Archive for the ‘Once-spun Yarns and Twice-told Tales’ Category

A Dark Cloud of Ignorance Envelopes Atheism

By Jerry A. Kane

Bend your ears boys and girls for another of Baron von Münch-Kane’s once-spun yarns and twice-told tales.

As a rule I don’t engage fools in their folly, but I have on occasions made exceptions for the sake of my former students. A case in point involves a former student who, “spurred on by the conviction that the world needed his immediate presence,” decided to tilt at the windmills of religion on facebook.

After his initial got-ya post by Jon Stewart, “Religion. It’s given people hope in a world torn apart by religion.” and my Tom Stoppard response “Atheism is a crutch for those who cannot bear the reality of God,” he grabbed his soap box and offered even more “windy blather and lies.”

[H]umans invented God; atheism isn’t about denying god’s existence, its about realizing that there is actually nothing to deny. The theory of God makes no sense. The universe didn’t have a starting, it has always existed, its infinite. And always expanding. Also, I don’t need God to tell me right from wrong….so it has nothing to do with accounting for your actions. God isn’t real, its a fairy tale…full of many holes. Sure its possible. But its also possible that God is an old smelly sneaker on the side of the road. I take no comfort in even toying with the notion that god might exist, because if he/she/it does exist, he/she/it does absolutely nothing to help us in anyway. Wars are started because of this crackpot theory of a big invisible dude in the sky that watches over everything and judges you when you do wrong things. Paranoid schizophrenics are people who believe invisible beings in their head actually exist and tell them what to do. If you hear voices in your head you need to see a shrink. It isn’t God talking to you, you’ve just come to the point where you can’t keep an open mind and refuse to listen to logical sense. The idea of God makes no logical sense. Humans are just random energy and particles, and the reason it seems perfect to us is because we have no frame of reference for anything besides our own lives. It really is just random energy. The universe obeys the laws of physics, not the laws of God. Organized religion is responsible for more hatred and bloodshed than any other issue we face. And remember, if God created everything, then something must have created god. So it doesn’t matter how you look at it, but your views on atheism are skewed. You are misinformed. You make it out to be a joke. The beliefs of an atheist are equally valid to any theists belief structure. The odds of there actually being a god like you describe are about 1 in 800,000,000,000,000. There will never be proof of God. There doesn’t have to be proof that God doesn’t exist for it to be a reality, since mankind created the idea of God. Organized religion is one of the biggest tragedies to fall upon the human race. And I feel bad for people who can’t open their mind enough to realize that NOBODY KNOWS ANYTHING. We don’t know how we got here and guess what….we never will. We will never have anything better than an educated guess. Blind faith is not an admirable trait. Religion is part of a system of control that keeps people from seeking truth.

Obviously “his brains dried up to such a degree that he lost the use of his reason.” But I was born “a target at which the arrows of adversary are aimed,” so I set out to remove that dark cloud of ignorance that had been cast over his understanding.

In the classroom I have tried to encourage students to think for themselves, not just parrot the opinions, beliefs, and prejudices of parents, peers, and professors, and to examine both sides of an issue for facts and supporting evidence before forming an opinion.

The assertions you use to support your atheist beliefs are quite revealing: humans created the idea of God; the universe didn’t have a beginning; the universe has always existed; the universe is infinite and always expanding; humans are random energy and particles, nothing more; God isn’t real; people who believe in God are mentally ill, and organized religion is responsible for most of the world’s hatred and bloodshed.

You realize of course that your postulates are based solely on faith, not fact. For example, your dogmatic assertions regarding the universe may well be true, but then again they may well be wrong. Scientists who contemplate such mighty themes have no way of knowing for sure what really went on at the birth of the universe or if there was a birth. How can they know for certain that the laws of physics they study on earth are the same laws as those that brought the universe into existence?

The truth is the theories regarding the origins of the universe belong to scientism, not science. And even though scientism is the belief of many renowned scientists, it is not a method of inquiry into our world; it is a philosophical interpretation of science and of the natural order. Scientism views only scientific claims as meaningful, which in fact is not a scientific claim; therefore, the claim itself is rendered either false or meaningless. Yet scientism preaches that science is the absolute, only justifiable access to the truth, thereby deifying science and making scientism the only true religion for the devoted smart set.

Some religions are monotheistic (Judaism, Christianity) i.e., they worship one God; others are polytheistic (Hinduism, Mormonism) i.e., they worship many gods; some are non-theistic (Jainism, Buddhism) i.e., they don’t recognize or worship a deity, and others are anti-theistic (atheists, new atheists) i.e., they ridicule the very idea of God or gods and advocate the end of religious worship and faith.

Loosely defined, religion is a freely chosen lifestyle with a structured set of rules. Clever denials do not disprove the fact that atheism is a religion. Although atheism may not fit your mold of a stereotypical religion, the US Supreme Court has recognized it as a religion nonetheless.

It has a theology that interprets everything through the lens of materialism. The natural world, which is comprised of purposeless, meaningless particles in motion, is all there is and all there ever will be.

It has a hardened orthodoxy—zealously embraced and parroted by the atheist community—that insists everything is the product of unintentional, undirected, purposeless evolution, and that all truth claims must be subject to scientific scrutiny.

It has prophets such as Ludwig Feuerbach, Karl Marx, Arthur Schopenhauer, and Friedrich Nietzsche who have proclaimed religion as an oppressive system of archaic mythologies used to control and manipulate people.

It has apostates such as Anthony Flew who was one of the world’s prominent atheists until he changed his mind. Atheist Richard Dawkins accused Flew of “tergiversation,” which is a rather pretentious way of saying that he deserted or abandoned the “true faith.”

It has a messiah, Charles Darwin, who provided both a comprehensive explanation of life without a supreme being as its cause or purpose and the way to liberation and freedom from religious tyranny.

It has a sacred text On the Origins of the Species by Charles Darwin, which serves as the foundation and the final “revelation” of the “true faith.”

It has a succession of popes that include Thomas Huxley, Bertrand Russell, and the current pope, Richard Dawkins, who issue decrees, make dogmas, excommunicate heretics, and denounce the enemies of the true faith.

It has well-known evangelists such as Carl Sagan, Christopher Hitchens, Paul Kurtz, and Daniel Dennett who proselytize the one true faith and proclaim the end of theism.

Atheism is a religion people join to appear smarter, and yet it’s not intelligence but faith that atheists need to embrace an evolutionary theory that doesn’t account for reasoning, self-awareness, consciousness, and a universal sense of right and wrong or explain why the universe is orderly, predictable, and measurable.

“We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many different languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn’t know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws, but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations.”—Albert Einstein

But what I find most disturbing in your attack on religion is that you think the people who believe in God are mentally ill, and that organized religion is responsible for the world’s ills.

You realize of course that the modern day atheist regimes have also branded religious believers as mentally ill, and have been the most murderous regimes in the history of the world. Atheist dictators Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, and Kim Il-sung imposed state sanctioned atheism and totalitarian control over their people in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the People’s Republic of China, and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, respectively.

Atheist regimes have governed twenty-eight countries in world history and more than half of the ruling dictators have engaged in murderous acts of the sort committed by Stalin and Mao.  From 1917 through 2007 atheist dictators killed approximately 148 million people, three times more than the combined total of all the human beings killed by war, civil war, and individual crime in the twentieth century.

In the United States religious freedom is an inalienable human right, yet atheists persist in trying to control, suppress, and eliminate religion, but this is nothing new. For example, Thomas Paine, one of the great voices of the American Revolution, also wanted to excise religion from political discourse and opinion making. He attacked organized religion in general and Christianity in particular because he saw belief in a providential God as harmful to a free society. He once asked Benjamin Franklin to critique his polemic against faith in a God “that takes cognizance of, guards, and guides, and may favor particular persons.”

Franklin chided Paine for over reacting to a non-existent problem. “If men are so wicked with religion, what would they be if without it?” he asked Paine. Franklin understood that men are instinctively religious creatures and that religion has social benefits and enhances culture. He also knew that God, whether a man-made concept or real, represents that which cannot be controlled or comprehended, but unites people.

If you are right, then everything is just time and chance acting on matter. If thoughts are, as you say, just a series of chemical reactions, then tenderness, tragedy, and sorrow are meaningless abstractions, nothing more than chemical reactions of the brain, which means that saying I love you has no more significance than belching after a meal.

You sum up your screed by declaring “Nobody knows anything.” How can you know what you just admitted no human being can know, which is nobody knows anything? Your all-encompassing assertion includes you as well, so it is preposterous for you to assert that nobody knows anything when your assertion implies a degree of knowledge that you admit you don’t have. Congratulations, you are hoist by your own petard.

Even though God’s existence can be proved, you won’t find Him for the same reason that a thief can’t find a policeman. But if you apply the Socratic principle and “follow the evidence, wherever it leads” you will discover why Anthony Flew looked at the vastly complex information code in the mapping and sequencing of the DNA molecule and drew the conclusion “that intelligence must have been involved in getting these extraordinarily diverse elements together.”

Read Full Post »

The Neocon Con

By Jerry A. Kane

Bend your ears boys and girls for another of Baron von Münch-Kane’s once-spun yarns and twice-told tales.

During the recent debt ceiling debacle, a GOP clown car driven by Florida congressman Alan West blindsided a Tea Party Express bus as it tried to make a u-turn on the road to Serfdom. Although most conservative opinion makers at Fox News, on talk radio, and in the gatekeeper media were quick to denounce the tea party and the 22 Republicans onboard for the mishap, the subsequent S & P downgrade followed by a tanking stock market suggests that West and the 20 Republican passengers who signed a pledge not to vote for a debt increase were at fault for traveling at breakneck speed in the left lane toward Serfdom.

Remember boys and girls, those same conservative opinion makers denounced tea party members and Goldwater/Reagan conservatives back in April for demanding that House Speaker John “Tammy Faye” Boehner man-up and fight the Ruler and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid for actual spending cuts and serious debt reduction. The conservative opinion makers then told them to be patient and wait for the coming big battle to raise the debt limit. So the tea party and the grass roots backed off and waited for the debt ceiling battle.

In the midst of the battle, Boehner dumped the “Cut, Cap and Balance” plan (which cut spending in 2012, installed spending caps, required the debt limit debate be revisited in 2012, and mandated a Balanced Budget Amendment) to hand Reid a vehicle that he could quickly gut, modify, and dump back on the House for approval before the August 2 “drop dead” deadline, the last day the government would be able to borrow money. 

Congress passed the Boehner/Reid compromise, and the conservative opinion makers descended en masse maligning and marginalizing the legislation’s critics as “hardliners” and “purists” who don’t understand that change in Washington can’t happen overnight. Again tea party members and Goldwater/Reagan conservatives were told to wait, but this time they were commanded to wait for the 2012 election.

Once again the tea party and the grass-roots had been sucker punched by people who they thought were on the same side of the political divide. They were maligned and marginalized by Republicans, Party leaders, and conservative opinion makers, yet they were the ones “more sinn’d against than sinning“:

  • Didn’t 77 of the 87 incoming Republicans, who promised to cut government spending but voted instead to increase it, deceive them?
  • Didn’t only 10 of the freshmen actually keep their pledge and refuse to go along with Boehner’s business-as-usual compromise?
  • Didn’t the conservative opinion makers, whose opinions they had valued and trusted, tell the nation that they were obtuse and self-destructive?

It’s time tea party members and Goldwater/Reagan conservatives learn why they were unfairly smeared and come to grips with the fact that most of the Republicans they elected to office, the GOP leadership, and the conservative opinion makers are not traditional conservatives. They are Leo Strauss/Irving Kristol neoconservative statists who revere the increased taxes, regulation, and wealth redistribution of the post–New Deal welfare state. In fact, they deride the country’s founding principles of individual rights, limited government, and free markets as outdated.

Neoconservatives … generally admire President Franklin Delano Roosevelt and his heavily interventionist New Deal policies.”

Neocons “favor globalism, downplay religious issues and differences, are unlikely to actively oppose abortion and homosexuality.” Like their leftist Democrat counterparts, they are statists who want to regulate virtually all areas of human thought and action. They also support a managed economy, government regulations, and totalitarian control over peoples’ moral and spiritual lives.

Too many Tea party members and Goldwater/Reagan conservatives have come to believe that liberalism is the mortal enemy of personal freedom and individual liberty; it isn’t, statism is.

Statists believe that a centralized government should have the power to intervene in personal, social, and economic matters to solve society’s problems. Admittedly, liberalism is now a muddled term, but at one time liberalism placed individual liberty and personal freedom as central tenants of representative democracy. It held that individual rights (negative liberty) to private property, freedom of speech, and freedom of religion superseded collective rights (positive liberty) and should never be sacrificed to the totalitarian notion of the “common good.”

Even though neocons hold leadership positions in the Republican Party, they don’t totally control the party because not all Republicans march in lockstep with the neocon’s statist agenda. But the same can’t be said for the Democrat Party. Leftist and progressive Democrats completely control the party, which means that all Democrats must fall on the sword to advance the party’s statist agenda.

Although so-called Blue Dog Democrats from right-leaning states and districts mouth support for the unborn or for the Second Amendment, they will cave and vote the way their party leaders tell them when their vote is needed to pass pro-abortion or gun control legislation.

When Democrat Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi needed Bart Stupak’s vote to pass ObamaCare, which mandates taxpayer funding of abortion, the Michigan Congressman sacrificed his pro-life principles for his party. In the Senate, pro-life senators Ben Nelson (D-Ne.) and Bob Casey (D-Pa.) also cast aside their pro-life principles to pass ObamaCare. And most recently, when Harry Reid needed a bloc vote, West Virginia’s pro-life Senator Joe Manchin cast his vote to oppose repeal of Obamacare.  

Make no mistake about it though, neoconservatives are a greater threat to individual liberty and America’s Republican form of government than are leftist progressive Democrats because the neocons are statists within the ranks posing as conservatives.

To keep the country from falling to the statist hordes, Tea party members and Goldwater/Reagan conservatives must first acknowledge the neocon con. Then they can begin to rid the party of neocons and expose the neocon punditry to the light of day.

Better red than dead” may be an acceptable alternative for some, but the nation’s Founders never looked on tyranny as a tolerable option.

Read Full Post »

School Board Rules Bible Lacks Educational Value

By Jerry A. Kane

Bend your ears boys and girls for another of Baron von Münch-Kane’s once-spun yarns and twice-told tales.

Each day an electronic wave of news and information breaks upon the shore of my sleepless mind leaving its foam of big ideas, images and distorted facts

The Collier County School District in Florida is being sued in federal court for banning the distribution of the Bible on public school campuses. On Religious Freedom Day January 2009, school officials declared Bibles unwelcome and their distribution intolerable. The officials reasoned that distribution should be banned because the Bible lacks any educational benefit for students.

Only a quarum of stupendous ignoramuses would claim that knowledge of the Bible has no redeeming educational benefit. The Bible not only was the only prescribed textbook during the early 1900s in this country, but it also continues to have a profound influence on the philosophies of Western, Eastern, and African cultures worldwide.

“There is overwhelming evidence of the need for biblical literacy in public education. … [T]he goal is not spreading a particular religion but preventing the spread of something far worse: a crippling kind of ignorance.”Chuck Colson

Both classic and contemporary English and American literature is steeped in biblical figures, allusions, metaphors, symbols, legends, and morality. Generally speaking, English professors agree that educated people, regardless of faith, need to know about the Bible

“Without such knowledge one reads productions of 19th century culture much in the manner of someone who tries to use a dictionary in which one-third of the words have been removed.”George P. Landow, Brown University Professor

It’s doubtful that any writer has assimilated Scripture more abundantly than Shakespeare. His knowledge of the Bible is extensive, and Old and New testament books are characteristic throughout his plays. In the estimation of Victor Hugo, “England has two books, one which she has made and one which has made her: Shakespeare and the Bible.”

“[I]f a student doesn’t know any Bible literature, he or she will simply not understand whole elements of Shakespeare, Sidney, Spenser, Milton, Pope, Wordsworth.”Robert Kiely, Harvard University Professor

More often than not, students entering college who know something about the Bible:

  • are more sophisticated students;
  • recognize literary allusions and references;
  • understand how characterization in novels and thematic levels in poetry are linked to biblical allusions;
  • understand and recognize the Christ figure;
  • possess a better understanding for Victorian art and literature;
  • understand the parable genre;
  • understand literary analysis;
  • understand questions of canonicity and non-biblical literature;
  • appreciate the tone of the politics of the 16th and 17th centuries; and
  • can discuss “meaning” and “values” with understanding and insight.

The importance of reading the Bible is not limited merely to effectively transitioning to the academic world; American presidents have always advocated biblical literacy.

“So great is my veneration of the Bible that the earlier my children begin to read, the more confident will be my hope that they will prove useful citizens in their country and respectful members of society.”John Adams

“Hold fast to the Bible as the sheet-anchor of your liberties … To the influence of this book we are indebted for all the progress made in true civilization, and to this we must look as our guide for the future.”—Ulysses S. Grant

“The fundamental basis of this Nation’s law was given to Moses on the Mount. The fundamental basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teaching we get from Exodus and St. Matthew, from Isaiah and St. Paul. I don’t think we emphasize that enough these days. If we don’t have the proper fundamental moral background, we will finally end up with a totalitarian government which does not believe in the right for anybody except the state.”Harry S. Truman

“Of the many influences that have shaped the United States into a distinctive nation and people, none may be said to be more fundamental and enduring than the Bible.The Bible and its teachings helped form the basis for the Founding Fathers’ abiding belief in the inalienable rights of the individual … as well as the ideals set forth in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. “Ronald Reagan

Since the country’s founding, God-fearing Americans have implicitly understood that “it is impossible to mentally or socially enslave a Bible-reading people because biblical principles are the basis for human freedom. Whether educated or not, Americans can ill afford “to be ignorant of the Bible.”

The school officials’ foolhardy ban against the distribution of Bibles on campus is a “crime against humanity” for behind their fallacious reasoning lies a humanistic attempt to belittle the very best book “that ever was or ever will be known in the world.”  

Their authoritarianism is nothing new; it is patterned after every tinhorn dictator stomping on a human face since the beginning of time. Technological advancements may make their approach to the destruction of freedom a bit more refined and sophisticated, but their aim to repress intellectual freedom and cleanse society of old ideas mirrors the iron rule of every totalitarian state:  freedom of conscious is an enemy and biblical principles a menace.

“For more than a thousand years the Bible, collectively taken, has gone hand in hand with civilization, science, law–, in short, with the moral and intellectual cultivation of the species, always supporting and often leading the way.”—Samuel Taylor Coleridge

In short, the Bible has shaped much of Western civilization and without its guiding influence, the dignity, worth, and rights of Americans will be rendered obsolete.  

“We have gone through the epoch when the masses were oppressed. We are now going through the epoch when the individual is oppressed in the name of the masses.”—Yevgeny Zamyatin

Read Full Post »

A Slight Case of Mistaken Identity

By Jerry A. Kane

Bend your ears boys and girls for another of Baron von Münch-Kane’s once-spun yarns and twice-told tales.

In this Hitchcockian melodrama, I’m a former English professor, not a red herring. I’ve got a dog, a wife, and several coffee houses that depend upon me, and I don’t intend to disappoint them all by getting myself slightly killed.

Not that I mind a slight case of mistaken identity now and then, but I get kind of unreasonable when a leftist droid at Live Leak and fellow cronies at Little Green Footballs post my blog URL at The Millstone Diaries identifying me as the alleged cop killer Jerry R. Kane.

Late Friday and early Saturday morning, I began receiving death-threat comments on my about page condemning me to the nether regions of Hell. Although I was grateful for the attention, I wondered what I could have written that created such a stir and what the devil it was all about.

I soon discovered that a leftist dreg posted a news story “Relatives ID West Memphis Shootout Suspects” by Zack McMillin and Marc Perrusquia at Live Leak and wrote above it:

“You can go to Jerry Kane’s Web site – See link below….Sounds familiar – Tea Party, NRA, Marxism, Jews


A bit later I found the following at Little Green Footballs posted in: What Right Wing Extremist Violence?

“Charles this is supposed to be the site of the alleged West Memphis shooters Jerry Kane and Joseph Kane. (Gee, more Jew bashing White Supremacists, who’d of thunk it?)”

[Link: imkane.wordpress.com…]

And of course the good little Leninists kicked the post through the comment section a bit before one of the more learned in the English alphabet noticed a glaring difference between middle initials “A” and “R” in the name Jerry Kane.

Perhaps when these red-diapered droids were young and impressionable their parents told them that they couldn’t have Cabbage Patch kids, Tickle Me Elmo dolls, and Transformer toys until the great storehouse had enough to redistribute to all children.

Their deranged hatred for anyone on the right daring to express a diverse worldview prevents them from distinguishing between those who criticize statist thinking and white supremacists who truly hate blacks, Jews, feminists, homosexuals, and environmentalists.

Leftists imagine themselves as architects building a better world where everyone shares with everyone else, where no one is poor, and where everyone works their hardest for the benefit of others.

Like Nikolai Chernyshevsky’s Vara Pvalovna, they have become fixated on the Crystal Palace at Sydenham and share her fourth dream of a radiant future, all the while denying the historical reality that the ten planks supporting their utopian fantasies have never increased civility within the social order, but brought instead only death, destruction, and ruin to society.

In the world of the left, truth is subordinated to the demands of ideology. There’s no such thing as a lie; there’s only expedient exaggeration to promote their anti-American, statist agenda.  

So don’t be fooled boys and girls; leftists are not good-hearted, misinformed, misled folk. They presume that anyone who thinks differently from them is a violent, anti-Semitic, racist, redneck richly deserving of their insults and smears; therefore, they vilify and slander those with whom they disagree with deliberate malice and forethought.

Read Full Post »

Such a Petty, Mean-Spirited Lawsuit

By Jerry A. Kane

Bend your ears boys and girls for another of Baron von Münch-Kane’s once-spun yarns and twice-told tales. 

Krebs went to the war from a Methodist college in Kansas,” and now the highest court in the land has taken up the case of an 8-foot white cross atop Sunrise Rock memorializing U.S. soldiers who fought in that war.


After World War I, several veterans moved to the Californian desert as a respite for their emotional and physical wounds. In 1934, they erected the white cross memorial to honor their fallen comrades who paid the ultimate sacrifice for their country.

They chose the memorial site because the sun casts a shadow on Sunrise Rock at a certain time of day that resembles a WWI doughboy.  The memorial stood serene for more than 75 years until the Park Service was asked and refused to build a Buddhist sanctuary nearby.

That’s when Frank Buono, a retired National Park Service employee and Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) board member, got his knickers in a knot and decided the government had violated the Constitution’s Establishment Clause by favoring one religion over another.

Having firmly affixed his Catholic faith to his sleeve, the PEER zealot smartly marched over to the ACLU (American Communist Lawyer’s Union), and they joined together in a lawsuit to tear down the Mojave Desert Veterans Memorial. 

After the U.S. Government acquired the land on which the memorial sits as part of the Mojave Desert Federal Preserve, Congress designated Sunrise Rock a national memorial and barred its dismantling. A year later, Congress voted to trade the acre of land containing the memorial to the veterans, who had maintained it for decades, for five acres.

Even though public military memorials and cemeteries have been adorned for decades with crosses and religious symbols and the one-for-five acre deal satisfied both the government and the veterans, the ire of the Park Service pantywaist and surrogate remained. They declared the deal intolerable, and persisted in filing motions to tear down the memorial and overturn the land transfer.

In 2000, the Southern California ACLU announced the cross would be down within the next few months, but Congress voted not to allocate federal funds to remove it, an action that drew a lawsuit from the ACLU.

In 2002, a federal district court ruled that the memorial violated the “wall of separation” that the Constitution maintains between church and state; consequently, Congress attempted to transfer the land underneath the cross to a local chapter of the Veterans of Foreign Wars by using a clause in the Department of Defense budget, but the district court ruled against it.

In 2004, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the district court’s ruling to remove the cross in spite of numerous appeals from the U.S. Justice Department.


As if to commemorate an ACLU victory, a federal judge ordered the cross covered and hidden from view while the case is on appeal. A curious-looking plywood box, resembling a condemned building, now sits atop a desolate rock symbolizing the triumph of one man’s intolerance over the sacrifices of those who inspired the memorial. 

Currently, the Supreme Court’s nine justices are divided on the issue along progressive and conservative lines. Progressive justices view the Constitution as a living, breathing document emanating meanings from ethereal penumbras of the actual text, which often contradict the plain understanding of the words themselves; and conservative justices focus on a strict interpretation of the text of the Constitution based on the originally intended meaning of the text.

When it comes to the Establishment Clause, progressive justices have interpreted the emanations from the clause to mean government hostility toward religion in general and Christianity in particular; whereas conservative justices have interpreted the clause to mean government neutrality toward religion and accommodation for Christianity in particular.

However, the final battle won’t be won until the Supreme Court decides on the constitutionality of Ninth Circuit’s ruling, and that could take weeks. It’s also quite possible the high court will ignore the broader question of whether the presence of the cross on a federal preserve establishes a religion, and will address the narrower question of whether Congress was right to transfer the land on which the cross sits to private ownership.

Clearly, the PEER gent and the ACLU know the military’s long history of using a cross as marker for the war dead of all faiths and as a symbol to represent honor, courage, and sacrifice. They have not employed such a Herculean effort for nearly ten years just to tear down an unadorned cross in some remote area of the Mojave Desert; theirs is a sinister purpose, to put an end to the principles of religious liberty as grounded in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

“So long as the people do not care to exercise their freedom, those who wish to tyrannize will do so; for tyrants are active and ardent, and will devote themselves in the name of any number of gods, religious and otherwise, to put shackles upon sleeping men.”

Voltaire’s words combined with those of the Preamble to the California Constitution, “We, the People of the State of California, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom,” serve as a sad reminder for the cosmic irony in this a petty, mean-spirited lawsuit.

Read Full Post »

Where’s the Outrage for the Cybersecurity Act?

Jerry A. Kane


Bend your ears boys and girls for another of Baron von Münch-Kane’s once-spun yarns and twice-told tales.  


It was a bright cold day in April, and the clocks were striking thirteen when the cyber winds howled forebodingly at the Cybersecurity Act of 2009 introduced by Senators John Rockefeller and Olympia Snowe.  The senators’ Big Brother law would allow government scrutiny over everything posted to the Internet, while granting the White House “unprecedented control over computer software and Internet services” and powers “to access private online data, regulate the cyber security industry and even shut down Internet traffic.”


Under the guise of safety, the bill would grant a White House appointed cybersecurity “czar” unprecedented authority to shut down private domestic networks or limit Internet traffic in a “critical” information network during a cybersecurity emergency. What distinguishes a critical information network or constitutes a cybersecurity emergency would be determined by the president.  The act would also impart authority to the Commerce Department to track cybersecurity threats and override any existing laws, regulations, rules, or policies restricting access to security data from private networks.


The bill would not only make the president more powerful, but it would also allow the Secretary of Commerce access to all information on a network, which could make the network less safe and more vulnerable to intruders or terrorists.  Yet the senators remain resolute to remedy their perceived crisis. Rockefeller insists on protecting critical infrastructure at all costs” and Snowe demands swift action to avoid “a cyber-Katrina.”  Their rhetoric of a looming crisis matches the rhetoric manufactured for the bailout and stimulus bills, given that the bills required drastic intervention and immediate action with little or no consideration for a downside or potential harm.


The proposed Big Brother law “would empower the government to set and enforce security standards for private industry for the first time.” The president could use the authority granted in the proposed law to suspend the effective use of the Internet to circulate information or coordinate activities outside mainstream media outlets or government-approved channels.  Such a law could lead to a network police force that would levy fines and shut down private Web sites that government officials determine inappropriate or offensive. The act could also open the door for more Internet censorship legislation, and follow the path taken by Australia and China.


In November, more than half of America’s electorate handed Barack Obama and the progressives carte blanche power to rule over the lives of all Americans, and now they are using that power by attempting to manage and control the flow of information through the only remaining medium capable of resuscitating personal freedom and individual liberty.  The Americans who voted for the progressives have put the lives of all Americans in the steely grip of Leviathan, and no Chicago Tea Party, 9-12 Project, or surge in talk radio listeners will prevent the government from wielding its power.


Once again, a host Republican has engaged in parasitism to sacrifice her party for a symbiotic relationship that benefits only the Democrat Party and its progressive Leviathan.  Snowe and her progressive colleagues in the Republican Party have transformed the party into a sacrificial organism to nourish and support Leviathan?  And the corporate magpies on TV and talk radio seem to be too preoccupied with hawking books, espousing inane, meaningless platitudes, bathing in laudatory praises from fawning sycophants, and acting magnanimous in damning both political parties, to make their listeners aware of this transformation.


Ronald Reagan, Henry David Thoreau, and Thomas Paine understood that a government works best only when it governs least, and that big government inevitably increases servitude, restrains liberty, and destroys freedom. While the Republican Party languishes, the approaching tyranny is poised to lead humanity headlong into what will become a deeply bloodstained century.  Yet, the outcry from the magpies in opposition to the introduction of the Cybersecurity Law is rather subdued. 


Will the corporate chorus of media magpies raise its voice against this new Big Brother law as it did when the progressives touted the new Fairness Doctrine and advocated enforced localism?  It’s likely boys and girls that the magpies’ outrage reaches a resounding crescendo only when the buttering of their bread is involved. 




Read Full Post »

Escape Artists

By Jerry A. Kane


Bend your ears boys and girls for one of Baron von Münch-Kane’s s once-spun yarns and twice-told tales.  


Once upon a time America had enough sane people who realized that the captured Islamic terrorists who wanted to murder them and destroy their country must be kept from their shores at an island prison guarded by the U.S. military.  Unfortunately, too many reasonably sane Americans stopped taking their medications November 4, 2008, and elected a leftist ideologue president, LIP for short.  


As one of his first acts in office, the LIP announced the island prison, at the Guantánamo Bay Detention Camp, a.k.a. GITMO, would be closed in a year.  However, the LIP neglected to mention just where those detained Islamic terrorists would go.  After the November election, the LIP sent up a trial balloon proposing South Carolina as a place to house those captured terrorists yearning for murder, mayhem, and the blowing to smithereens of schools, shopping malls, and night clubs.  The deafening silence from leftist Democrats was a stamp of approval for the South Carolina idea; after all, Red-staters are rightly expendable when it comes to the left’s big blue-marble worldview. 


Pennsylvania’s Cracker-Jack Congressman John, the Con-man, Murtha, was more than willing to offer up his “racist-redneck“district to house the GITMO prisoners.   Con-man John said he’d “take ’em” and “handle them the way they would handle any other prisoners,” given that the Cracker-Jack Congressman viewed captured terrorists as “no more dangerous in [his] district than in Guantanamo.”  And of course, a district chockfull of racist rednecks is rightly expendable from the left’s big blue-marble worldview.


But now the LIP has another location in mind for the captured terrorists, and the wails of outrage and indignation have ensued.  A senior Justice Department official in the LIP’s administration has suggested Alexandria, Virginia, as a prime location to house some of GITMO’s 240 detainees.  The new location has caused an outcry among the local leftist Democrats in Alexandria, who for obvious reasons, find it much easier to impose their crap-laden ideas than to shoulder such idiocy themselves.  The LIP’s ideologically leftist constituency, whose peeps of protest were not heard above the din of muted silence when South Carolina was the proposed site, became “absolutely opposed,” would “do everything in [their] power“ to stop it, and demanded that “someone else have it.“


Deceit and hypocrisy appear to be the modus operandi of leftist ideologues.  When it came down to protecting the environment or reducing his home’s energy consumption, Clinton toady Algore did what any good leftist ideologue would do, he used more energy and continued promoting environmental diligence as a means “to line his pockets and enhance his profile.” 


In another example, Time magazine “hero of the planet,” Robert Kennedy Jr., and his faithful uncle companion,  Senator Ted Kennedy, used some behind-the-scenes Hyannis Port muscle to stop development of America’s first offshore wind farm in Nantucket Sound, all the while endorsing wind power as a viable energy alternative and denouncing President George W. Bush for destroying the environment.   


The lesson to learn from this tale is not that the leftist ideologues personify phonies and hypocrites but that they forgo scrutiny and escape accountability for their deceitfulness and hypocrisy, and therein lies the rub boys and girls.

Read Full Post »