umbrella group created by the Workers World Party (WWP), a Stalinist cult that is an off-shoot of the American Communist Party.
WWP leaders, posing as peace activists, have been given extraordinary media access in recent weeks. A short list of some of the upcoming teach-ins, rallies, and protest actions conveys the militant flavor of the movement, which attempts to equate military action in Iraq with racism, social injustice and civil rights abuses.
A teach-in is planned for February 14 in New York City, purportedly to “build an anti-war movement that connects the struggle against war on Iraq with the fight for social and economic justice and civil rights at home” followed by a rally on “linking the struggle against corporate globalization, war, militarism and racism” (our emphasis).
On February 15, a “Stop the War Through Mass Resistance And Protest” rally is scheduled in New York City and around the world, to “support self-determination for the people of the Middle East” (our emphasis). The European movement has sent requests to U.S. peace groups, including A.N.S.W.E.R., to call for actions in the United States. United for Peace has initiated a mass mobilization in New York City in solidarity with actions that day in Europe and around the world.
On “A Coordinated Day of Resistance” on February 21, war protestors are encouraged to take to the streets to fight war and racism (our emphasis) on the anniversary of the assassination of Malcolm X, who, according to the peace movement, “embodies the spirit of struggle against militarism and the racist establishment.” The protest will include student anti-war walkouts from hundreds of high schools and colleges, and other acts of non-compliance to honor Malcolm X.
“The War Criminal’s Best Friend”
The pro-Communist group A.N.S.W.E.R. is fronted by Ramsey Clark (Lyndon Johnson’s attorney general) who has spent the last forty years of his life generating anti-American propaganda. Mr. Clark, now 74, busies himself flying around the world to places such as Iran, Iraq, Panama, Serbia, Libya, and North Korea to denounce the United States for “war crimes” and “genocide.” Salon magazine has called Clark “the war criminal’s best friend.”

Clark justifies his actions by claiming that all he has been doing is what he thought would “prevent war and strengthen international institutions and protect human rights and create social and economic justice.” His peace efforts have taken some strange forms. Clark currently serves or has served as attorney for:
C Slobodan Milosevic, now on trial for war crimes;
C Elizaphan Ntakirutimana, a Rwanda clergyman charged with genocide in connection with the massacre of Tutsis in 1994;
C The Palestine Liberation Organization;
C A Bosnian Serb general indicted on charges of genocide in 1995;
C Lyndon LaRouche, an American cult leader/political activist convicted of mail fraud in 1988; and
C The “blind sheik” who was convicted for his role as adviser to the men who carried out the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993.

Clark’s “peace” group appears to be made up largely of angry Marxist holdovers from the cold war, devoted to foreign causes and failed regimes. WPP does not command thousands of members or control major labor unions. Still, it has managed to dupe thousands into believing their real agenda is peace. The WPP/A.N.S.W.E.R. group organized the antiwar demonstration that drew nearly 100,000 to Washington on October 26. They also organized the demonstration on January 18.

Stephen Schwartz, writing for FrontPageMagazine.com (Jan. 24, 2003) sets out what he calls the “despicable record of WWP in promoting Stalinist and fascist dictators.” He notes that WWP is on record supporting:
C The massacre of Chinese protestors by the armed forces in Tiananmen in 1989;
C The dictatorship of Saddam Hussein;
C The regime of North Korean dictator, Kim Jong-Il;
C Indicted Serbian war criminal Slobodan Milosevic.

Who is subsidizing this “peace” movement that, despite the apparent sincerity of many who have been drawn into it, defends monsters like Saddam Hussein and Kim Jong-Il?

Many Americans have forgotten (or never knew) that before World War II, Hitler bankrolled similar “peace movements” in the U.S. The Soviet Communist Party paid for such propaganda for many years. It is very likely that the core of the current anti-war movement is being funded by hostile foreign sources. As part of the war on terrorism, the federal government should be looking into this.
--UNWO Editors

The Biblical admonition to be sober and watchful is especially appropriate at this point in history. The world has never seemed to be in such a rush to bring cataclysmic disaster upon itself. On the other hand, the world has never been this close to the end times. As uncomfortable as we may be with the terrifying conditions evolving around the world, we can only conclude from God's Word that, the worse things become, the closer we are to the point at which God will intervene with awful judgment for those who have rejected the gift of His Son--and with infinite mercy and grace for those who have trusted Jesus Christ.

Nuclear War Potential Spreads
U.S. intelligence officials say North Korea has purchased a large shipment of chemicals from China that can be used to make nuclear-weapons fuel.

The chemical also can be used in commercial processes, such as making plastics, ink and paint, but U.S. intelligence agencies believe North Korea will use the chemical for its plutonium-based nuclear-weapons program. The chemical is used in a process known as plutonium-uranium extraction, which produces plutonium from spent reactor fuel. North Korea has a large supply of spent reactor fuel that is under international surveillance. The capability to reprocess the spent fuel means Pyongyang could produce more bombs "in fairly short order, a matter of months," according to one nuclear expert.

A belligerent North Korea appears determined to develop their nuclear blackmail arsenal, along with an inventory of other nasty weaponry that they can peddle to other nervous and militant nations like Yemen. North Korea, literally a starving nation, sells everything it can get its hands on; and these days, there is no scarcity of buyers.

Nuclear and/or biological weapons in the hands of a belligerent, irrational dictatorship that commands an army of 1.2 million soldiers is a nightmare scenario, to put it mildly.

On January 2, a statement in a leading Iraqi newspaper, Babel, owned by Saddam Hussein's eldest son, Uday, urges Arab nations to follow North Korea's lead and develop nuclear weapons arsenals.

India and Pakistan, enemies of long standing, remain at one another's throats. A dangerous complication now is that both nations have nuclear weapons.

Iran, with Russia's help, progresses toward becoming a nuclear power. The U.S. has tried, without success, to talk Russian leader Vladimir Putin into halting the transfer of sophisticated nuclear and missile technologies to Iran. The transfers, if they continue at their present rate, will transform Iran into a nuclear power in three years. A big question is whether Iran, with a substantial middle class interested in moving into the 21st century, will exert sufficient political force to depose their fanatical leadership of medieval clerics.

Bio Terror
Seven centuries ago, bubonic plague killed more than half the populations of Europe and Asia.
Six centuries later, the epidemic of Spanish influenza at the end of World War I killed more people in six months (25 million, of whom 550,000 were Americans) than were killed during the four-year war.

Many epidemiologists in the 20th century believed they had eradicated virtually all the organisms likely to produce worldwide epidemics. Then, along came AIDS, circa 1980. It was forecast that AIDS would spread rapidly and kill millions in every nation before the advent of the 21st century. Certainly, it has been a deadly menace, but even the AIDS epidemic in Africa and Eurasia could seem a slow ravage in comparison with the deadly potential of an engineered virus such as anthrax or smallpox, unleashed by terrorists.

Iraq and Russia are not the only nations that have been involved in unlawful biological weapons programs. North Korea was producing biological weapons long before Iraq. God only knows what nasty arsenals of bio-weapons are stored in disreputable little laboratories around the world, awaiting their sale to the highest bidder among terrorist organizations.

More Economic Disorder
Upheaval in Venezuela, with many workers on strike against the national oil company there, is disrupting oil supplies to the U.S. War in Iraq would also create disruptions, and there could be sabotaging of oil fields in Iraq, as occurred in 1991. Prices of oil could go to $100/barrel in 2003, creating economic havoc, especially in oil-dependent nations such as the U.S.

U.S. deficit spending in 2003-04 will likely top $300 billion, a result of higher defense and domestic spending coupled with lower federal revenues due to a struggling economy. Economists expect the dollar to drop 10 percent or more in value against the Euro as our trade deficit continues to grow. Additionally, market analysts estimate the U.S. stock market could drop another 10 to 15 percent in 2003.

Terrorism Danger Still Very High
Speculation has been that we could suffer more terrorist attacks in the U.S. in 2003. Our border security problems have not been addressed, and the potential for terrorists to move into the U.S. and carry out new terrorist attacks is high. There is also the problem of nearly non-existent surveillance of container shipping into our ports. It is estimated that only about 2% of incoming material is ever inspected.

A Critical Moment in History
There is hardly a subject of any importance that can be discussed at this point in time without reference to a possible war with Iraq. It overshadows everything else; indeed, the question of whether we would go to war with Iraq seems to have become a question of when we will go to war with Iraq.

There is also the troubling question of what effect a U.S.-led military action against Saddam Hussein could have--not just in Iraq, but in other Arab nations, in Israel, and even in the United States. Some are warning that military action in Iraq could set off a worldwide holocaust.

Dealing with terrorism around the world has presented an enormous challenge because the origins of the threat are spread among numerous nations, making it nearly impossible to pinpoint the source and deal decisively with it.

The Eternal Remedy
If we desire the favor and mercy of God, there must be a drastic change in the overall direction of our nations Now is the time to know the Truth, to warn, and to repent.

God's "solution" to the horrible ills of the world may look very different from what mankind, with his limited understanding, would expect. However, there are two things of which we can be certain--two things that should shape our perspective in these and the days ahead: (1) God is merciful, and believers can trust Him to care for them, whatever lies ahead; and (2) God is just, which means that God's plan for divine judgement must go forward.

Scripture tells us we can not know when that will occur: "But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father" (Mark 13:32, KJV).

We are to obey Jesus Christ's command to "occupy" until He returns, whatever it may entail. For true believers everywhere in the world, however, there is comfort in knowing that a just and merciful God still sits upon the throne of Heaven. He waits to see if our nations will heed His warnings.

The real question in this debate should not be over how much of our money the government will allow us to keep. That is precisely the debate that the Democrats want to have, because the underlying premise of that wretched debate is that the government has a right to our hard-earned dollars in the first place. In their view, the question of how many of our dollars they can extort is a subordinate issue that can be settled later, concealed more or less effectively from public view by the smoke and confusion of the legislative process.

Class Warfare Strategy
The real question-the only legitimate question-- should be how much of our money we will allow the government (politicians) to spend. But the Left are attempting to obscure the real issue with their increasingly shrill contentions that (1) tax cuts benefit only the rich; (2) wealth is evil; and (3) one is entitled to the fruits of his labors only to the extent that the politicians determine is “fair.”

In his speech to the Economic Club of Chicago early in January, President Bush noted how many older people rely on dividends from investments to subsidize their retirement. He proposed freeing them from having to pay taxes on money that has already been taxed. With 55 percent of Americans owning at least some stock (up from 23 percent a decade ago), the President has seized upon a practical issue that should provide needed tax relief to many American taxpayers. Predictably, the Democrats rushed to brand Bush’s proposal “another tax cut for the rich.”

The value of a tax cut that would benefit owners of stock (in this case, more than half of Americans, and many of them elderly) would seem to be a no-brainer. In fact, tax cuts for anyone who pays taxes should be a no-brainer. Who would not want a tax cut? The answer is, those who don’t pay taxes.

When productive, taxpaying Americans get a tax cut, then the low-income, non-tax-paying recipients of what amounts to legalized plunder will fear that their “entitlements” will be reduced. That’s the reason the Democrats are aggressively promoting the idea that tax cuts are a terrible idea, fiscally unsound, and even immoral. There is one Democratic presidential hopeful who recently announced that, if elected, his first official act would be to repeal all the tax cuts that were enacted under George W. Bush!

We live in a society where legalized plunder has become institutionalized. Our modern-day Robin Hood government takes from the so-called "rich" and gives to the "poor," based on the Marxian idea that wealth is evil and that those who accumulate even a moderate amount of wealth must be punished. Needless to say, the question of who is “rich” and who is “poor” will be decided by politicians, depending on how it serves their agenda.

Dr. Larry Bates, author of The New Economic Disorder, has often said, "If I hold a gun to your head and demand you empty your wallet for me, I can go to jail under the laws of any state or province in the world. However, send me to Congress and if I pass a bill that empties your wallet, I'll probably get reelected by the people to whom I gave your money! Stealing is stealing, regardless of the name you give it."

Frederic Bastiat, 19th century economist and author, had this to say about legal plunder:

“Now, legal plunder can be committed in an infinite number of ways. Thus, we have an infinite number of plans for organizing it: tariffs, protection, benefits, subsidies, encouragements, progressive taxation, public schools, guaranteed jobs, guaranteed profits, minimum wages, a right to relief, a right to the tools of labor, free credit, and so on, and so on. All these plans as a whole-with their common aim of legal plunder-constitute socialism.”

The plunder has spread and proliferated to the point that those who profit from the system will vociferously defend what they consider to be their acquired right to the fruits of another’s labor-and it doesn’t matter who has to be plundered in order to guarantee that right!

In the past, being poor in America sometimes meant not having enough to eat, not being able to keep your home warm in the winter or to clothe yourself or your family adequately. Today, the United States has the most affluent "poverty" class in the world. Most Americans considered to be living below the official poverty line have television sets, air conditioning, microwaves and VCRs in their homes. About half of them own a car or truck. Compared to most of the world’s poor, the American poor are “rich.” Author Dinesh D'Souza told of someone in his native India that wanted to see America because he "wanted to see a country where poor people are fat."

One of the most amazing phenomena in America during its 226 years of existence has been class mobility. In a recent article, economist Thomas Sowell shed some light on the prevalence and duration of poverty among Americans, reporting that most of the people who were among the bottom 20 percent of the income distribution in 1975 have also been in the top 20 percent at some point since then. Only about 3 percent of the American population remain in the bottom 20 percent for as long as a decade.

“Fair Share”
Columnist Debra Saunders commented recently, "The Democrats are right. There is a class of Americans that doesn't pay its fair share, or anything approaching its fair share, of federal taxes. And now that group is about to get another tax break, thanks to president Bush's proposed stimulus package.”

But Ms. Saunders went on to say the Democrats are wrong as to who that group is: “The group that doesn't pay close to its fair share is the bottom half of American workers, who collectively paid less than 4 percent of federal income taxes in 2000."

Not only that, but the burden of income taxes escalates progressively as incomes rise through the middle- and upper-middle classes to the truly wealthy, creating a very disproportionate burden. According to IRS statistics for 1999 (the latest year available), families earning $50,000 to $75,000 (the “rich,” if you believe the Democrats’ rhetoric) are the largest class of income tax payers. They paid, on average, $6,788 in federal income taxes-almost four times as much as the $1,729 paid by a worker making only $25,000.

The Democrats’ idea of fairness is an instant tax “rebate” of $300 for every wage earner. They call it a “tax credit,” which is a euphemism for “hand out”in this case, since many who would receive the money didn’t pay any taxes to begin with.

The truth is, poor people do not pay income taxes. But that doesn’t bother those who are generating all the rhetoric about “tax cuts for the rich.”

“If you’re not paying taxes, that’s no problem,” they say. “We’ll just give you money.”

He is referring to the assassination attempt that the Democrats have launched against the character of Judge Charles Pickering, recently re-nominated by President Bush to serve on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Last year, Pickering's nomination never got out of the Democrat-controlled Senate Judiciary Committee, thanks in large part to Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, who headed up the committee at that time.

The Constitution calls for the advice and consent of the U.S. Senate; all members of the Senate should be given an opportunity to consider each nomination, even if it fails to clear the Judiciary Committee. However, the Democrats seem to have no qualms about subverting the Constitution when it comes to party politics. They have openly declared their intent to stonewall confirmation of Bush's judicial nominees who do not adhere to left-wing, pro-abortion ideology.

This time around, Charles Schumer (D-NY) has promised to filibuster the Pickering nomination, stating, "To renominate Charles Pickering Sr., who . . . is probably best known for intervening on behalf of a convicted cross-burner, shows unfortunately that Richard Nixon's Southern strategy is still alive and well in the White House."

Makes one want to throw up. I have read few pieces of political demagoguery that would rival this current attack for its artful, calculated lying and unconscionable cynicism. The Democrats that have launched this second attack on Judge Pickering know he is neither a racist nor a segregationist. They know the facts about his background as a public servant, and they know that the facts do not in any way support their coldly calculated plan to discredit an honorable public servant--a public servant who, by the way, was confirmed unanimously in 1990 for a federal district judgeship and received a "Well Qualified" rating from the American Bar Association. That is the ABA's highest standard. (Interestingly, Patrick Leahy himself has called the ABA's "Well Qualified" rating the "gold standard" of judicial nominations.)

There is obviously a huge disconnect between the Judge Pickering that the folks down in Laurel, Mississippi, have come to know over the decades and the picture that Julian Bond and other Black Caucus members have tried to paint in the media.

"Hostile to civil rights," said Black Caucus member, Robert C. Scott (D-VA), speaking against the nomination.

"A vote for Pickering is a vote against civil rights," said Julian Bond, national chairman of the NAACP.

But down in his hometown of Laurel, Mississippi, Judge Pickering, who is currently a federal district judge in nearby Hattiesburg, is praised by black city officials for helping set up after-school youth programs and for directing federal money to medical clinics in low-income areas when he was a state senator. Black business leaders say he helped persuade white-owned banks to lend money to black entrepreneurs and thereby helped to strengthen the city's black middle class.

Judge Pickering took up the fight against segregation and racism back in the 1960s when Mississippi was a bloody, racial battleground. The Wall Street Journal had this to say about the role that Judge Pickering played in that era: "In the 1960s, he sent his children to the newly integrated Mississippi public schools. As county attorney from 1964-68 he aided the FBI in prosecutions of Ku Klux Klansmen, including testifying against the Imperial Wizard, and was defeated for re-election because of it. In 1971, he was elected to the state Senate with the support of two-thirds of the African-American voters in his district."

Former Democratic Governor William Winter says Judge Pickering has been "one of this state's most dedicated and effective voices for breaking down racial barriers."

Pickering's nomination to a federal appeals court and the nasty campaign launched against Pickering for a second time has served to accentuate the radical divide that exists between liberal groups on a national level and many Southern blacks in small towns.

Democrats who have enlisted in this nefarious plan to discredit Judge Pickering are lying and distorting the facts; every instance they have cited to support their claim that Pickering is a segregationist has been misrepresented and distorted.

One of their favorite examples is the one they like to call, "Intervening on the part of a convicted cross-burner." (Doesn't that sound like a tidy, airtight case for condemning Pickering?) Pickering's actual court intervention was to prevent a man with no prior record from serving five years in jail for a crime in which there were two other participants. In fact, it was shown that the real perpetrator of the crime was one of those two men who, thanks to the Clinton Justice Department, served no prison time at all. Judge Pickering believed the case presented a problem of inequitable sentencing, and he complained to Justice Department officials (an act that was assailed in committee by Democratic presidential hopeful, John Edwards, as "unethical"). Democrats have seized on this case as an opportunity to denounce Pickering as "racially insensitive," knowing full well that the public is not well-informed about the real facts in the case.

It is our hope that truth will prevail this time around. Those who are manufacturing these lies and shameless distortions of the truth deserve to be brought before the public eye and widely exposed for what they really are: assassins.