• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Federalist Patriot

Help Support Ranchers.net:


Well-known member
Feb 14, 2005
Reaction score
Southern SD
25 February 2005
Federalist Patriot No. 05-08
Friday Digest
Join the Patriot Blog:
Link to -- http://PatriotPostBlog.US/



"There are certain social principles in human nature, from which we may draw the most solid conclusions with respect to the conduct of individuals and of communities." --Alexander Hamilton



Top of the fold -- Pathology of the Left...

In 2003 the American Psychological Association printed a study by a few academicians from Cal-Berkeley and the University of (the People's Republic of) Maryland. The study, entitled "Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition," purported to have identified some determinants that are common to those holding a "conservative" worldview.

As one reads the report, it becomes readily apparent that their "norm" -- that is, their control group -- was somewhere to the left of SanFranNan Pelosi and her Ya Ya sisters, Babs Boxer and Di Feinstein -- but then, what are we to expect from Cal-Berkeley and UM, or just about any of our nation's "leading" academic institutions?

The authors received more than 1.2 million of your hard-earned tax dollars from the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation in order to, by their own account, "consider evidence for and against the hypotheses that political conservatism is significantly associated with (1) mental rigidity and closed-mindedness; (2) lowered self-esteem; (3) fear, anger, and aggression; (4) pessimism, disgust, and contempt; (5) loss prevention; (6) fear of death; (7) threat arising from social and economic deprivation; and (8) threat to the stability of the social system."

In other words, if you (1) have an opinion; and are (2) humble; (3) assertive; (4) a realist; (5) a conservationist; (6) not suicidal; (7) from modest means; and (8) a constitutional constructionist, or worse, a Christian, then you're probably a wacky conservative.

Actually, what taxpayers got was a re-warmed 1950-vintage study of what the authors call "authoritarianism and the fascist potential in personality.'' They assert that "one is justified in referring to Hitler, Mussolini, Reagan, and Limbaugh as right-wing conservatives..." (Is it just us, or is that a rather tendentious juxtaposition of murderous tyrants and conservative icons?) All in all, this research stands as a sterling example of academic twaddle, providing "an integrative, meta-analytic review of research on epistemic, existential, and ideological bases of conservatism." The authors' ultimate finding -- for what it's worth -- is that conservatives tend to "arrive at premature conclusions and impose simplistic clichès and stereotypes," which, ironically, is precisely what the authors have done.

For two long years, The Patriot's editorial staff waited for conservative behaviorist academicians to respond to this farcical pseudo-scholarly diatribe with an article outlining the pathology of liberalism (contemporary, not classical). Alas, we can only conclude that the last conservative behaviorist left the academy a long time ago, but forgot to turn out the lights. That being the case, what follows is a rebuttal to this Leftist invective in the most general terms -- sans the $1.2 million in confiscated wages and a forest of pulp for reprinting in "scholarly journals."

Now then, what constitutes a contemporary liberal -- and why?

Liberals are almost uniformly defined by their hypocrisy and dissociation from reality. For example, the wealthiest U.S. senators -- among them Kerry, Kennedy, Corzine, Kohl, Rockefeller, Feinstein, and Rhode Island RINO Lincoln Chaffee -- fancy themselves as fighters for the poor, but they have no idea of what it's like to live paycheck-to-paycheck. Liberals speak of unity, but they appeal to the worst in human nature by dividing Americans into dependent constituencies. Just who are these liberal constituencies? They support freedom of thought, unless your thoughts don't comport with theirs. They feign tolerance while practicing intolerance. They resist open discussion and debate of their views, yet seek to silence dissenters. They insist that they care more about protecting habitat than those who hunt and fish. They protest for nature conservation while advocating homosexuality. They denounce capital punishment for the most heinous of criminals, while ardently supporting the killing of the most innocent among us -- children prior to birth. They hate private-gun ownership, but they wink and nod when it comes to WMD in the hands of tyrants. They advocate for big government but want to restrain free enterprise.

Liberals constantly assert their First Amendment rights, except, of course, when it comes to religion. Here, they firmly adhere to the doctrines of secular atheism. They believe that second-hand smoke is more dangerous than marijuana smoke. They believe that one nut accused of bombing an Alabama abortion clinic deserves far more law-enforcement attention than Jihadi cells planning the 9/11 attacks. They call 9/11 victims "Hitlerian" while calling their murderers "oppressed." They hate SUVs, unless imported and driven by soccer moms. They believe trial lawyers save lives and doctors kill people. They believe the solution to racism is to treat people differently on the basis of their skin color. They deride moral clarity because they can't survive its scrutiny. They promote peace but foment division and hate -- ad infinitum.

Why do liberals believe what they believe -- and act the way they act?

Liberal pathology is well defined. Liberals tend to be mentally rigid and closed-minded because they are insecure, the result of low self-esteem associated, predominantly, with fatherless households or critically dysfunctional families. They exhibit fear, anger, and aggression -- the behavioral consequences of arrested emotional development associated with childhood trauma, primarily rejection by a significant family member of origin (as noted above) or some other childhood trauma. Liberals display pessimism, disgust, and contempt for much the same reason. They focus on loss prevention because they have suffered significant loss. They fear death because they have little or no meaningful connection with their Heavenly Father -- often the result of the disconnect with their earthly fathers. They often come from socially and/or economically deprived homes. Liberals reject individual responsibility and social stability because these were not modeled for them as children.

Sound familiar -- apparently the profs at Cal-Berkeley and Maryland attributed their own pathological traits to their opposition. It's called projection -- or hypocrisy.

Sure, there are many conservatives who were raised by a single parent or in critically dysfunctional homes. However, somewhere along the way, they were lifted out of their misery by the grace of God -- and often in conjunction with some significant mentor who modeled hope and responsibility for them. As a result, they have the courage to internalize their locus of responsibility, unlike liberals, who externalize responsibility for problems and solutions, holding others and society to blame for their ills, and making the state the arbiter of proper conduct -- even proper thought.

On a final note, it's no coincidence that conservative political bases tend to be suburban or rural, while liberal political bases tend to be urban (see http://FederalistPatriot.US/map.asp). The social, cultural and economic blight in many urban settings are the catalysts for producing generations of liberals. Many urbanites no longer have a connection with "the land" (self-sufficiency) and, thus, tend to be largely dependent on the state for all manner of their welfare, protection and sustenance -- "It Takes a Village" after all.

Quote of the week...

"The professors have ideas; the rest of us have emanations of our psychological needs and neuroses. ... There is no comparable academic industry devoted to studying the psychological underpinnings of liberalism. Liberals, you see, embrace liberalism for an obvious and uncomplicated reason -- liberalism is self-evidently true. But conservatives embrace conservatism for reasons that must be excavated from their inner turmoils, many of them pitiable or disreputable." --George Will

On cross-examination...

"In his classic 1964 essay, 'The Paranoid Style in American Politics,' historian Richard Hofstadter described [the paranoid] mentality. ... Hofstadter wrote at a time of liberal ascendancy, and "angry minds at work mainly among extreme right-wingers,' and noted, 'the paranoid style is an old and recurrent phenomenon in our public life.' These days it is recurring on the left -- a point that first became clear seven years ago last month, when, as CNN reported then, First Lady Hillary Clinton 'blamed the sex allegations on a "a vast right-wing conspiracy".' Its ironic that today Mrs. Clinton seems quite sane compared with many in her party." --James Taranto

Get on the right track!

Now that President George W. Bush has launched his second term with plans to reform entitlement programs and limit the growth of government spending, we call on all Patriots to reaffirm the principles upon which the President and congressional conservatives were elected: Constitutionally limited government, a strong national defense, the prospect of restoring fiscal discipline to government, and an unwavering commitment to the traditional moral bedrock of our Republic. Indicate your support for the President's agenda of a strong national defense and vigilant homeland security; tax reform, entitlement reform, bureaucratic reform and tort reform; a commitment to filling the federal courts with constitutional constructionist judges; and, most fundamentally, the defense and active promotion of the core values of our Republic in marriage, life and family.

Join Patriot Petitions and sign "Keep America on the Right Track," our affirmation of the conservative mandate, which we will send to President George W. Bush, Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist when at least 100,000 signatures have been obtained. Link to -- http://PatriotPetitions.US/right/

(If you don't have Web access, please send a blank e-mail to: [email protected] Each e-mail sent to this address will be counted as one signature for the petition.)

Let your voice be heard!

The BIG lie...

"If we go to the nuclear option...the Senate will be in turmoil and the Judiciary Committee will be hell." --RINO Senator and Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, deriding Majority Leader Bill Frist's threat to exercise of the "nuclear option" to overcome Demo filibustering of judicial nominees

This week's "Alpha Jackass" award:

"Defense is a lot broader than swaggering around saying you're going to kick Saddam's butt." --Howard Dean

This week's "Braying Jackass" award:

"To call it Islamic terror is discriminating, it's bigoted, it is not the right thing to say. ... We just take for granted that there is an Islamic terror movement because we do have some fanatic people who come from Islamic countries. ... When we had the Ku Klux Klan we didn't call them Baptist terrorists. When Hitler was killing Jews, we didn't call it Christian terrorists." --Rep. Charlie Rangel when asked why France refuses to designate Hezbollah as an Islamic terror group

From the Left...

There has been a noted surge in traffic at the DNC Web site since the formal election of Howard Dean as Chairman. Many grassroots activists, supporters of Dean's aborted 2004 presidential run as well as first-time donors, have expressed excitement at the prospect of turning the tide for the Democrats.

This recent swell is in line with Dean's plans for reforming the party from the bottom up, and for his desire to strengthen the "Democratic [sic] wing of the Democratic [sic] party." But the vital question is how will these people who sit to the left side of the left be satisfied with the middle-of-the-spectrum brand of politics in which the Demo party will have to engage to survive? And, just how committed are these folks in the long term? Judging by the way the Deaniacs disappeared into the mist after his Iowa 2004 crack-up, they seem more driven by a cult of personality than substantive issues. Such trends never last.

News from the Swamp...

"The major issue that irritated a lot of Europeans was Iraq. I understand that. I can figure it out. And the key now is to put that behind us, and to focus on helping the new democracy succeed." President Bush spoke these words in Brussels this week when asked about the state of relations between the United States and Europe.

The President's week in Europe has been billed in the Leftmedia as a "fence-mending" trip, as if Bush were crossing the Atlantic, hat in hand, to apologize for being impulsive and unilateralist. In reality, this trip is more of a reaffirmation of U.S. policies toward Iraq and a chance to remind the Europeans just what their security priorities should be. Whether they'll take the hint, of course, remains to be seen.

While there was agreement on the training of Iraqi troops to combat the insurgency, there was concern over Europe's relaxing its stance on China's weapons trade. "There is deep concern in our country that a transfer of weapons would be a transfer of technology to China, which would change the balance of relations between China and Taiwan, and that's of concern," Bush said in Brussels. "And they, to a person, said, well, they think they can develop a protocol that isn't -- that shouldn't concern the United States. And I said I'm looking forward to seeing it." So are we.

On the Hill, conservatives have been modestly pleased with the President's having taken the budget ax to 154 underperforming programs, intended to shave some $30 billion in spending. Not only has the White House proposed cutting or reducing a variety of programs, but it has also offered explanations as to why it is doing so. Programs that would be cut or reduced include Amtrak ($847 million), the Hubble telescope ($291 million), and agricultural subsidies ($2.47 billion). Still, considering that spending has risen almost 40 percent since 2001, these cuts represent just over 1% of projected FY2005 spending. Much remains to be done.

The answer to closing the spending gap is to spend less, not tax more. Unfortunately, it appears that one solution being considered for Social Security reform may be tax increases after all. President Bush has signaled that while Social Security tax rate increases are not on the table, the possibility of raising the cap on taxable income is.

Bush's suggestion of such a move may have played a small role in the hiccup the stock market experienced this week, and it isn't making the job of selling the President's Social Security reform ideas to skittish Republican reps on the Hill any easier. Many have taken advantage of the extended holiday break to hit the home front and test the waters on support for reform.

New and notable legislation: Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-FL) has reintroduced the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (HR800), protecting firearm manufacturers and dealers from frivolous lawsuits. Reps. Tom Tancredo and Mark Souder are seeking broader sponsorship on a bill that would formally recognize Taiwan and essentially scrap our "One China" policy in favor of a "One China, One Taiwan" policy. Rep. Scott Garrett (R-NJ) introduced the Financial Customer Identification Verification Improvement Act (HR815), which would prohibit the use of identification cards issued by foreign governments, including matricula consular cards, for purposes of verifying the identity of a person who wants to open an account at a U.S. financial institution. Rep. Roscoe Bartlett reintroduced HR43, to restore the celebration of George Washington's birthday to a federal holiday and effectively end "President's Day" -- which the federal government never officially recognized, we might add. (Here, we might also add that we're somewhat disinclined to observe a holiday that lumps together the contributions of our greatest president with those of, say, Bill Clinton.)

Restore the foundations!
Support the 2005 Patriot Fund:

In other news...

It appears that some state governments actually know the meaning of the word "federalism." Utah, at least, is poised to become the first state to repudiate the Bush administration's No Child Left Behind Act, citing overbearing federal control and inappropriate standards. At risk is $116 million in federal support, an amount that Utah is willing to forgo for the sake of setting its own education policies. "This is not a partisan issue; this is a states' rights issue," said Rep. Margaret Dayton, a Republican mother of 12 who authored the bill to use state money (and standards) for education. The State House unanimously passed the measure; the Utah Senate anticipates quick passage, which the Republican governor is expected to sign.

What needs to be appreciated is the principle at work here: The federal government doesn't have any real constitutional authority when it comes to the education of children. But as Utah's legislature is on the verge of proving, a fiscally responsible state can simply say "no" to federal money and set its own standards. Colorado, Idaho, North Dakota, and Virginia -- among others -- are all considering challenges to the Act. Let's hope Utah leads the way in defense of federalism.

On the National Security front...

The IAEA's Board of Governors will meet in Vienna starting Monday to discuss nuclear matters in Iran, North Korea and Egypt. With North Korea already having nukes, and Egypt guilty of minor infractions, Iran is clearly at the top of the agenda, or at least it should be. But the IAEA, led by Mohammad El-Baradei, continues to downplay Iran's nuclear program, insisting that they have seen nothing in Iran during recent inspections that indicates nuclear-weapons work. Indeed, El-Baradei has indicated that the Board will not even submit a formal report on Iran at the upcoming meeting as there is insufficient new information to warrant one.

As The Patriot has elaborated previously, Iran has been using the Europeans to fend off U.S. pressure. How has this process worked for Iran? Consider the events of the last six months: The EU-3 (Britain, France and Germany) have brokered a deal with Iran that now drives the IAEA's position; Russia has announced a spent-nuclear-fuel deal with Iran (likely to be signed this weekend, just in time to undercut the U.S. in Vienna); Vladimir Putin has repeatedly stated that Russia believes Iran is not pursuing nuclear weapons; and the IAEA gave Iran favorable marks after the last round of inspections. Not bad work for a pariah nation and Axis of Evil charter member.

Friends and fellow Patriots, we have said it before: When the existence of a nuclear-weapons program in Iran ceases to be a matter of intelligent debate, a pre-emptive strike is warranted. Every day that Iran progresses toward nuclear weapons, our options narrow. If you think North Korea's nukes are a problem now, just wait until Iran acquires them. Sitting astride the Strait of Hormuz and thus able to interfere with roughly half of the world's oil supply, with missiles able to target Israel and southern Europe, a nuclear Iran will exert influence that Pyonyang can only dream of. These factors, when combined with the mad mullahs' visceral hatred for America, lead us to agree with President Bush: A nuclear-armed Iran is not acceptable and must be stopped. Diplomatically, if possible; militarily, if not. Right now, the IAEA is part of the problem, not the solution. Stay tuned.

On the Homeland Security front...

On 31 December 2005, about a dozen provisions of the USA Patriot Act are set to expire. Liberals are already sharpening their rhetoric against renewing the expiring provisions. While The Patriot has expressed reservations about the Patriot Act in the past, we reviewed the sunset provisions for what they are: clarifications about the extent that law enforcement may investigate terrorism. The expiring provisions are notable: the addition of certain crimes to the wiretapping crimes list (chemical weapons, weapons of mass destruction, and various degrees of terrorism), wiretapping in terrorism cases, roving surveillance authority, sharing wiretapping and foreign-intelligence information, seizure of voice mail pursuant to a warrant rather than an Article III court order, and service of warrants.

The sunset provisions are not particularly controversial; however, the Left will continue to characterize them as grave threats to liberty -- and, incidentally, encourage Jihadi terrorists. While The Patriot supported the incorporation of sunset provisions in 2001 as a matter of constitutional principle and caution, four years later we have observed no recurrent, patterned violations of civil liberties -- and neither have we observed a second successful terrorist attack on U.S. soil. We remind our elected representatives on the Left that politicization of this issue -- designed to impugn the Bush administration -- will only compromise our security and further the objectives of our enemies.

Judicial Benchmarks...

As expected, the Supremes dodged a political bullet by refusing to hear a challenge to Roe v. Wade, brought by none other than the woman once known as "Jane Roe." It is rare for the court to reopen a case based on "changed circumstances," and two lower courts had already refused to reconsider the ruling.

From the "Regulatory Commissars" File...

Government-spending watchdog groups have recently complained of inefficient, high spending on the war on drugs in the United States. The point here is that the policy isn't just expensive -- it's failing. The country has spent $25 billion over 25 years, with few if any results. Paradoxically, the failure of the war on drugs can be most clearly demonstrated by the fact that wholesale and retail prices of cocaine and heroine are close to the lowest they've been in 22 years. Lower prices result from increased supply -- the drug war simply isn't keeping drugs from getting into the country.

We have yet to find any mention of drugs in the Constitution -- nor, for that matter, have we found authority for virtually all of the other things the central government now regulates (like the amount of water your toilet may consume). Thus, we think the central government has NO authority to prosecute the "drug war," except, arguably, where interstate commerce and international trade are involved. The Tenth Amendment still reads: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." (emphasis added). Therefore, drug regulation should rightly be left to the states. It's worth noting that in the last century, folks still cared enough about the Constitution to pass an amendment on drug prohibition (alcohol) before sending in the feds. We think, as was the case in the Roaring '20s, that the so-called "drug war" has not stymied but, in fact, fueled drug use with current drug enforcement policy. Drug barons and street gangs, like the mob bosses and their syndicates in the last century, are funded by prohibition of drugs. Many of the most ardent prohibitionists advocating passage of the 18th Amendment led the way for its repeal by the 21st Amendment. Ah, the law of unintended consequences -- apart from the questionable constitutionality of drug prohibition, we believe enforcement, as now conducted, has been far more detrimental than beneficial, both in terms of our culture and security, than were drug use regulated by the states. Additionally, the proceeds from the high price of drugs (the result of prohibition) have been a funding source for terrorism for two decades.

From the "Non Compos Mentis" Files...

From the Department of Double Standards, Lawrence Summers, president of Harvard University, continues to find himself in the frying pan over comments made last month regarding biological differences between men and women. Many in academia are calling for his resignation or firing. Yet his Colorado-based fellow academician, Ward Churchill, who praised the 9/11 hijackers, is being defended by some of the very same folk on "free speech" grounds. No one is even calling for an apology, much less his termination. It is interesting to note that Churchill was required to take an oath to uphold and defend both the U.S. Constitution and that of Colorado when he was hired. Was he lying then, or would he be willing to take the oath again today?

From the "Village Academic Curriculum" File...

Ivory Tower educrats from New York's Department of Education are investigating why students at Junior High School 51 in New York City were given a Social Studies assignment to write letters condemning soldiers and the War on Terror. A stack of the letters was delivered to 20 year-old PFC Rob Jacobs, currently stationed in Iraq. Some of the letters from youngsters at 51 included, "[You're] being forced to kill innocent people ... I strongly feel this war is pointless ... [with Bush re-elected] only 50 or 100 [soldiers] will survive ... [You're] destroying holy places like mosques." The teacher responsible for this stunt has "apologized" under pressure. Should you have an opinion on this matter, you can contact New York City Education czar Joel Klein at .

Around the nation...

State legislatures are getting under way for this year's legislative sessions in what Justice Brandeis refers to as the "laboratories of democracy." States experiment with many issues, including small-employer (2-50 employees) and individual health insurance. Some states provide good examples for health-insurance laws; others serve as a horrible warning.

It is common in elections to hear candidates claim they will "reform" health insurance so it will become less costly. These geniuses usually become part of the problem as insurers pass on new legislatively created costs to their customers.

Like each raindrop that thinks it is not responsible for the flood, most legislatures justify the addition of higher benefits costs because they add "only" 1% or 2% to the premiums. State burdens estimated on the high end are Minnesota (60%), Texas (51%), Connecticut (50%), and California (48%). Beyond added costs are administrative burdens imposed by government. Some are brazen, as when Maryland's Democrat-controlled legislature recently robbed Peter to pay Paul by adding an estimated $10-15 to HMO premiums to help pay for doctors' malpractice premiums. Other costly and ineffective requirements are "any willing provider" laws, association health cooperatives, community rating, artificial rate increase caps, and hidden taxes. There is a long list of expensive, failed "reforms."

Eventually, some legislatures may realize the way to lower insurance costs is to stop treating healthcare like a social program. Until then, however, we'll all pay more for their experiments.

In business/economic news...

As much as we've praised President Bush for cutting taxes and promoting a pro-growth budget, there are nevertheless glaring inconsistencies in his fiscal policy. One of these is his dedicated support for the expansion of Medicare's prescription-drug benefit, despite new cost estimates upwards of $724 billion. The President has never vetoed a spending bill. Indeed, he's submissively approved every budget sent to him by Congress. Despite this obstinate refusal to use the veto to curb irresponsible spending, there is one scenario in which he has promised to use the veto -- to protect the expansion of the prescription-drug benefit. While urging Social Security reform via personal accounts, he at the same time vehemently defends one of the most wasteful and corrupting government health programs ever. This smacks of hypocrisy, and we would urge the President to build on his wise policies of lower taxes and privatized Social Security by ceasing his support for this prescription-drug boondoggle.

On the culture front...

The heedless rebellion of the 1960s came full circle this week when Hunter Thompson, famed author of drug-induced rants like Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas and Hells Angels, apparently tired of his life of substance abuse and unfathomed selfishness, ended his life in the ultimate act of selfishness. Morbid over the nation's shift toward conservatism, the literary deadbeat, acid freak and "Gonzo" journalist shot himself to death in his Woody Creek, Colorado home.

"He was depressed about the state of society," said Loren Jenkins, longtime friend and foreign editor for National Public Radio. "He felt he'd had a long run, trying to create a freer society in the '60s and '70s and he felt it had all been closed down."

The erstwhile champion of the '60s lifestyle who once called Richard Nixon "America's answer to the monstrous Mr. Hyde" and that "[Nixon] speaks for the werewolf in us," could easily have said the same of himself. "I hate to advocate weird chemicals, alcohol, violence or insanity to anyone," Thompson once said, "but they've always worked for me." Apparently not.

Family and faith matters...

All charges have been dropped against four members of a Christian organization in Philadelphia accused of various felonies and misdemeanors ("hate crimes") during an October homosexual event known as "Outfest." The judge determined that the prosecution was unable to produce even minimal evidence of any wrong-doing. Charges against a minor in the case are expected to be dismissed as well.

Fly your Patriot Colors!
Visit the Patriot Shop:

On the frontiers of science...

The space shuttle Discovery is scheduled to launch on 15 May, with Atlantis to follow on 12 July. NASA is confident that it has solved the problems that led to the disintegration of the space shuttle Columbia on 1 February 2003. But just in case, the two upcoming missions have been booked as rescue missions for each other, and both will travel to the international space station for inspection. If any irreparable damage occurs, the crews will wait there for another shuttle to retrieve them.

Around the world...

To follow up on last week's coverage of Sudan's third-term appointment to the UN "Human Rights" Commission, a question has arisen: How does an ambitious, young genocidist state manage a seat on a human-rights body?

Most of the UN's member states, the majority of which are run by thugs, belong to one or more voting blocs: the 53-member African Union, the 56-member Islamic Conference, the 22-member League of Arab States, and the 115-member Non-Aligned Movement. Working together to promote their interests and fight American initiatives, especially for reform, these blocs can control the majority of votes of the 191-member General Assembly and place any thugocracy on the Human Rights Commission. Sudan's partners in the Commission include several other paragons of liberty, three of whom, China, Cuba and Zimbabwe, enjoy veto power this year over which complaints the entire Commission will even hear.

As we've said many times before, we think it's high time the UN be brought down a few pegs. The United States should seriously rethink its membership in -- or at least its funding of -- this utterly corrupt body.

And last...

The NAACP is searching for a new president to replace Kweisi Mfume, who announced his resignation late last year. A search firm has interviewed more than 200 applicants, although Chairman Julian Bond has his own small wish list. And while we at The Patriot don't expect Mr. Bond to take our counsel seriously, we nonetheless wish to nominate William Jefferson Clinton to the post. He was, after all, our nation's first black president.

Lex et Libertas -- Semper Vigilo, Paratus, et Fidelis! Mark Alexander, Publisher, for the editors and staff. (Please pray for our Patriot Armed Forces standing in harm's way around the world in defense of our liberty, and for the families awaiting their safe return.)

*Printer-friendly format
Link to -- http://FederalistPatriot.US/current2004a.asp


VISIT THE PATRIOT ON THE WEB:http://FederalistPatriot.US

SUBSCRIBE: FREE by E-mail! Get your own subscription to The Federalist Patriot!
Link to -- http://FederalistPatriot.US/subscribe/
or if you don't have Web access, send a blank e-mail to: [email protected] (Friday's Patriot Digest is available in print for $245/year. For more information, send a message to [email protected])

TRIAL SUBSCRIPTIONS: Send The Federalist Patriot to your friends and associates! Link to -- http://FederalistPatriot.US/addmultiple.asp
(Privacy Notice: We do NOT release ANY information on our users or subscribers under any circumstances, nor do we accept any advertising.)

UNSUBSCRIBE: Click on the "Manage Subscription" link at the top of this edition, or if you don't have Web access, send a blank e-mail to fedlist- [email protected]

REPRINT AND FORWARD POLICY: Subscribers may reprint or forward The Federalist Patriot, in whole or part. If reprinting to another publication, please include the appropriate citation The Federalist Patriot (FederalistPatriot.US) in accordance with "fair use" rules, and our Subscriber/User Disclaimer. (For questions, contact our legal department at: [email protected].)

COMMENTS: Our servers automatically delete "Reply" messages to this e-mail. To read or submit comments for publication, link to -- http://FederalistPatriot.US/comments.asp Please hold your comments to 75 words if you want them posted. Questions or comments NOT for publication can be submitted to Executive Editor, Mark Alexander, Senior Feature Editor Cassandra Cornell, Senior Content Editor John Machen, Senior Research Editor Pete Parker, Feature Editors Jonah Walton and Brett Anthony, Legal Editor Michael Coleman, Technical Directors Jeffrey Thomas and Joshua Murray, Advisory Committee liaison Faith Long, or Subscriptions Manager Michele Hope at. Note the name of the person you are writing on the subject line of in an e-mail to [email protected] (Regarding editing errors, we put at least one error in every issue -- just to see if you are paying attention!)

USEFUL PATRIOT LINKS: Link to -- http://FederalistPatriot.US/news/useful_links.asp

SUPPORT THE 2005 PATRIOT FUND ONLINE: Link to our Secure Commerce Page at -- http://FederalistPatriot.US/support.asp
While it is lengthy, I find that they pose a view not seen in the left media, one of bold and truthful ideas.

To follow up on last week's coverage of Sudan's third-term appointment to the UN "Human Rights" Commission, a question has arisen: How does an ambitious, young genocidist state manage a seat on a human-rights body?

Most of the UN's member states, the majority of which are run by thugs, belong to one or more voting blocs: the 53-member African Union, the 56-member Islamic Conference, the 22-member League of Arab States, and the 115-member Non-Aligned Movement. Working together to promote their interests and fight American initiatives, especially for reform, these blocs can control the majority of votes of the 191-member General Assembly and place any thugocracy on the Human Rights Commission. Sudan's partners in the Commission include several other paragons of liberty, three of whom, China, Cuba and Zimbabwe, enjoy veto power this year over which complaints the entire Commission will even hear.

As we've said many times before, we think it's high time the UN be brought down a few pegs. The United States should seriously rethink its membership in -- or at least its funding of -- this utterly corrupt body.

I as a tax payer feel that cutting programs with no proven results is a fair way to reduce the budget, starting with the utterly worthless UN. this would save BILLIONS, why on earth we fund over 25% of this defunct gallery of rogue nations is beyond me.

I was unable to find the exact cost of our UN membership, I wonder how much it really is?

Latest posts