Dangerous Times

politics, culture, peace & war…

About

Sensible people don’t want to live in dangerous times. But solutions do not come from denial. They come from facing facts, thinking about them and taking proper actions.

I am a scientist, writer and policy consultant. For my articles, please see The American Thinker

  • http://www.americanthinker.com
  • James Lewis

    Vincent van Gogh

    113 Responses to “About”

    1. Jeff Hale said

      James, Excellent piece at AT today (“Why aren’t all liberals neocons”).

      I refuse to flatter the American Left (including those power whore Democrats in elected office – Reid, Kennedy, Pelosi et al) by referring to them as “Liberal”. I’m even more annoyed at their references to themselves as “progressive”, especially as its meant to apply that those of us who disagree with their destructive policies are not progressive. A point I have routinely made in my writings is that there is NOTHING Liberal or Progressive about:
      * pushing for negotiation with Tyrants and Terrorists around the world, when history has shown that they view talk as weakness.
      * zealously clinging to Great Society Welfareism when it has destroyed the traditional family and had devastating effects on the inner cities, increasing poverty and leading an increase in crime by fatherless men.
      * continuing to incite class warfare and soak the rich tax policies, when its the “rich” who invest the money and grow the economy. Taxes take away the incentive to invest.
      * hamper America’s effort to defend itself in the war on terror. The very existance of all we love and know of Western Civilization is at stake, and they refuse to accept it when its plain to see.

      Very good work. I don’t call them Liberals or progressives. They’re just the contemporary American Left.

      Jeff
      Chicago

    2. skarbutts said

      You’re link to this blog at the bottom of an article in The American Thinker was not working so I googled “dangeroustimes” to find it.

      From time to time certain writers strike notes that resonate more than most, your articles almost always do that for me, although interestingly so, my crude writings may throw you for a loop as they do many.

      Keep up the good work, we are undoubtedly living in times of a great and dangerous global transition. One in which all men will eventually either stand up to give a truthful account or will lose all virtue to the collective.

    3. mdillon said

      You made an important mistsake. You should have said that adult stem cells are much closer to the final target. I have another complaint. Why is it that guys like you don’t mention the fact that tissues (potenitaly) formed from stem cells will be rejected like any other transplant unless the immune system seriously comprimised as in a liver transplant for example. I have never seen a serious commentator mention this fact! Why?

    4. Ken J said

      On global warming: I read your piece on American Thinker today and enjoyed it. I subscribe to Discover magazine who really should publish that column as a counter to the authors who write as though human-caused global warming is fact.

      My perspective on green house gasses is pretty simple: since CO2 comprises about .3% of the atmosphere or about 3 parts in 10,000, I have a hard time believing that adding, say, another 2 parts can make a dramatic difference in the climate. By what mechanism can 2 more parts of CO2 dominate the physics of the other 9,995 parts of the atmosphere? All of the rest of the green house gasses comprise tiny fractions of the concentration of CO2 – methane is measured in parts per billion, for example so I don’t get too excited about it.

      That’s how I see it; how am I wrong?

      I’m not saying absolutely not, just probably not.

    5. Cammy said

      If global warming isn’t a fact, then what’s wrong with trying to live in better harmony with the natural environment? Having better air quality in China sounds like a good idea to me.

      And, if the globe is warming naturally and the weather changing, how can we better adapt ourselves to the changes? Gee, planting trees would ultimately help one’s microclimate, clean the air and save on electric bills in the summer.

      I’m a 62 year old gardener (NOT a scientist! YIKES!)and I see changes in the weather that are drastically different from that of my childhood. I personally like the idea of collecting rainwater and growing my own vegetables. I also realize that not everyone agrees with me! (Gosh, how can they be “so wrong”?)

      Yeah, all pesonal changes. Can’t see that ANY governement is going to turn on a dime and change the rules. We have to do it ourselves.

      I always enjoy discussing this whole issue with anyone. I just wish people wouldn’t get so rude in their defense of either side. Then, no one learns anything!

      Thanks for the forum.

    6. Bob said

      A friend emailed me your post to American Thinker on global warming. In it, you write:

      >>The Bottom line: our best imaginable model has a total probability of one out of three. How many billions of dollars in Kyoto money are we going to spend on that chance?

      Isn’t there a good statistical way to answer this question? The simplest model, I think is to calculated expected costs based on potential outcomes and expenses. So, for example, let’s say that global warming will cost X billion dollars, and that a restrictive but completely effective CO2 policy will cost Y billion dollars. We can calculate the expected costs of no action versus the CO2 policy as such:

      Do nothing
      * 66% chance of no global warming x no cost of doing nothing = $0
      * 33% global warming x $X in damages = $0.33X

      Expected cost of doing nothing = sum of possible outcomes = $0.33X

      Strict CO2 policy
      * 66% chance of no global warming x $Y for the plan = $0.66y
      * 33% chance of global warming x $Y for the plan = $0.33y

      Expected cost of plan = $Y

      If Y = 0.33X, then the decisions are equivalent in their costs. However, if y

    7. Mark Landsbaum said

      I’m an editorial writer for the Orange County Register in California and doing a piece on the state’s recent legislation concerning global warming.

      You’re American Thinker column made several good points that I would like to repeat, but I am not about to quote a pseudonym of someone who claims to be a scientist. May I know your identity and credentials so your thoughts can be shared with our readers?

    8. Eric said

      I just read your article at American Thinker, Why Global Warming is Probably a Crock.

      You are a scientist. Do you work with statistics? Do you know the difference between independent and dependent variables? In your article you have assumed all the variables in a climate model are independent. Clearly this would not be the case.

      Also, your dismissal of models would seem to apply to models used by the military and aircraft manufacturers, among others.

      This post makes that point http://scienceblogs.com/goodmath/2007/01/misrepresenting_simulations_1.php

    9. Edward said

      Regarding your article on climate change entitled Why Global Warming is Probably a Crock…. why don’t YOU grow up? In the conclusion your are saying (unless I am incorrect) that climate changed caused by humans is about a 36 percent probability. Gee I guess that means we should all go and buy some SUVs because there is no problem. After all we have a 64 percent chance that all will go smoothly…oh wait a minute….36 percent chance that we are thoroughly screwing up our planet. WAKE UP how about changing the way we are doing business if there is a 36 percent chance that we will screw up the planet by your calculations. How old are you? It seems you should ask some younger members of your community, like let’s say eighth graders and ask them if there is a 36 percent chance we are screwing up the world, should we change the way we do things. They may give you a more intelligent response than the one you conclude to. DUH

    10. reza Pardisan said

      Hi, I am an anti Islamic Republic activist and I wonder If I could have an E-mail address in order to forward you some of the untold truth about Islamic revolution in Iran.

    11. I am no particular fan of American thinker, but your article on the far left shows that we have common enemies. I am a major opponent of what I call the anti-depleted uranium crusaders and they are the ones who are trying to convince that kid yet unborn on the Arab street to set off a dirty bomb or a nuc in the US as thanks for our poisoning their country forever. Unfortunately, that is all science fiction being made to appear as science fact and it has frightened soldiers and their families, caused four state legislatures to pass laws and is headed for new consideration in Congress. To learn about one of the anti-DU crazies, the one who likes to call himself the past Director of the Army DU program, Douglas Lind Rokke, Major US Army Reserve (he makes himself sound not only like 40 year career regular Army, but also claims to be a 40% disabled combat vet even though he spent the war in Riyadh), PhD Education (not Physics or Doctor of Medicine, just a well educated failure who never became Superintendent of Schools and hasn’t made it much past substitute teacher) .. go to DUStory at Yahoo Groups dot com .. I have posted his actual military records, his actual PhD thesis and a letter from his superior during Desert Storm which mentions Reserve First Lieutenant Rokke, a far cry from Rokke’s claim that he personally was selected by General Schwartzkopf to clean up the DU mess. I could use a lot more help, monitoring the net, writing papers, TV stations, etc. CNN even had a very badly researched two part series on DU and all of it is piped right back to the kid on the street in the Mid East. Thanks.

    12. Pete said

      VIENNA, Austria: In stories Feb. 16 and Feb. 17 about weapons sales, The Associated Press, citing Austrian news media reports, erroneously reported that Austrian authorities approved the export of 30,000 handguns to Iran. The weapons were sold to Iraq, not Iran.

    13. franz kaffka said

      If there where no illegal terroristic US_invaders in Iraq, they could not been killed by excellent Austrian weapons (better than US-Army M82A3 Barett 50 calibre.)
      It would be better for american tourists to visit the mess USA made in Iraq than to visit Austria.

    14. Great article in the American Thinker today, I very much enjoyed it.

      Cheers,

      J. Strong
      http://strongconservative.blogspot.com

    15. marilyn wolgat said

      re:Is Free Europe Waking Up? in the American Thinker. Your comments regarding blogs reminded me of the web site of a favorite U.K. artist who keeps a page on her land – England – on all her sites.

      http://www.petportraits.org/pet_portraits_england.htm

      Lovely England is in danger of being erased, unlike the ‘minority’ lands of Scotland or Wales in the name of the great leveler. A trip to her site reminds us of all the beauties of that wonderful culture. No self loather she.

      I wished we all loved our country as much as this sensitive lady loves her England.

      Sincerely

    16. Jack Kemp said

      James, excellent piece about Germany in today’s American Thinker. Reading your detailed story drew my memory back to the quickie made-for-tv movie about the Israeli raid on Enteebe, Uganda in 1976. At one point, the hijackers of the plane, both Palestinians and Bader-Meinhoff style German radicals, make a “sereratzia,” seperating the Jews from the non-Jews and letting the Gentiles go free. Theodore Bikel, playing one of the hostages, lifts his left sleeve and shows one of the German radicals his Auschwitz tatoo and says to him, “You see this? You are the same Germans.” The young radical sputters about how he is working to make a better world for all people and how he isn’t a Nazi, but it both falls flat and Bikel’s character (and probably Bikel himself) are not buying any of it.

      They are the same Germans and their country should have never been unified.

    17. Jack Kemp said

      I should have included this in the previous comment. I am the Jack Kemp that contributes to American Thinker and am not the politician of the same name.

    18. john said

      “they are the same Germans and their country should have never been unified.”

      proof in a statement, sir, that you know nothing about germany whatsoever.

    19. PacRim Jim said

      Apropos German anti-Americanism, it’s ironic, nein, that the largest ethnic group in America is Germans (look it up). What motivates German anti-Americanism is that their brighter relatives, friends, and neigbors left Deutschland and helped make a better country elsewhere, just in time to avoid the wars and exterminations of 20th-century Germany. In other words, America got the good Germans with foresight. Thus anti-Americanism simmers among the residue back in Deutschland.

    20. Ross said

      Hi,

      Your essay about Scheuer missed the mark on some basic points.

      First, he is a registered Republican and always has been. He says his father would turn in his grave if he ever voted for a democrat.

      Second, he was angry and frustrated at the administration because they would not bomb targets in Northern Iraq when he pressed. For example, in July 2002, he urged the White House to bomb Ansar al-Islam in Iraq, where he says humint and sigint indicated that they were working with ricin and anthrax. See “Four Corners” transcript online. He was extremely frustrated that the Administration was busy wining and dining the French and did not want to come across as “gunslingers”. He was equally upset over a similar missed opportunity in Afghanistan where Bin Laden was not bombed while on a hunting trip — Scheuer viewed the Saudi prince in the next tent expendable (there are thousands).

      Third, as an intelligence analyst, he is merely seeing through an enemies eyes as Sun Tzu would counsel is necessary to vanguish the enemy. His moral blindness may be that while in pointing to the country’s policies that fuel Bin Laden’s attacks, he does not acknowledge that he was the architect of the rendition policy that has the jihadists so motivated to retaliate. (In concluding that the invasion of Iraq increased the likelihood of terrorism, he is merely stating what the vast majority of analysts think).

      It amuses him that he provokes such a reaction and takes heat from all sides and given all sorts of labels. And it is your prerogative to label him leftist if you like. Let’s just clarify one fact for context — he’s the one who wanted to bomb Ansar al-Islam in Iraq in the summer of 2002 over ricin and anthrax he says was the subject of experiments.

      DEBBIE WHITMONT: In 2004, Mike Scheuer resigned after 22 years with the CIA. For four years he headed the agency’s bin Laden Unit. Scheuer says that in 2002 there were plenty of chances to wipe out Zarqawi’s camp in Kurdistan.
      MICHAEL SCHEUER, CIA 1982-2004: Excellent intelligence. Almost every day we sent a package to the White House. They had had overhead imagery of the house he was staying in. You know, very detailed information. And it was a terrorist training camp. Any collateral damage there would have been terrorists. In addition, the camp was experimenting with ricin and anthrax.
      DEBBIE WHITMONT: How did you know that?
      MICHAEL SCHEUER, CIA 1982-2004: Through the combination of intelligence sources. You know, the traditional signals intelligence, human intelligence and overhead imagery.
      DEBBIE WHITMONT: Plans were drawn up to destroy the camp by July 4 2002. But that date came and went.
      MICHAEL SCHEUER, CIA 1982-2004: And the reason the intelligence service got for not shooting Zarqawi was simply that the President and the National Security Council decided it was more important not to give the Europeans the impression that we were gunslingers.
      DEBBIE WHITMONT: Steven Simon, a former US National Security Council director, describes it as a ‘policy impediment’ for Washington.
      STEVEN SIMON, COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS: Well, in the sense that if you strike a camp that you have asserted to be a reason for war and you take it out, the question then arises, well, then why go to war if you’ve done this?
      MICHAEL SCHEUER, CIA 1982-2004: I just remember being very irate that we had a target that was solid… Very high percentage, chance, of killing him. And we forwent it for reasons that were, to me, ludicrous.
      DEBBIE WHITMONT: The Kurdistan camp, was bombed at the start of the Iraq war. Within a year, America’s description of Zarqawi to the UN Security Council would become a reality. Zarqawi would not only become a collaborator of Osama bin Laden, he’d also head up exactly the kind of deadly terrorist network America had imagined in Iraq.
      STEVEN SIMON, COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS: The jihad was flagging before the United States and its coalition partners invaded Iraq. It was really on the ropes. The invasion of Iraq changed that, because in a moment, really, the United States and its coalition partners validated every little bit of bin Laden’s story.
      MICHAEL SCHEUER, CIA 1982-2004: Oh, I always say if Osama was a Christian it was the Christmas present he’d always asked his parents for but would have never believed it would actually be delivered. Ah, it broke the back of American counter-terrorism efforts and counter-terrorism policy. Iraq is smack in the heart of the Arab homeland. And it’s going to be a magnet for mujaheddin for the foreseeable future.
      ZARQAWI IN VIDEO: Our blood and torn bodies will stop you from realising your dreams and what is coming is more cunning and bitter, with God’s help.

    21. I just read your column on the American thinker that was titled Was Cho taught to hate? And I found it extremely revealing and well written. I am glad somebody has turned the lens of the camera on the content of what is being taught on our campuses across the country. I wish someone would do a study of all the anti-American and hate filled choruses that are being offered at universities across the United States. One thing is for sure there has to be an enormous and vast amount of courses being offered that our valueless and cannot teach anything about respect for individuals let alone any morality. I’d like to see some courses where they teach about individual responsibility and some courses about how to effectively deal with your emotions using a very popular program that I use in my counseling called dialectical behavior therapy. Just the vignette that you show from Virginia Tech University was enough to make my stomach cringe. None of the course offerings in the English department directed the individual or gave any individuals a sense of healthiness or offer any virtues or even offered any kind of refreshing review of all of the main classics of Western thought. Surely some professor could have come up with a syllabus or course offering that would have tied together something to do with morality, individual responsibility and choice making. Mr. Cho does not appear to have been served for a well by the English department at Virginia Tech but then again I don’t think any of the students are being served well by the types of course offerings being offered. I for one would not want to send my student to take those kinds of courses that you pointed out. To me they are a waste of taxpayer dollars in tuition dollars and they don’t have anything to do with real literature or English. And that’s my opinion! Thank you again for writing a very good column about the reality and the question of whether or not Mr. Cho was taught to hate by the English department at Virginia Tech. For that matter was Mr. Cho taught to respect life during his time here in the host country for many school that he went to. Much will be written I’m sure to find causes for such evil and it is sad that the English department, like Pontius Pilate, washes his hands and takes no responsibility for Mr. Cho’s actions or any part in influencing his thinking. I suggest that parents take a serious and hard look at all of courses being offered at the universities were their sons and daughters want to go to and make sure that they have some traditional values being taught or find some other school. I will send your column to many of my friends and colleagues because I think it is an excellent piece!

    22. We would like permission to reprint your article, Was Cho Taught to Hate?, on ChronWatch, which is a popular alternative to the liberal San Francisco Chronicle. We would include full attribution to you and to American Thinker. Please reply. Marv

    23. Terry A. Turner said

      Thank you for your analysis which cut right to the heart of the matter of the Virginia Tech situation. Here are my thoughts:

      I’m sorry to inform the Virginia Tech English department that thought precedes action and results. If you teach an unformed intellect thinking processes based on results you will guide the being to a life of potential and worth.

      On the other hand if you teach the person fantasy with no real bases in reality you can bring about a disconnect from real life and all the hells that come with it.

      Certainly, once the intellect is well grounded, you can foray into all the fantasies you wish. Sure, I know some actual knowledge can be gained by diving into the depths of truth. But before you jump into space it is only common sense to make sure you are firmly tethered to the space ship. You are acting irresponsibly when you throw young minds out into space who are not yet firmly tethered.

      The University needs reevaluate its curriculum and teachers to make sure they are living up to their responsibility to help these young minds reach their potential for a good life.

      If teachers want research the possibilities of their conjectures they should do it on their own time in some other forum, say with other such intellectuals with already matured minds.

      Teachers who insist on using the University as their own personal research grounds should be replaced. Again, I’m sorry, your first responsibility is to place your students on a firm ground from which to forge a good life for themselves, their families, their communities, their country, and the world at large.

      To responsible teaching,

      Terry A. Turner

    24. Jim Capo said

      Your point that the English Department at VT should consider bearing some of the responsibility for teaching Cho to hate is well taken.

      After broadcasting your point across America however, I doubt Rush Limbaugh or most of fans recognized the irony of segueing immediately into a jolly discussion over John McCain’s bomb Iran quip.

      Stretching your well-done logic a bit further, it seems it could also be applied to political leaders who casually joke about mass-killing as an invigorating fantasy option for conflict resolution. Perhaps McCain and those who celebrate his macabre humor in dealing with a serious issue might also be considered bad examples to offer the mentally deranged.

    25. Slim and Slam said

      Thoughts for “James Lewis,” responding to the article on the Virginia Tech English Department:

      Your suppositions about whether Cho was taught to hate takes so many rhetorical leaps, makes so many wild assumptions, and trades in so many tired stereotypes about American higher education that I wonder if you’re really a Marxist-leftist out to make the right wing look silly.

      You say “he certainly learned to be a self-justifying criminal.” Probably he was an autodidact for that one. Most self-justifying criminals are, aren’t they? Blaming an institution for the behavior of an individual sounds so PC.

      You use this tragedy to attack the politics of members of the faculty; at least you have the decency to admit that you have absolutely no idea whether he took any classes from your worst offenders. (But don’t let that stop you from tarring them in print, okay?)

      I note that you decide to attack James Collier for the title of his book, Philosophy, Rhetoric, and the End of Knowledge: A New Beginning for Science and Technology Studies. Mr. Collier states that “We argue for a normative epistemology in which the means and ends of producing knowledge are explicitly analyzed and enacted. While our focus is science, my current work takes up the question of how academics understand their own inquiry.” (Emphasis mine.) In other words, he’s looking at how academics impart knowledge, and at how academics view their own role in producing knowledge. Isn’t that exactly what you’re asking academics to do in your own post? He also states that “In the midst of our rush to apply and advance our knowledge about the world, we need to address questions of what our knowledge should be in the world.” Wouldn’t you say amen to that?

      Similarly, Sheila Tod-Carter’s work for the US Civil Rights Commission is apparently all that needs to be said about her. Are you calling for the current administration disbanded the commission? Why don’t you think it’s safer to leave examinations of discrimination in the all-talk-no-action confines of a commission?

      (I see that Ms. Tod-Carter also was an English major at VT in her day. Hmmm… one VT English major goes on to do work for the US Civil Rights Commission, while another goes on a deranged murderous rampage. If you accept that one of these is inappropriate behavior, you’d probably think that the other one of these is a logical expression of opposition to that behavior. Your choice on which is which.)

      As for Allen Brizee… there are two problems with your characterization of Professor Brizee or Virginia Tech: he’s not at VT anymore, and he wasn’t (and isn’t) a professor. At VT, he was an MA student who got his degree in 2003. (That website was prepared in 2000 for a different professor’s Marxist Literary Criticism course.) He’s a PhD candidate at Purdue now. This sloppiness undermines your credibility.

      I share your opinion of Nikki Giovanni’s posted response to the tragedy; it brought in inappropriate comparisons. However, the text at the bottom of the same page (which, you should note, is the only view actually ascribed to the English Department) also merits mention: “In the English Department at Virginia Tech, we deeply mourn our students and colleagues who have lost their lives, and we grieve with the families and friends who have experienced such devastating loss. We extend our arms in love to these people and to our students who survive.” This, too, was the English Department’s frontpage reaction to the massacre. Would you throw this out with Giovanni’s drivel?

      Your ill-informed criticism of the Virginia Tech English department, and the role it may (or, more likely, may not) have played in the senseless killing of 32 students, shows your willingness to exploit any event to attempt to shoehorn your preconceived views into it. And shame on American Thinker for their cowardly policy of not enabling comments. I am not so cowardly: send responses to me at slim_and_slam_fl@yahoo.com.

    26. Slim and Slam said

      A quick response to “Terry A. Turner”:

      Certainly, once the intellect is well grounded, you can foray into all the fantasies you wish.

      Well, that’s the difference between introductory courses and upper-level courses. Do you believe that the VT English Department offers no introductory courses, or is neglecting them? Details, please.

      Teachers who insist on using the University as their own personal research grounds should be replaced.

      Um, then who will do research? And that applies to the sciences as well as to the humanities: it is presumed that a professor can make intelligent choices about what to research, and that a professor can adequately balance his research and his teaching responsibilities. All research is, at some level, personal: who would waste years doing research one had no interest in?

      Do have any evidence that the Virginia Tech English faculty are neglecting their teaching duties because they’re focusing too much on their research?

      I remain reachable at slim_and_slam_fl@yahoo.com.

    27. hgon@doe.com said

      About that war in Iraq that you wanted so badly… how’s that working out for you?

    28. Silvio Levy said

      >About that war in Iraq that you wanted
      > so badly… how’s that working out for you?

      I can answer that one. It has succeeded beyond the wildest expectations of its proponents. It has transferred a trillion dollars or so of (today’s and mostly tomorrow’s) taxpayers into the pockets of the military-industrial complex — just look at Halliburton stock. It terrorized the American public into utter passivity for four years, since months before it started. It established over a dozen American bases in Iraq and a billion-dollar “embassy”. It still tars its opponents with lack of patriotism, at least in the eyes of the Faithful 30%. For a “war” that was never more than a lopsided invasion and occupation of an eviscerated country, what more could you with for?

    29. Silvio Levy said

      I forgot a couple more accomplishments of the Dear Leader’s “war”: increasing worldwide terrorism to justify endless war powers — shaping the new Iraqi oil law which grants power over half the oil fields to multinationals — derailing Saddam’s expected change from petrodollars to petro-euros — preparing the stage for a sacrificial lamb Administration in 2009.

    30. Think before you hate said

      In response to April 20, 2007, Was Cho taught to hate?, by James Lewis in “American Thinker:”

      The hatred and dangerous speech in Mr. Lewis’s blog kills; he kills transgendered people, creativity and freedom of speech, and disavows human rights in general; he kills with his ignorance and intolerance. By allowing such anti-intellectual BS to be published on your website, you condone his behavior. Shame to all your editors and contributors, shame to your sponsors, shame to your readers. Freedom of speech should not be a freedom to post hatred that kills. What Mr. Lewis does is not think, but instead hate, and hate breeds hate. Hate and intolerance, and the lack of information are reasons why Cho killed those students at VT, not too much information, too many questions, or by finding an outlet in the English dept. to explore his concerns and questions about human life, and society.

      Mr. Lewis is pure propaganda. If he had his way, we’d put all the queers, artists, intellectuals, and “real” thinkers away for good. Genocide. Is that what you want, Mr. Lewis?

    31. Robert said

      In response to think before you hate;

      This commenter is a perfect example of the very institutions that Mr. Lewis writes about…an angry and adolescent reaction from an individual raised by public schools.

      It exemplifies the intolerance of public education to reasonable debate; emotional tantrums vs. logical discourse, the use of political slogans vs. facts, activism vs. civilized manners, with a strong Marxist component that eerily resembles obedience training.

      The Marxist element is represented here by the intolerance and forbiddance of non-party sanctioned activities, such as a blog, with an insinuation of violence for disobedience. One can hear the same rage in Hitler’s speeches.

      I find Marxism to be a powerful conditioning process. In America it is a huge commercial industry, used by politicians to retain power. The process starts early and sticks to an inflexible party line; all the elements of the DNC can be seen in the commenter’s views.

      These views, developed by repetition and strong imagery throughout school, create a dream world from which the student reacts. White children are initially broken down with guilt and minority children with inferiority; the messages are constant, simple, and visual. They are divided into single-dimensional slogans in which enduring truths and values are all replaced with fantasyland ideals.

      “Intolerance”, “hate”, “freedom”, and “the environment” all become entirely symbolic after years of embedded imagery and conditioning. All aspects of society, humanity, our institutions and our systems of beliefs and values are pre-judged in public schools. The results are completely predictable; good for politicians, bad for our survival.

      The goals of this conditioning are (1) strong emotional reactions to non-party sanctioned ideals, and (2) a correct vote. Strong emotions check reason, prevent discourse and result in anarchy, an essential element in Marxism. Emotions separate us as a nation and unite us as a mob.

      The strong emotional reactions remain in place, to erupt at any time. Unsupervised, this conditioning is dangerous and does not require much provocation. Arson is just another form of freedom of expression in the Marxist mind.

      Please try to think before you hate.

    32. Beverly Gunn said

      Mr. Lewis,
      I read your article today about President Bush, our Commander and Chief (we are a military family), and our dear President. Before the election in 2000 I had a dream. In the dream I dreamed of King Saul who was chosen for his handsome appearance. He was the people’s choice and was wildly popluar. He was smart and savvy and spoke well. He brought shame to his country through his exploits and even some say became insane.
      For the next King the people ask God to choose. For them he chose a simple man, a man of the earth, who was humble and tried to lead valiantly in war.
      In my dream I saw President Clinton. Since he was then our son’s Commander and Chief, we never spoke ill of him while our son, an officer, a grad of USAFA was around. Never. But I saw the verbal abilities he had and saw that folks decided he was ever so smart, just because he had the gift of gab. Clinton could make any group he was with believe in his sincerity then leave them and do the same with a polar opposite.
      President Bush is not a man given to being able to give speeches that rouse an entire nation. It isn’t his gift. But his honesty, his resolve, now those are things I want my President to have. He also has the ability to know and understand that our enemies MEAN what they say. Unlike the libs who want us more frightened of global warming President Bush knows what we are facing. He isn’t given to vagarities of popularity, he doesn’t care if he is popular, only that he protects us on his watch.
      We ranchers know substance when we see it. We know, since we once lived outside the Beltway, what that mentality is like and why President BUsh goes home to his ranch and chops brush. While we lived there my husband sent me back to Texas 3-4 times a year to work on my Dad’s ranch so I could get the Washington stupidity out of my mind. Chopping brush puts you in touch with what is real, not what is imagined. It helps you see the results of hard work, not the vagarities of a “talk” with an enemy who believes that because you came and “talked” with him you are sincere. With our enemies it just makes them more sure they will conquer us because we are weak.
      Bless you for your article. We love our President and pray for him daily, asking God’s grace and love be with him and protect him.
      And we ask God to protect those who serve. Our son is one. He is a pilot now, and in Iraq for his 5th time. May God continue to bless America.
      Bev Gunn
      East Texas Rancher

    33. clarice said

      Today’s AT article is wonderful. You so often say what I think but far more brilliantly than I ever could.

    34. Yes, I too appreciate your article today at AT. It’s good to properly sum up conservative leaders and heroes.

      fyi, an appraisl of Whittaker Chambers I wrote for his birthday:
      http://jeremayakovka.typepad.com/jeremayakovka/2007/04/true_whit_part_.html

    35. Dear Mr. Lewis,

      “A Theory of W” was a thrilling read! Every paragraph “took the words (or at least sentiments) right out of my mouth.” You have written the definitive description (and defense) of President Bush, his formidable accomplishments, and I predict his stellar legacy. I have sent your article far and wide. Thanks for the best read of the year!

      Sincerely yours,

      Joan Swirsky

    36. Dick said

      I want to associate myself with those who believe in the man who is the President of the United States. I thank you, for the time and effort put into the reply to Mr Lewis’s column about W, the president..To the detractors I would say think, because you can.

    37. skarbutts said

      Mr. Lewis,

      An avid fan of you writing, while drafting a recent piece of my own, A World off Axis>, I came across an article you had written in April of 2006, The Essential Nobility of US Foreign Policy; this was inspirational.

    38. James said

      Re: Mickey Martyr article:

      “….. Those soldiers despised irregulars, like the Cossacks, who avoided equal battle and sought out the most helpless victims to kill, rob and rape. ….”

      We Southerners learned about this during the War for Southern Independence”.

      Thank you,

      James

    39. MWilli05 said

      RE:
      >About that war in Iraq that you wanted
      > so badly… how’s that working out for you?

      When i hear comments like this i often wonder how these critics would feel if they lived in such opression such as Saddam? And then i think… How selfish they must be. Rightous? No, we make mistakes. Freedom has never been easy. Many seem to not care for those who don’t have it.

    40. MWilli05 said

      Re: The Mickey Martyr Club

      Great read, awesome, Keepem coming!
      James, any opinion on Gil-White @hirhome.com?

    41. Geoff said

      Re: The BBC blames Israel for “unstable borders”
      In 1963, as a British colonial boy at the age of 15, I spent a year in the UK. Towards the end of that year I watched a BBC “Panorama” show which explained that because of Arab efforts to destroy Israel at its creation, many Arabs living in the war zone had fled. After the war, instead of being assimilated by Arab states in the same manner that Israel assimilated Jews leaving (many involuntarily) the so-called Arab lands, many of these people, styled “Palestinians” were placed in refugee camps. The BBC as much as said that they were deliberately being turned into attack dogs. Later, in 1967, I was at university in England when the war of that name took place. Again, the BBC reporting was entirely objective. If anything, its reporters conveyed the underlying belief: “Of course, Israel is clearly the victim of bullying here.”
      That was the BBC then; your article accurately describes the BBC now. Gordon Brown should force all who feed from that particular public trough to carefully view their own archival footage!

    42. Judy said

      Hello:

      Great article on the EU today. But the same thing is happening here. I would be happy to send you a copy of Jerome Corsi’s new book, The Late Great U.S.A: The Coming Merger with Mexico and Canada. Talk about stealth! Bush is a master at it, while apparently being owned lock, stock and barrel by Mexican interests.

      If you’re interested, please send a mailing address and I will get a copy to you.

      Judy

    43. Selin Sari said

      Hello,

      I am a Turkish girl living in US for two years. I have read your article about Turkish army and how democracy works in Turkey. I have to disagree with you.
      It is true that Ataturk made some aggressive reforms for our country and all were necessary and it is also true that from time to time army ruled the country.But army never took over just because there is an islamist danger. There were always other problems such as terorism (1980). In 1960 army didn’t like the international politics of the government not because they thought the government is islamic. I would expect you to know the reasons for army to take over better since while you are writing you should know things better. You should not lead your readers to think Turkey is a non-democratic country.
      Turkey is a democratic republic since 1923. Of course it was not easy for a country to become a republic after 600 years of empire. That was what you would expect from any country which wasn’t muslim also. Do you think France didn’t have any problems when they are converting from kingdom to republic? So we had problems also. But now we are a really strong republic who will not ever use islamic rules when ruling the country.
      If you had done your research enough you would find out that people didn’t vote for AKP (which you defined islamist) because they are islamist but they vote because they didn’t like coalitions which were going on like 15 years and they were pleased the way AKP had ruled the country for the past 5 years. The economy is better than before and also the people who you defined islamist never tried to bring islamic rules.Also there were not any good alternative parties in Turkey for this election. I also voted for AKP but i dont expect to be ruled by islam. I believe in Ataturk’s democratic republic and i also believe that AKP will save it.
      From your article i didn’t understand what kind of a democrat you are. If you think democracy is good you should not advice for middle east armies to take over.If there is democracy there should be always a way to solve problems with the help of people who are living in that country. Of course in Turkey there are some main laws which cannot be changed such as noone can offer to change the democratic republic to islamic one. The person who will offer this will go to jail, and if there is a government who is offering this then maybe army can take over since they are the protector of the country and the republic. It didn’t really happen before, but i think 3 times army warned the government about islamic rules in 84 years. And that is all, they didn’t take over because of that
      If you go to Turkey and try to find out what people thinks you would find out that everyone likes democracy, they don’t like armies to take over, they would never want to go back to dictation and never gave up on republic. The people who voted for AKP can not be called as islamist, nor the cabinet members.
      Please don’t introduce our country as non-democratic or islamist. I can assure you Turkey is as democrat as US and i think we live kind of more free. There are a lot of non-muslim people in our country who can live free and it is illeagal to force people about their religion. Noone who visited our country can say that they think it is an islamist country at least please ask the people who visited us or lived in Turkey.
      Regards

    44. Jack Burns said

      I read your article “The Left’s Lust for Revolutionary Transformation.”

      I believe it’s a perfect example of how many conservatives try to twist and misrepresent what’s really happening in progressive thought. You’re so far off the mark it’s unreal!

      I used to be a conservative. Voted for Reagan. Fortunately, I started asking some questions and discovered basically damn near everything I’d be told was a bold faced lie.

      Hillary is not a progressive. She’s not even liberal. Neither is Obama. Any careful dissection and study of their writings, not the crap published by the news-entertainment media, shows they are really just part of the Washington machine, a machine that’s all about the advancement of capital around the globe. The Dems and GOP line up and play nicely on this point.

      Both groups dilly dally around with high profile issues to make everyone think they’re dealing with two completely different groups, but nothing could be further from the truth. They’re all drinking the same cool aid, and so is the American public.

      Duped. Every damn one of you.

      The real left in this country doesn’t support socialism, communism or anything close. We’re looking for some rational middle way, where we can find balance between industrialism and sustainability. Where the small business owner can make a fair profit and not be run out of town by Mal-Wart.

      Socialism doesn’t provide a single logical answer to environmental problems. All socialism does is shift the ownership of the means of production. Perhaps some socialist enterprises, likes cooperatives and employee owned companies makes sense, but only within the framework of steady state capitalism. Every progressive I know supports the simple capitalism that’s been the mainstay of this country.

      One of the core problems with conservatives in this country is your inability to address the illogical philosophy of growth ad infinitum in a world of finite resources. It’s the fatal flaw of growth capitalism, and it’s having a serious effect on ecosystems.

      Now, if you want to know what the real progressives in this country, those so-called Marxists at Berkeley you keep referring to, read some of the writings of Peter Berg. Gary Snyder. The late Edward Abbey.

      It’s all about finding a sensible middle way. Maintaining the simple capitalism of the small business owner, bakers, tradesmen, grocers,etc. within the boundaries of ecological reality.

      I gave up on the Democrats a long time ago. They aren’t providing any solutions. At least with the GOP, you know what you’re getting. The Democrats, on the other hand, lie and want to make you think they are really doing something when the fact is they are not. It’s a ruse.

      And by the way, I’m not some long haired, dope smoking Marxist. I run a company, I own guns and most days, I wear a cowboy hat. I’ve raised a family and have three successful children.

      Enough with the stereotypes, please.

    45. Lee Rodgers said

      Everything I do is illegal … creeping authoritarianism in the USA:

      http://www.mindfully.org/Farm/2003/Everything-Is-Illegal1esp03.htm

    46. In your article, “Britain Demands more Muslims”, I agree with your general points. But there are far fewer than “two million Pakistanis in London”. The number of immigrants in the whole of the UK is about 3 million (from all nationalities) and the cities with the largest Muslim communities are Birmingham, Leicester and Bradford. The common US opinion is that the UK is overrun by Muslims whereas they actually account for about 2 million of the 60 million population i.e. < 5%. However, they are a vocal 5%.

    47. Anonymous said

      i just finished reading your March 8th article, about how germany hates america, and that it is a country that uses its past as a control on its population. i know that i am a bit late responding on this, but all i can say is wow. journalism at its best.

      i don’t know which germans you met while in Hamburg, or why you assume that every german hates us, and thinks that Bush is Hitler, but i think that these statements show just how ignorant to other lands and their values. obviously you are looking at things through the point of view of an extremely patriotic american, who thinks that everything that we do and think is right. i said ‘extremely’ because the way that you were talking made me think of an extremist.

      having spent time in germany, and having lived there i can say from my experience that germans do not hate america. many of them are fed up with the ‘war on terror’. many think that Bush is an idiot, but lets face, a lot of people here in the U.S. think that he is an idiot. as for comparisons of Bush and Hitler, i do not agree with the thinking there. of course there are people there that don’t like americans, or other foreigners.

      you were using articles out of Der Spiegel. you should keep in mind that this is only one newspaper. i’m sure that there have been other anti-america articles in other newspapers, but taking the ones that are crazy and ones that germans think are crazy and using them and spinning these few for your uses and making them appear as a small amount among thousands of brutal hate-spreading articles is just wrong. shame on you.

      i think that if america had had a past that included the murder of millions of innocent people, that we would try to remember the past and learn a lesson from it. if you mean that freedom of speech is being beaten down, i beg to differ. the only place this might appear to be the case is with the NPD, and at neo-Nazi rallies, and i find this acceptable. even these pigs have the right to speak their minds, just like you.

      as for ‘glorious’ america, i can only shake my head. i love my country, and am very proud to be an american, but to speak like the way that you did, sounds exactly like what the germans don’t want to have return again: propaganda straight out of the mouths of supporters of hate, and a blind view of the world, in which its our way or no way. but i guess, that sounds a bit like our foreign policy right now doesn’t it?

      you should be ashamed.

    48. Lester Arbo said

      Mr. Lewis:

      I just read your article in American Thinker on “Iraq as Quaeda Bait”. Please don’t tell me you are only now awakening to the fact that, by being in Iraq, we are stragtegically optimally positioned to confront our two greatest enenmies, Syria and Iran.

      I’m not surprised. It seems that not one of our politicians and world famous do-gooders are aaware of this simple geographic fact. I hope to God our military is.

      Les Arbo
      Daphne, AL

    49. Anonymous said

      “Sensible people don’t want to live in dangerous times. But solutions do not come from denial. They come from facing facts, thinking about them and taking proper actions.”

      Is this quote from James Lewis?

      I would like to post it on my future website and Newsletter
      -The Samuel Adams Mobilization Program (SAMP)
      and Samuel Adams Mobilization Program Newsletter.
      Respectfully yours, Major Ray Salas, U.S. Marine Corps, Retired

    50. Ray Salas said

      “Sensible people don’t want to live in dangerous times. But solutions do not come from denial. They come from facing facts, thinking about them and taking proper actions.”

      Was this quote by James Lewis? I would like to use it for my newsletter, The Samuel Adams Mobilization Program Newsletter.

      Respectfully,
      Major Ray Salas
      U.S. Marine Corps, Retired

    51. Timothy A. Hill said

      Mr Lewis,

    52. Timothy A. Hill said

      Mr Lewis,
      I read The American Thinker site everyday and have enjoyed all your writings. I have just read your article this morning entitled ‘Why did FDR invade North Africa?’ and I enjoyed it very much, but I need to point out a small factual error. Operation Torch took place in November of 1942. The first land battle, I believe was Operation Watchtower, the invasion of Guadacanal in August of 1942. Otherwise, the article was right on and very effectively pointed out the hypocrisy of the left. Keep up the good work.

      Regards,
      Timothy A. Hill

    53. Jack Kemp said

      Mr. Lewis, I just so happened to by watching the DVD of the Victory At Sea episode on Operation Torch, the invasion of Morocco, last night. Did you know that the Vichy French fought the US forces for three whole days before surrendering? And the show stated that this invasion done as a repy to Stalin’s request that a second front be opened to take pressure off of his people and army who were suffering great losses. Operation Torch was done to establish a base for attacking the Third Reich armies in North Africa, squeeze Rommel from his west as the British near the Suez Canal squeezed him from his east.

    54. Anonymous said

      Are you by any chance the “James Lewis” who wrote several books about prostate cancer?

      Paul Shlichta,
      query@crystal-research.com

    55. Wake up said

      RE:
      Where Have All the Peaceniks Gone?

      One has to be incredibly naive to think that “peacniks” give a rats a##s about anything other than themselves, how they think about themeselves and how they feel about themselves.

      Also, “peacniks” have never had a problem either supporting or remaining silent about mass murderers and tyrants, provided of course that the mass murder/tyrant was anti-American. If the said mass murderer/tyrant was pro-American, then, well, of course the “peacniks” would have to engage in some mindless, idiotic, meaningless protest in the country they hate the most, the USA.

      Of course it nevers enter their minds that they should perhaps protest where things really are bad, like Cuba, N. Korea, Saddam’s Iraq, etc. But why should they when they can instead protest in cities where things are really, really, bad; like Manhattan or San Francisco or London, etc.

      Peaceniks, like all fascist/bolsheviks, abhor anyone that does not share their world view; one in which the elite, arrogant narcissists rule the world. So if millions of ordinary folks get exterminated, they do not care because they hate them anyway and they deserved to get murdered.

      They will however get slightly out of sorts if they perceive that the USA is doing something they do not like. This will rouse the peacniks into action because the only thing they hate more than the common people is capitalism and the USA.

      We really all need to realize that peacniks are motivated by hatred and contempt for ordinary people; the exact same motivations of fascists and Bolsheviks; this is why they all have an affinity for mass murder.

      The big elephant in the room is the USA which, to an ever decreasing degree, believes in individualism and capitalism; a political ideology peacniks/fascists/bolsheviks abhor even more than their contempt for ordinary people.

    56. chuckwagonchuckie said

      I just read you artile on the “Liberals” lack of a hissy duck fit over Burma. I can recall in the not to distant past while in college listening to the rant of liberal professors stating “Rather Red than Dead”. Some assumed Russian Communism would replace the Republic with thier brand of Social Compassion. As I listened I could assume these idiots were Marxist.
      These same type people are the first to burn the flag,burn ther draft cards and rip off their bra’s. They want the freedom to complain and have PEACE at their price which is to wave the white flag of appeasement to any adversary.
      In the end the alpha male/female with his/her values will resist and do the right thing be it in Burma,Iraq or Iran.

    57. neocon hippie said

      Re: The evidence for Neocommunism

      You refer to David Horowitz as a former Boomer Leftist. However, having been born in 1939, Horowitz is older than the Boomers. By a good seven years, if one uses the orthodox 1946-64 definition, and still older by four years if one goes by the Strauss-Howe 1943-60 range.

      In fact, many/most of the movers and shakers of the 1960’s and beyond were from the pre-Boomer definition. Either we have to acknowledge that the social movements that started in the 1960’s were not strictly Boomer centered despite the myth, or we have to radically define the Boomer birth years away from the post-war demographic bulge and more in line with the age range that launched “the 60’s”. Maybe 1938-1955 or something like that.

    58. Excellent article on Soros at AT this morning. Except, just one thing: The Nobel Peace prize was long ago debased. Remember Arafat?

    59. Suppose some pinko-liberal or even commie country were to go to war with the US of A – exactly how many people would die?
      Or even if some terrorists let off a few dirty bombs in some US cities, how many would die now and in future, inc from side effects?

      You can’t predict for sure?
      Then – according to your absurd piece on climate change uncertainty on American Idiot (Thinker? – hahahaha, gimme a break) these are not real threats, and we shouldn’t do anything to prevent them happening.

    60. james said

      actually martin, those are the kinds of things intelligent people can predict for sure. thats what makes terrorism real and GW fake.

    61. Mr. Lewis,

      I am writing to request permission to reprint you latest article “‘Global Warming’ as Pathological Science” in the November 2007 issue of The Dakota Beacon magazine.

      Thanks

    62. Ronald R. Cherry, MD, FCCP said

      Dear Mr. Lewis,
      Because of your recent American Thinker article on gratitude I’ve made some improvements to my essay on Judeo-Christian Values. I hope this is helpful to you.
      God Bless you, and Peace Under Liberty.
      Ronald R. Cherry, MD, FCCP

      Judeo-Christian Values

      Judeo-Christian Values in America have a basis in the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness…” Since the pursuit of happiness, as Sigmund Freud surmised, is tied to human love and to creative work and play, the principles of American Judeo-Christian Values can rightly be summarized as the honoring of God-given Life, Liberty and Creativity. This seed of American social justice was then fleshed out in the U.S. Constitution through reason and common sense, unencumbered by the dysfunctional religious and secular traditions, and laws of Old Europe. Our founding fathers separated church from state, but they wisely did not separate God from state; they acknowledged God as the source of our rights, and, in fact, they were careful to place Biblical morality directly into our founding documents and laws, and into our values and culture precisely to help prevent a future of totalitarian or tyrannical rule in America. The combination of acknowledging God as the source of our rights, keeping Judeo-Christian religious morality in the state, as opposed to the church its self; and, additionally, setting up our laws based on reason and common sense has contributed to the American Character, and to what is known as “American Exceptionalism.” Our Founding Fathers were religious in a new way, the Judeo-Christian way, and they were the liberals of their day by deducing that our political and human rights come from a power higher than human government; but they were conservative to Biblical morality. There was and still is a connection between God and Liberty; He is the author of it. It is ironic that American Conservatives are now the champion of this our most liberal founding principle; and also an irony that many American Conservatives are wholly unaware of their connection with the liberal founding ideas of this great republic. It is also an irony that many American Liberals have turned a blind eye to the required connection between God and Liberty. As Thomas Jefferson and John Adams noted, as you will see below, Liberty cannot survive among men without its Divine connection.

      In Judeo-Christian America one finds the idea of equality before God and the law, but not government forced economic equality. Modern European culture has stressed the value of economic equality rather than Liberty, and their governments unjustly enforce the principle. This has led to the failed European inventions of Socialism and Communism. Socialists in America have been lured into this failed European idea of social justice. Socialism is a failure in that it unjustly suppresses human creativity by excessively taxing away its rewards and by foolishly giving economic reward to many who, even though mentally and physically able, fail to honor their Divine privilege and duty to work creatively. Socialism is a triple insult to the pursuit of happiness: it coerces conformity, it suppresses God-given human creativity; and it damages the social fabric by promoting resentment on the one hand, and ingratitude on the other. Communism was much worse in that it also dishonored the sacredness of human life and liberty. Communism was the inevitable result of separating not just church from state, but the separation of God from state. Communism dishonored Gods gifts of Life, Liberty and Creativity. European cultures have historical ties to authoritarian and totalitarian systems dating back to the Roman Empire. Even European Christianity was, for a time, contaminated by its links to authoritarian rule. American Judeo-Christian Culture, on the other hand, has been linked to honoring Life, Liberty and Creativity from the outset; deriving its wisdom from the lights of reason, common sense, and both the Hebrew Bible and New Testament Christian Bible. Thomas Jefferson, and as I can tell, the great majority of our Founding Fathers explicitly put God into the national life of the United States, precisely by putting the Creator into the Declaration of Independence. It is important that American Liberty has something to do with God; that is something for students to know and discuss, even if they are not particularly religious. This does not represent some form of tyranny of the religious majority or an injustice; it was in fact the wisdom of our founding fathers to stand in opposition to tyranny and injustice by acknowledging the source of our rights – those rights originating from God rather than from King George III, or for that matter from the Soviet or Chinese Politburo, or a courthouse, or a legislature. It should be self-evident that if our sacred human rights are derived from government, they can also be removed by government.

      America is a melting pot of diverse people including Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists and Atheists; and from the Judeo-Christian perspective: all made in God’s image. We have in America a multiethnic society, and that is good. What is unhealthy for America is for it to become Balkanized, which is very likely to happen with the atrophy of Judeo-Christian American Culture and Values. Worse yet would be for America to adopt the toxic values which exist in some parts of the world and in some foreign cultures. The values of Fascism, Nazism, Communism or Totalitarian Islamic Sharia Law for example must never metastasize into our American Culture, which traditionally has been Judeo-Christian. These values have been with us from the beginning and they have made us strong and successful. These Judeo- Christian Values should be kept central to the American spirit and culture even as we have become more multiethnic. Honoring foreign cultures is desirable, but we should never tolerate the values of violence, coercion, supremacism, bigotry, intolerance, slavery or totalitarianism; values which are sadly endemic in some foreign cultures.

      Several quotations from our Founding Fathers will illustrate American Judeo-Christian Values and our separation of church and state, but not the separation of God from state; and provide grounding for our understanding of social justice. Thomas Jefferson wrote: “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among them are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness – that to secure these rights governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed …..” He also wrote: “God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God?” He also wrote: “Almighty God hath created the mind free. … All attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens…are a departure from the plan of the Holy Author of our religion…” He also wrote: “I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.” Our founding fathers wrote the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;” President George Washington said this when proclaiming our National Thanksgiving Holiday: “It is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God ……” John Adams wrote this: “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” Later, Abraham Lincoln wrote these words about the Bible: “In regard to this great book, I have but to say, it is the best gift God has given to men. All the good Savior gave to the world was communicated through this book. But for it we could not know right from wrong.” He also spoke these words at the Gettysburg Address: “that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion — that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain — that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”

      What follows is a list of what this American considers to be our Judeo-Christian Values, the values established by our Founding Fathers, and the basis for which is to be found in the Bible, the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. I am indebted to Dennis Prager who has listed Judeo-Christian Values and elaborated on this subject long before I took it up; and those who know his work will recognize many of his thoughts.

      1. Our sense of right and wrong and our sense of wisdom come from the use of reason and common sense, but also, and importantly, from the Bible which, by faith was considered by our Founding Fathers to be God’s inspired text; and not just from the mind or heart of man. This faith lead to the mottos: “In God We Trust” & “One Nation Under God.” Our Founding Fathers were believers in the God of the Bible, even if some were not Orthodox Christians, and they put that faith into the Declaration of Independence, into our laws, into our national monuments, and into our culture. Faith is a part of American Culture, something Atheists, Secularists, Humanists and those of other religions should acknowledge and accept as historical truth. To remove the results of Biblical Faith from America is to undo what the Founding Fathers have wrought.

      2. Truth is Sacred; there can be no liberty or justice, and little happiness without it. Jesus connected truth and liberty when He said “the truth shall make you free.” In the Book of Exodus of the Hebrew Bible God describes Himself: “The LORD, the LORD God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abounding in goodness and truth…” In Deuteronomy God is described this way: “He is the Rock, His work is perfect; For all His ways are justice, A God of truth and without injustice.” Listen to King David in Psalm 25: “Show me Your ways, O Lord; Teach me your paths. Lead me in Your truth…”; and in Psalm 51: “Behold, You desire truth in the inward parts, And in the hidden part You will make me to know wisdom.”

      3. Human life is the first gift of God, and it is of infinite value since man is made in the image of God. Judeo-Christian Values have lead to a culture of life in America, not a culture of death. Americans with Judeo-Christian Values will defend innocent God-given life.

      4. Our Liberty is a gift from God and stated so in the Declaration of Independence. It is also stated in the New Testament Christian Bible: “Now the Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is Liberty.” Patrick Henry and our other Founding Fathers understood that peace can only occur under liberty; peace under tyranny is an oxymoron. The tyrant or terrorist is, by definition, at war with liberty-loving people; and we either accept the struggle for Liberty, or we accept the tyranny. Just war in medieval times was connected to the defense of life and privilege for kings and tyrants; American just war refers to the defense of life and liberty of a free people – individuals who wish to be free from tyranny and terror. Americans with Judeo-Christian Values will defend their God-given Liberty.

      5. Human creativity is also a gift from God and is not to be unjustly suppressed by totalitarian, tyrannical or excessively taxing government. The work ethic is an important part of Judeo-Christian Values since honorable work is a reflection of God-given human creativity. Human reason is also a part of God-given human creativity, and it has led to scientific knowledge and technological progress. Reason and science are important aspects of Judeo-Christian Values. Human creativity is central to the pursuit of happiness, but does not guarantee it; totalitarian systems such as Communism or Islamic Sharia Law guarantee utopian happiness, but don’t deliver it, as they suppress human creativity.

      6. “Establish justice.” This is commanded repeatedly in the Hebrew Bible, and this is how it has been done in America: Honor Life, Liberty and Creativity. Honoring the life of others is rooted in the “golden rule”: “whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them.” Liberty in practical terms means: Freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, no established or state-supported religion, right to own property and to privacy at home, right to bear arms and act in self-defense, uninterrupted elections, and the division of powers into its three branches. It is unjust to provide special rights for certain groups of people, based upon factors other than medical disability, such as race, ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation; and thereby artificially dividing our people. It is unjust when special group rights trump the pre-existing individual God-given rights of Life, Liberty and Creativity. Our Founding Fathers enumerated these essential individual rights for all people, and our Civil War enforced it for the American slaves when they were denied their God-given Liberty.

      7. “Hate Evil”. This is commanded three times in the Hebrew Bible; this is from the book of Proverbs: “The fear of the Lord is to hate evil.” Hear the Prophet Isaiah: “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness….” Americans with Judeo-Christian Values, as opposed to European leaders, still believe in the death penalty for pre-meditated murder, and America is still the nemesis of terrorists and tyrants – see the seal of the state of Virginia.

      8. “Love your neighbor” – commanded in the Hebrew and Christian Bibles. “Love your enemy” – commanded in the New Testament Christian Bible. Generations of Americans, starting with our Founding Fathers, have had to square the values of “Hate Evil” with “Love your enemy.” This has been done by hating the evil within the enemies of God-given Life and Liberty, but not hating the evil-doer him/herself.

      9. Self-discipline, self-respect, respect for elders and for others, loyalty and gratitude are Judeo-Christian Values, and also valued on other cultures.

      10. Courage is a Judeo-Christian Value, and it is also valued in other cultures. Courage can be defined as the willingness to place one’s self into harm’s way; and, if necessary, to die in defense of God-given Life and Liberty. I can think of no better example of warrior courage than young David as he stood with his sling before Goliath. There is no greater example of pacifist courage than Jesus, as He gave His life in defense of eternal Life and Liberty. Without sacrifice the protesting pacifist is a coward; Jesus was not a coward. The warrior and the true pacifist are linked by self-sacrifice: self-sacrifice in defense of Sacred Life and Liberty. Courage and cowardice are like fine art and pornography; you’ll know it when you see it.

      11. In the Judeo-Christian Value System there is a natural and common-sense balance between compassion and courageous confrontation of evil. This can be seen metaphorically as a natural balance between femininity and masculinity; both good and necessary. The secular culture of Europe, and of many in the United States today, have unwisely suppressed the masculinity of Judeo-Christian American Culture; and this has put our society out of balance.

      12. From Many, One: e pluribus unum. Ethnicity and race don’t matter, but values do matter. We Americans should consider ourselves blessed to live under God-given Liberty in the same melting pot; and we are privileged to pursue happiness through creative work and play, unencumbered by excessive government. Those things that divide us, such as race or ethnicity, can be viewed metaphorically as our various styles; and are not very important. Those things of lesser importance should melt into what is very important and which should unite us: our value of Life, Liberty and Creativity – those rights defined by the Declaration of Independence, and rightly identified as the gifts of God.

      13. The natural resources of the Earth, including the animals, along with the rest of creation should be honored and well cared for, but also used and enjoyed; and never worshiped.

      The elite European leaders and philosophers, and many Americans in the ivory tower, have decided that “God is Dead.” They have it wrong; and our Founding Fathers have said otherwise. The European separation of God and state in the Twentieth Century resulted in Communism and Nazism, and a disgusting explosion of mass murder, wars of aggression, indecency, subjugation and human suffering. The Judeo-Christian Values of our Founding Fathers has resulted in an explosion of Life, Liberty and Creativity for hundreds of millions of people. It can be so for our children, and their children, and for our posterity into the future – a bright future. Europe, I believe has a simple choice; accept and defend Judeo-Christian Values by placing God, but not the church, back into the state; or accept a new wave of Totalitarianism – most likely this time of the Islamist variety.

      America does not have an exclusive claim on Life, Liberty and Creativity; these are the rights of all people, everywhere, and for all time. Recall that our Founding Fathers were revolutionaries; and realize that the American Revolution will not end until there are no longer enemies of our God-given Life, Liberty and Creativity. The Liberty that flourished in ancient Greece, and during the Roman Republic, was short-lived. American Liberty, however, can last as long as the Earth exists, because our Liberty has been bequeathed by the King of the Universe.

      Ronald R. Cherry, MD

    63. Bob Myer said

      Mr. Lewis,

      Thanks for your American Thinker article today on gratitude. I thought your reference to Lear was spot on. It’s always good to see to classics referenced, especially in such a fitting way.

      Happy Thanksgiving.
      Bob Myer

    64. Gamaliel Isaac said

      In regard to your article in the American Thinker “Annapolis Equals De-Facto Recognition of Israel” it is quite probable that Annapolis equals De-Facto Disintegration of Israel. The fact that Condoleeza Rice was able to get so many Arab countries to show up doesn’t prove that they recognize Israel, they are coming because they think that by doing so they will get what they want. Syria wants the Golan Heights, Egypt wants Eilat and they all want Israel to give up Judea and Samaria so that Israel’s destruction is within reach. We would all like to believe that peace is around the corner but the evidence does not point to that. “Solutions do not come from denial. They come from facing facts, thinking about them and taking proper actions.” It is likely that the Arab world fears Iran. However, dismantling Israel at Annapolis will not help them achieve that goal, on the contrary it will help Iran in its goal of destroying it’s enemy Israel.

    65. Dan said

      I read your article on American Thinker on Dec 7: The NIE could increase the danger of nuclear war. While your analogy is apt, I think using the shooting in the mall to promote ideas/agendas so soon after the tragedy is disrespectful to those slain. The country has yet to recover from that horrific act, and using it to promote anything – even as noble as a cause as stopping nuclear weaponry from reaching the hands of those with meglomanic intentions, is terrible insensitive.

    66. In your piece “The new European Union – the Empire Returns” (“American Thinker”) you are a bit premature. Today’s treaty signing does not create anything, it still has to be ratified by all 27 member countries, a process that will take an estimated 18 months a least, and one whose success — even with this watered-down version of the failed EU Constitution — is by no means assured at this point.

    67. Michael F. said

      I must take exception with your piece, “The one-two punch aimed at GOP conservatives” found at The American Thinker.

      You correctly identify McCain and Huckabee as non-conservatives. Then you present the following:

      “Conservatives who resist the Huckabee-McCain-Leftist assault are left with only two realistic choices: Romney and Giuliani. Fred Thompson is a fine man, but he is not fighting hard enough.”

      I have grown weary of commentators simply dismissing Fred Thompson because he does not adhere to some unwritten “rules of campaigning.” Falling back on style versus content is something that liberals do.

      Usually, people fall back on style talking points when talking about Thompson because they cannot contradict his policy positions. You claim there is no “solid, all-around conservatives in this lineup.” I suppose this is true if you have already dismissed Thompson from the discussion.

      Giuliani and Romney are not dependable conservatives, and Romney is hampered by the earned perception that he is expedient in his positions. To watch him passionately defend abortion rights on YouTube video clips and then listen to his current defense of the pro-life position makes one shake your head. Also, his silly waffling on Second Amendment rights is embarrassing. Romney simply cannot be trusted.

      My support for Thompson had its roots in my mid-2007 realization that none of those current candidates were conservative. If Thompson was not conservative, I wouldn’t support him either. But, his small-government conservative positions are clear, consistent, and coherent. These positions are unmatched, and the bonus is that he does not pander (“no show of hands”) like the other four main candidates.

      The hallmark of conservatism is thoughtful assessment of issues and candidates. Of course, you are entitled to your opinion. But I take issue with your refusal to thoughtfully assess *all* of the Republican candidates. I am still waiting for conservative commentators to tell me why Fred is not right on issues. I find his “no BS” style refreshing and eminently conservative. He is the adult in the campaign.

      Best wishes.

    68. Pamela said

      Mr. Lewis,

      Thank you so much for your thoughtful commentary. I consider you to be the most on-target writer at American Thinker. You have been particularly insightful on the 2008 election, and your assessment of the current GOP field matches my own. I truly appreciate your intellect, wisdom, and historical perspective, and I look forward to your contribution for many years to come.

      Keep up the good work! I have learned so much from you.

    69. Wayne J Roques said

      Dear Mr. Lewis,

      I read your posts at American Thinker often. Regarding today’s entry about Mike Huckabee’s anti-Mormonism…, his vicious “don’t they believe the devil is Jesus’ brother” comment hardly seems Christian as with so many of his statements and actions. Many are recorded in your previous writings and the following essay by Kyle-Anne Shiver at American Thinker;

      American Thinker, December 19, 2007
      Aw Shucks-a-bee, Why Not Huckabee?
      By Kyle-Anne Shiver

      Aw shucks, I like this guy, Huckabee. He’s a smooth talker, he is. Why, he could charm the hide right off an ornery gator at a hundred yards and be wearing the genuine-hide boots by suppertime. I’ll just bet he packed the pews and the offering plates in the Baptist churches whenever he was preaching. I might have even given a dollar myself for a few of his perfectly pitched one-liners, but I’d have to be hog-tied for sure to give him my vote.
      Now, I don’t want to go casting aspersions on the good people of Arkansas, but I am starting to wonder how politics works there. I should think the Arkansas brand might need a bit more refining before we give that state another shot at the Presidency.

      Some will say that Slick-Willy Clinton and Tax-Hike-Mike Huckabee could not possibly be more dissimilar. I beg to differ with anyone who makes that automatic assumption.

      Yes, they hail from different political parties. And yes, Bill Clinton is a social libertine; Mike Huckabee is a social conservative. Bill Clinton was a Rhodes Scholar; Mike Huckabee graduated from Ouachita Baptist University. Bill Clinton likes the treadmill; Mike Huckabee prefers to diet. Bill Clinton plays the saxophone; Mike Huckabee plays bass guitar.

      Other differences may indeed be myriad, but when I listen to Mike Huckabee and Bill Clinton, I hear a couple of good ole boys of a certain, rather unsavory mold of old South politics, with a gift for smooth-talking gab that could only be topped by the con man who woos a lady out of her life savings, then runs off with another woman before his verbal syrup even begins to draw the flies.

      And the real problem lies in the often huge disparity between what these smooth-talking pols say to get elected and what they actually do once in office. Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton are two perfect examples; Mike Huckabee appears to be as well.

      Mike Huckabee has done a better job of covering his tracks than even former Governor and First Lady of Arkansas, Bill and Hillary Clinton. Right at the end of Huckabee’s eleven-year stint as Arkansas’ Governor, he ordered the hard drives crashed on every computer so that no one would ever have access to his papers. Not only that, but now the churches where he served as pastor refuse to release any of the sermons he delivered, and I am truly dying to know what’s in them that Huckabee finds so potentially offensive to mainstream America.

      This is perfectly Clinton-esque; hidden or destroyed records seems to play well in Arkansas.

      Now Mr. Huckabee may look and sound very salt-of-the-earth, but I find it downright bothersome that he had 5 formal ethics violations while in office, and that he used the operating budget (taxpayer money!) of the Governor’s mansion to pay for personal expenses like a doghouse, clothes and take-out meals. And wouldn’t you know it? The Clintons used taxpayer money to pay for Chelsea’s full-time nanny.

      Add to that the fact that Mr. and Mrs. Huckabee, who had been married a full 20 years, set up wedding registries upon leaving the Governor’s mansion so “grateful” citizens (think lobbyists) could furnish their new, expensive house. Sound familiar? This is exactly what Bill and Hillary did when leaving the White House.

      Also like the Clintons, the Huckabees tried to claim $70,000 worth of furnishings from the Governor’s mansion as their own. Using public office to rip off the taxpayers seems to be something of a nasty habit in Arkansas.

      Some folks complain that they don’t like rich people running for public office. I don’t like people running for public office so they can get rich!

      Mike Huckabee is as socially conservative as anyone running in 2008. And that is the only thing he has going for him. He has governed as a high-taxing, high-spending, government-can-make-the-world-perfect liberal in every way.

      He has zero foreign policy experience, thinks we should practice the golden rule with terrorists and wants to close Gitmo so that the Europeans will start liking us again. He doesn’t even have a foreign policy adviser and he needs one more than anyone running.

      Just because General Petraeus is now winning the war in Iraq does not mean we can let our guard down, and giving Mike Huckabee the Republican nomination will give Americans a choice next November between the-war-is-lost Democrats and a candidate who thinks that going to war with the terrorists in the first place was “arrogant.” He sounds more like a Clinton everyday. That’s precisely the word Hillary Clinton has used to describe the President’s war policy: “arrogant.” Quite a coincidence.

      A President simply cannot be all things to all people; the Office is not designed that way. We are up to our necks in a war for our own survival, and I will not put my vote in the hands of a man who learned his methods for foreign policy in vacation Bible school. We need a fierce, street-fighting Commander in Chief without a single gullible bone in his body.

      Mike Huckabee can play his bass guitar at barbeques with Bill on the sax, do Saturday Night Live with Barack Obama and re-decorate government houses with Hillary, but anyone who thinks he can be a wartime President, might need a civics refresher course.

      As for me, I would indeed have to be hog-tied to give Mike Huckabee my vote, because in the end, a President’s primary duty is to defend this Country from all enemies, foreign and domestic. And that’s not something you learn in Sunday school or by padding your government expense accounts in Arkansas.

      What is this Party coming to?

      Kyle-Anne Shiver is a frequent contributor to American Thinker. She welcomes your comments at kyleanneshiver@yahoo.com.

    70. clarice said

      I loved your AT article today as I do everything you write. You enrich my days.

    71. Mike said

      Mr. Lewis

      Your American Thinker article “Woulda-coulda-shouldas on Iraq” was very interesting and insightful.

      I would humbly suggest the addition of a few additional thoughts re: our “invasion” of Iraq. Had we the large Army that was claimed to be necessary – we would have likely provoked more outcry from the Iraqi people and neighboring Middle East Countries. With an “invasion force” capable of subduing the populace, capable of seizing the Iraqi “wealth and oil” (never mind the decrepit state of the infrastructure) – there might have been a large popular uprising that would have made the fighting between the Sunni and Shiite factions seemed tame by comparison.

      After neglecting the Iraqi people in 1992 (even though we had encourages the Shiites of the south to rise against Saddam), and tens of thousands were slaughtered – our reputation was poor. After ignoring the suffering of the people at the hands of Saddam for so many decades, while we allowed Saddam to sell the oil and build palaces while terrorizing his people, our country had little credibility in a claim that we wanted to help the Iraqi people have a democracy.

      Indeed, much that happened was perhaps necessary, as a means to prove that we would let the Iraqi people choose between stability or civil war, because even a force of 400,000 soldiers could not create stability in a population that hated us. When the Iraqi people saw that we came with the force necessary to throw out Saddam, but not adequate to oppress the people, and when the population saw that we would suffer the casualties with their own soldiers in an attempt to create that stability that they needed to desire and work for – only then would the country be on the road to stability and possibly freedom.

      I think that a large force would have been detrimental, and I think that at some point, the US was going to have to stand and suffer some casualties to show the people that we wouldn’t cut and run and abandon them to the next dictator.

      20/20 hindsight by critics of the war also requires them to postulate that their own “untested” plans would have resulted in a better chance of success, but a careful examination shows that their plans were far worse than what has been done.

      Mike

    72. Well, I see I’m going to have to add you to my bookmarks! I found your through your article about Science magazine flipping the waffles (couldn’t resist the pun) on global warming. Like one of my inspirational artworks (a huge green eye of swirling gasses) says… “Either we will learn to control our pollution, or our pollution will control us eventually!”

    73. Lisette said

      Your article on the Leftist Church and black liberation theology vindicated me…thank you very much it is a great and refreshing read.

    74. IRISH said

      You sir should be hung from the highest tree in the land for the blasphemous remarks you made about the irish in your little fucking article “Beware the Irish Conspiracy” if the IRA were present in the USA you’d be killed.

    75. IRISH said

      Sorry for my overreaction. The article just struck a nerve. It was very well writen just some points offended me a little bit.

    76. Will Cate said

      I very much enjoyed your column today on American Thinker (“Does Obama Know America?”). Very well stated.

    77. AP article published in today’s STAR LEDGER (Newark, NJ) deserves an op-ed answer. Your American Thinker piece on “global frauding” would be ideal.

      Teen’s new fight: He sees conservative bias in text
      Wednesday, April 09, 2008
      BY NANCY ZUCKERBROD
      ASSOCIATED PRESS

      A Kearny High School student who once spoke out against a teacher for making religious remarks in the classroom now has his sights set on a textbook publisher.

      Matthew LaClair, a senior, be lieves he sees signs of conservative bias in the textbook being used in his Advanced Placement American government class. Some legal scholars and top scientists say his criticism is well-founded.

      Those experts say “American Government” by conservatives James Wilson and John Dilulio presents a skewed view of topics such as global warming and separation of church and state. The publisher now says it will review the book, as will the College Board, which oversees college-level Advanced Placement courses used in high schools.

      “I just realized from my own knowledge that some of this stuff in the book is just plain wrong,” La Clair said.

      LaClair drew national attention in the fall of 2006, when he tape recorded his teacher telling a U.S. history class that those who don’t believe Jesus died for their sins “belong in hell.” The recordings also captured the teacher dismissing evolution and the “Big Bang” theory, and telling students that di nosaurs were on Noah’s Ark.

      Many people at the school were upset with LaClair for raising the issue, but his mother, Debra, said her son was simply providing his peers with another kind of civics lesson.

      “When he sees something that is incorrect, he wants to fix it,” she said. “That’s him. That’s what he does.”

      LaClair brought his concerns about the textbook to the Center for Inquiry, an Amherst, N.Y., think tank that promotes science. The center has issued a scathing report about the textbook.

      The textbook is designed for a college audience, but also is widely used in AP American government courses, said Richard Blake, a spokesman for the publisher, Houghton Mifflin Co.

      Blake said the company “will be working with the authors to evaluate in detail the criticisms of the Center for Inquiry.” Blake also said some disputed passages already have been excised from the newest edition of the book.

      Both authors are considered conservative. Dilulio, a University of Pennsylvania professor, formerly worked for the Bush administration as director of faith-based initiatives. Wilson is the Ronald Reagan Professor of Public Policy at Pepperdine University in California. Neither responded immediately to calls from the Associated Press seeking comment.

      LaClair said he was particularly upset about the book’s treatment of global warming.

      The book says that “science doesn’t know whether we are experiencing a dangerous level of global warming or how bad the greenhouse effect is, if it exists at all.”

      A newer edition published late last year was changed to say, “Science doesn’t know how bad the greenhouse effect is,” but the authors kept a phrase stating that global warming is “enmeshed in scientific uncertainty.”

      While there are still some scientists who downplay global warming and the role of burning fossil fuels, the overwhelming majority of cli mate scientists and peer-reviewed scientific research say human activity is causing climate change.

      James Hansen, the director of NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, recently heard about La Clair’s concerns and has lent him some support.

      Hansen has sent Houghton Mif flin a letter stating that the book’s discussion on global warming contained “a large number of clearly erroneous statements” that give students “the mistaken impression that the scientific evidence of global warming is doubtful and uncertain.”

      LaClair also was concerned about the textbook’s treatment of U.S. Supreme Court decisions re garding prayer in school. The book shows a picture of children praying in front of a Virginia high school and states, “The Supreme Court will not let this happen inside a public school.” The accompanying text states that the court has ruled as “unconstitutional every effort to have any form of prayer in public schools, even if it is nonsectarian, voluntary or limited to reading a passage of the Bible.”

      Those examples are not correct, says Charles Haynes, a religious liberties expert at the First Amendment Center in Washington.

      “Students can pray inside a public school in many different ways,” Haynes said, adding they can pray alone or in groups before lunch or in religious clubs, for example.

      Star-Ledger staff writer Tom Fee ney and Associated Press reporter Seth Borenstein contributed to this report.

      © 2008 The Star Ledger
      © 2008 NJ.com All Rights Reserved.

    78. lw4119 said

      Kudos on your global warming piece today. However, it appears you’ve fallen into the same trap that you’re condemning the global warming true believers for: Claiming as scientific truth that which isn’t in evidence. I suggest you find a theater next weekend which is showing the new Ben Stein documentary, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. http://www.expelledthemovie.com/

      In your article you claimed billions of years and evolution as fact. Yet, nobody has ever witnessed abiogenesis, nor have we been able to combine lifeless chemicals and create so much as a single protein, even under the most favorable laboratory conditions. In fact, there’s a law of biology called the law of biogenesis, which states unequivocally that life begets life, and it’s always been proven true, both experimentally and experientially. Yet abiogenesis “must’ve” happened before evolution can be true. Operational science is observable and repeatable. Abiogenesis is neither of those things.

      Macroevolution, or the changing of one species into a more complex species via genetic mutation, is another thing that “must’ve” happened before evolution can be true. And it “must’ve” happened billions and billions and billions of times. Yet, in all of recorded history, not one single species has been observed to mutate into a more complex species. And since that defies logic, the evolutionists devised “punctuated equilibrium” to get around this inconvenient truth.

      In short, there’s simply no observational evidence to support either of these two essential legs upon which the theory of evolution teeters.

    79. […] provocative scenario put forth by James Lewis at the American Thinker. WWOD? (What would Obama do) Assume for a moment: It’s January, 2009, […]

    80. Fred Rick said

      James-
      Excellent article in American Thinker today. If you think anyone on the left or anyone in the Democratic Party is going to speak against Rev(?)Jeremiah Wright, you are wasting your time. Quite a few years ago there was a syrupy , silly movie called “Love Story” with a dumb tag line that said something like “Love means never having to say you are sorry” I never figured out what that meant. It makes much more sense to apply it to the political left. How’s this? “Being a leftist means never having to say you’re sorry… about anything”.

    81. Larry said

      James Lewis’s article, “The Moment of Truth for the Left has Arrived” has a lot of wisdom in it, a lot of getting-to-the-crux-of-the-issue, a lot of cogent points other commentators have apparently missed.

      Too many great points to discuss here, so I’ll just mention your comment about Wright “shouting out the slander catechism of the Left. His sermons say exactly what other Leftists say in calm voices, over and over again. Mr. Wright just does it with real, raw hatred, and every new slam is cheered on by his jubilant congregation.”

      Yes, Wright’s sermon looks a lot like a Nuremberg rally to me. And Obama sat through those hate-Whitey, hate-the-U.S. fests for 20 years. Don’t tell me he’s not in sympathy with his “Fearless Leader.”

      Also: “Hate mongers collect injustices.” Beautiful turn of phrase. The discussion of that topic — very astute.

      The whole article is full of great points like that. Now if we could get the MSM to report your points — that would be great!

    82. Can we get our carbon offsets and our white guilt offsets as a combined package? Maybe a gift set.

    83. Pamela said

      Mr. Lewis,

      Romney is the best VP choice for McCain. He is a rising GOP star, has the appeal factor along with many other qualities and assets that balance and complete McCain.

      Thank you again for you writing. Woulda, Coulda, Shoulda on Iraq should be required reading for every American, including our youth.

    84. bob said

      you’re not the only one “bugged” by the rise of Obama…I wonder who is REALLY backing him to have traveled so far, so soon on such absent credentials

    85. Anonymous said

      I think that the Carter Rescue mission was in the spring of 1980 not 1979 as stated in the artica. I once belonged to a professional group of which one of the members, Joe Drew, was an offier on the ground when the tanker exploded distroing the 2 helocopters and burning the 8 or 9 GIs to death. He said that irt was a damn mess. Hoyl Belt, Yuma Arizona

    86. Dear Mr. Lewis,

      I regularly read (and thoroughly enjoy) youressays. Thank you. I am enclosing a draft of a recommended energy development policy, which will no doubt offend many. Although I am a devotee of free trade, as a retired law enforcement agent, I am most concerned about national security and the need for energy independence. Hence my views expressed here:

      Energy Development Plan
      by Wayne J. Roques, DEA-retired

      The threat of energy dependence to our national security and our economy is truly dire. It is time for President Bush to face down the Congressional obstructionists to US energy independence. He should exercise his prerogative to call Congress back into an emergency recess session this August to address comprehensive national energy security. Seventy-five per cent of Americans support the plan to drill here drill now. President Bush must respond to that mandate immediately.
      Oil is the lifeblood of the US economy. Without it, we could not receive the food and goods we need and use. We couldn’t drive or be transported to work. We would freeze in the winter and be miserably hot during the summer. All of the plastic products that make our lives so convenient would be unavailable. Law enforcement and safety personnel would not be able to respond quickly to crime or medical emergency scenes, etc.
      Services like mail delivery will be greatly delayed, if delivered at all. Movement and availability of provisions and weapons for our military personnel will be greatly hampered and their efforts to defend us will be slowed and/or crippled.
      Certainly, there are extreme environmentalists, luddites, and mortal enemies who have been striving to attain such results for many decades. Mankind is pretty much last on their list of concerns. The folks who rail on about replacing fossil fuels with alternative energy sources, fail to point out that Americans rely heavily on automobiles to get to work, get goods and supplies, get to doctor appointments, etc. These elitists want our fellow citizens to replace or convert their vehicles to running on alternative fuel sources immediately. Are they unaware that, in addition to the fact that we do not yet have reliable, abundant, functional alternatives to oil and gasoline? If we did, it would still take 9 plus years to replace just 50% of the US vehicle fleet and the least able to replace or convert their vehicles to alternative fuels will take much longer? We will continue to need oil, gasoline, and diesel (fossil fuels) for decades.
      Our energy needs and independence are among the most pressing concerns for the future of our country. This is particularly true in the national security arena. Congressional members and presidential candidates must stand down from their pandering to the extreme leftist, environmentalist, anti-American, anti-humanity cretins who have been blocking common sense energy polices for many years.
      We have lost years of energy development to this madness. We need a 21st Century Manhattan Project to rectify this vulnerability. We must immediately begin building nuclear plants, processing plants to convert coal (which can be gasified), and oil shale to oil, drilling in Anwr, in the Gulf, in the Atlantic, and Pacific Oceans and in US states with oil reserves, and drilling into new natural gas reserves forthwith. We have to plan and begin building refineries, pipelines, transmission lines, transfer grids, etc., simultaneously with our drilling, and mining projects. All such facilities must be built and maintained with the highest safety standards available and developed in the future.
      Since our economy and national security are in crises and we need plentiful, reasonably priced fuel and energy, all new US oil, coal, and natural gas leases should require that all products be sold and used within the U.S. and, if necessary, sold only to our closest allies. Prices for all of these energy sources will be predicated on carefully documented costs, plus a generous, reasonable profit margin and a reserve for future research and development of clean, renewable energy resources, including solar, wind, hydrogen, and other newly developed energy sources. Once we have achieved full energy independence, excess supplies of energy could be sold competitively on the open market.

    87. threepin said

      You guys are a bunch of fools! You’ve got nothing on Senator Obama, and that is why you must constantly bash him. Idiots!

    88. http://www.sadlyno.com/archives/10636.html

    89. Paul Spite said

      Dear Sirs,

      Carbon emissions have no discernable effect on climate, but our gullibility nets promoters of this “crisis” billions per year. Meanwhile they change nothing of their own lifestyles, though they also live on the planet they claim we are destroying. Claiming to want to save us from our folly, they seek to strip away our freedoms while destroying our economy. While the climate itself mocks their so-called linkages, and our economy is already on the edge of collapse, a Democratic Congress is still pushing for carbon cap legislation. What will it take to bring this farce to an end?

      Your website leads me to believe we share the concerns about this attempt to sell out our country for profit and power. Would you help me promote a book I have written examining this hoax? It is intended to make readers angry over being played for patsies. If enough people read it, it would create a public backlash against that legislation, but through my own efforts, I have been unable to sufficiently publicize this work. Would you also pass this e-mail on to all your peers you think might agree and help?

      The book is entitled “A Climate Crisis a la Gore” and is organized as follows:

      • Introduction – the motivation behind the assembly of this information for public use.
      • Part 1 – Excerpted ideas from Mr. Gore’s book, The Assault on Reason. I use Mr. Gore’s own claims regarding the proper and reasonable way to enter an argument or evidence into the marketplace of ideas, the forum of reason, the real power behind democracy.
      • Part 2 – A claim by claim analysis of Mr. Gore’s documentary, An Inconvenient Truth. These are evaluated with simple logic, claims elsewhere in the documentary, Mr. Gore’s excerpted written principles of reasoning, and scientific research and findings regarding the subjects of his claims.
      • Part 3 – Discussion and disclosure of players and special interest groups creating the perception of a global climate crisis. The history of the movement is examined, motives behind involvement, dollar amounts of profit already being reaped by promoters, and what they stand to gain if America enacts carbon legislation.
      • Conclusion – The coming economic storm resulting from enacting this legislation and a plea to readers to contact legislators demanding such laws be reconsidered.

      Excerpts can be reviewed and the book ordered at Amazon.com by entering the title, ISBN# (978-1-4196-8684-9) or by following the link http://www.amazon.com/Climate-Crisis-Gore-perception-warming/dp/1419686844/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1202424474&sr=8-1 If you are willing to inform your readers of its contents and availability, an informed (and angry) population of voters might be a real, and maybe the only, check and balance system capable of stopping Congress.

      Sincerely,

      Paul Spite

    90. Robert Barry said

      Palin and the Narcissistic Left

      You’re a good writer, imaginative; you use lots of adjectives and your colors are right out there. Of course what you write is fiction. I don’t think your candidates will win. Maybe they will…maybe. But think of it..you’ll have four or eight more years of creative writing projects. Narcissistic slams against Barack Obama, or the Democrats….do any of these people remind you of your father perhaps? I was just wondering where the hate comes from.

    91. Lang Feltwant said

      Hey, James, you are a giant cockass. What you say is wrong in every way.

    92. ename said

      “Would Obama have given up after Pearl Harbor?” is a terrific read, and prompted me to comment at American Thinker as well as bookmark your website.

    93. Amazingly powerful and true piece: “The Left’s Lust for Revolutionary Transformation.” Great insights and observations! Keep on writing and exposing the left and its evil, corrupt and deadly ideologies. Even after 100+ million innocents have been slaughtered the world has not learned its lesson.

    94. Jewel said

      Thank you. I read all your articles on American Thinker. I appreciate that they validate my feelings and thoughts. Thank you.

    95. Eric D. said

      Excellent blog- check out mine if you get a chance. I’ll be adding your blog to my blog roll…
      http://treadnotonme.blogspot.com/

    96. Marie Claude said

      OK let’s go for a dedicasse

      I have already seen the kind of writting style somewhere else, on a “rude” place, where I used to exercised my skills as d’Artagnan but got lately fired out, some moody egomaniacs didn’t appreciate my home-made sharp-edged blade anymore.

      Well that for saying that I like your style either, not saying all what you say though

    97. James Lewis – in the small chance you might read this thread, I want to say, I like your article at Pajamas Media, 30 Jan 2009, very much; with some editing to take out personal and topical stuff, I’ve posted it to my website here http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/Project/GreatestFraud.htm because I think it’s got important objective value. But if you have a problem with this, please let me know, and I’ll remove it or alter it.

    98. I love your site! 🙂

      _____________________
      Experiencing a slow PC recently? Fix it now!

    99. Jewel said

      James, I am so awed by your articles. With all my hobbies and passions, the abiding interest of my life is the study of human nature. I read psychology books as one reads fiction. I understood immediately, what it was we were facing, here. And your articles, consistently, over all this time, have miraculously validated my feelings and insights.

      Do you ever give talks/workshops?

      To write with such focus takes time and effort. I know that from my own work. So – thank you for the time, effort, and energy you invest in your writing. Know that it’s appreciated.

    100. mpwbnho , no perscription synthroid ptglo , buy Bicalutamide edvt , proscar fda jtrkkjg , Kamagra jhg$# , buy baclofen yyb!vbgovo , exelon drug mpwbnho , imuran 50mg tablet oohgy5, nimotop 30mg capsule off , rogaine shampoo 7854 , celebrex 200mg celecoxib

    101. Marie Claude said

      You’re a “french basher” (not far from anti-frenchism)
      Your “witty” vocabulary outfits, make no difference
      I’m going to point it each time it will be necessary

    102. Disappointed said

      Say it ain’t so, James!

      You cannot possibly believe Sarah Palin is the cure for what ails America. I would have never guessed you would count charisma as the all-important factor in choosing a leader. Sure, it matters, but certainly not to the exclusion of all else. Palin has precious little to recommend her.

      But she did look pretty cute in the Runner’s World mag pics.

    103. A Canadian Thinker said

      I have to mention a small issue with an old article of yours from AT that someone recently quoted to me in which you discuss NASA’s reluctance to admit it’s errors in properly interpreting the US surface temperature data in regards to the AGW claptrap.

      http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/08/nasa_flacks_for_global_warming.html

      I agree with everything you said in the article and am not disputing any of the info you put forward regarding it however in one of the last paragraphs you use the PubMed database as an example to show the commonality of scientific errors and retractions as a result of them and how it’s common ethical practice to correct your mistakes.

      The last sentence of that paragraph states “The word “retraction” brings up almost 11,000 more [publications]”.

      As a thinker such as yourself should realize the term “retraction” is common medical lingo referring mainly to orthodontic and surgical procedures and as such searching for such a term on a medical database is assured to return significant results, although only a small percentage have to do with retractions to the actual publications due to errors.

      With that article being about ethics and manning up to one’s mistakes I thought I would bring it to attention. Yes it is an old article but it was just recently brought to my attention so it’s “new” to me, like a pre-owned Beamer…

    104. Norma McMurray said

      I enjoy your articles. You describe yourself as a scientist, writer, and policy consultant. That’s a pretty broad brush. Can you be more specific, i.e., what scientific discipline, and consultant on what type of policy and to whom? It would provide more reader confidence to know the depth of your education and experience. I would appreciate a reply.

    105. James:
      As a fellow AT contributor, I sure would like to present you with an idea to join me and several other AT writers in an endeavor, but I don’t want to put it on an open message board. Hopefully you read these comments and will send me an email and I will send you info about the endeavor.
      Keep up the good work.
      Sincerely,
      Joe

    106. Sara said

      This concerns your article about the Irish conspiracy. Do you notice what’s happening to the United States? You are a “thinker”? Don’t you think there is a point when the scenery can become SOOOOOOO butt ugly that the very last thing anyone would want is to put their name anywhere near it? Life is short and there are many diversions that are pleasurable and fulfilling….do you think being a part of this American culture is all that attractive? So, tell me. Who is it that NEEDS the United States for survival? Think about it now. Who is it that eyes the United States this way?

      I am your Irish huckleberry with a big wet kiss for you and your sexy sexy thinkin.

    107. Best Blogs 2011……

      […] the best blogs will be mentioned below […]…

    108. mjdfgcss said

      http://helkj.narod2.ru AllSubmitter – Программа ради раскрутки сайта. Максимально качественная, быстрая и контролируемая регистрации в любых информационных ресурсах Интернета.

    109. JBullets said

      I love how everyone is asking you for your credentials. I’m sure you won’t give them because your credentials, like almost everything you write, are either misleading or made up out of whole cloth. I am blown away by the claims you make and the logical fallacies you use to support them. It all reads like a propaganda piece written by a delusional 11th grader.

      Signed,

      JBullets. I am an astronaut, Four Star General, author, quarterback, Nobel Prize winner, historian, and, of course, a “consultant”.

      • LOL, so funny and who knows maybe it’s true? He’s so blinded by his own bias it’s disgusting. People like this are part of the reason we are so polarized as a nation. He’s certainly not part of the solution.

    110. […] […]

    111. Francis Stoddard said

      Thank you Mr. Lewis for what you write. I am mesmerited by your prose and look forward to sharpening my understanding of these troubled AND interesting times we live

    112. Would like to have you on the Mike Gallagher Show this morning at 9:30 am edt to discuss your column in the American Thinker over polling. Mike found it fascinating.

      Thanks, Lance Landerson@Mikeonline.com

    Leave a Reply

    Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

    WordPress.com Logo

    You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

    Twitter picture

    You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

    Facebook photo

    You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

    Google+ photo

    You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

    Connecting to %s