Timely & Relevant

Don't miss Tea Parties 4/15

Tax, spend, borrow and regulate are the four horsemen of American socialism under Obama and Ritter. Intrusive government now tramples our liberties with a brazenness that would amaze those old Boston patriots who dumped the tea in '73. Tea Party protests will happen in many cities on Tax Day, Wed. April 15. I'll be taking part and so should you. Here's the information you need. Denver Metro Area City: Denver When: April 15, 12:00pm - 1:30pm Where: West steps of the Capitol, 200 East Colfax

El Paso County City: Colorado Springs When: April 15, 12:00pm - 1:30pm Where: Acacia Park at 225 N Nevada

Routt County City: Steamboat Springs When: April 15, 12 noon Where: County Courthouse Lawn

Mesa County City: Grand Junction When: April 15, 12:00pm - 1:30pm Where: Soccer stadium at 12th Street and North Avenue, corner across from Mesa State College

Larimer County City: Fort Collins When: April 15, 12:00 pm - 2:00 pm Where: Fort Collins City Hall, 300 Laporte Avenue

City: Loveland When: April 15, 4:00pm - 7:00pm Where: 205 E Eisenhower Blvd, Loveland, CO 80537

Weld County City: Greeley When: April 18, 11am – 2pm Where: Bittersweet Park at 35th Ave. and 11th St.

Pueblo County City: Pueblo When: April 15, 4:00 pm Where: Pueblo County Courthouse, 215 W. 10th St.

Fremont County City: Cañon City When: April 11, 12:00 pm Where: Veterans Park

Contact names for these and other Colorado cities, along with Tea Party details for many other states and cities, are at this link. To sort by state, scroll to the bottom of that page. Site also lists numerous organizers and contacts for the three events mentioned above.

The Tea Party phenomenon of 2009 is one of the most powerful grassroots movements our country has seen in a long time. People are rising up to defend individual freedom, personal responsibility, limited government, and free markets.

Be part of it on April 15! I'll see you there.

Attend climate debate 4/8

Centennial Institute, Colorado Christian University’s public policy think tank, invites you to attend a debate on “Global Warming: Is the Kyoto Agenda Warranted?” James White of CU-Boulder says yes. Christopher Horner of CEI in Washington says no. They will face off at 730pm on Wednesday, April 8, at the Lakewood Cultural Center, 470 S. Allison Parkway, Lakewood, CO. The two sides on global warming don’t often directly engage, so this will be a notable occasion for civic dialogue. Tickets are free but space is limited. Click here for reservations. Then read below for details.

The Issue

The Kyoto Agenda to address alleged global warming is contained in the 1997 treaty of that name which has been ratified by 183 countries – but not the United States. The agenda involves overall reduction of worldwide carbon emissions by about 5% from 1990 levels. The proposed cap-and-trade bill in Congress is President Obama's response to the Kyoto Agenda. Proponents warn of catastrophic harm to ecosystems and human civilization if Kyoto is not implemented quickly and fully. Opponents argue that implementing Kyoto would hurt the poor by slowing economic growth while only negligibly reducing temperature increases (if any; they cite data that global cooling has begun). What does the data say? What should be done?

The Forum

Two nationally respected scholars on global climate issues – Dr. James White, Director of INSTAAR at University of Colorado-Boulder, and Christopher Horner, Fellow at Competitive Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C. – will debate this important topic. The Kyoto question is not often argued head-to-head as a result of former Vice President Al Gore and other proponents insisting the time for discussion is over; the time for action is now. The Centennial Institute and CCU, as seekers of truth, believe that free inquiry and debate in human affairs are never out of order. Our April 8 forum is offered in that spirit.

The debate is open to the public and free of charge, but space is limited. to reserve seats for the debate call 303-963-3424 or e-mail Centennial@ccu.edu.

Centennial Institute launched

(Lakewood, Feb. 3) Former Colorado Senate President John Andrews has been appointed Director of The Centennial Institute, a new think tank being created by Colorado Christian University, CCU President Bill Armstrong announced today. The new entity will work to enhance public understanding of the most important issues relating to “faith, family and freedom,” he explained. The institute will be funded from private contributions, separately from the university’s regular operating budget. The Centennial Institute will conduct research, analyze public policy options, sponsor seminars and conferences and other activities involving students, faculty, staff and outside experts. “We are greatly complimented to have John Andrews joining CCU. He is a nationally recognized public intellectual whose ideas are impacting the thought-life of Colorado and the Nation,” President Armstrong explained.

“I am honored to be part of Colorado Christian University,” Senator Andrews said. “Like CCU, I am committed to defending the permanent things – the timeless political principles of the American founding, together with the moral and spiritual truths of our Judeo-Christian heritage.”

Senator Andrews, who now writes a column for the Denver Post and hosts a weekly radio program on KNUS (710), was a state senator from 1998 to 2005, serving until term limited under the Colorado constitution. First as Minority Leader and then as Senate President, he earned national recognition from the American Legislative Exchange Council which recognized him as National Legislator of the Year. His tireless efforts to protect American families earned praise from the Rocky Mountain Family Council while the Colorado Union of Taxpayers saluted him for exceptional efforts to prevent state tax increases.

Among his legislative achievements were bills cutting the Colorado capital gains tax, providing toll lanes to curb traffic congestion, outlining a statewide water policy and the School Sunshine Act and Colorado’s Defense of Marriage Act. He also played an important role in legislation to establish education vouchers, tort reform, expanding charter schools and requiring parental notification when a minor seeks an abortion.

Senator Andrews was the founder of the State’s foremost conservative think tank, The Independence Institute and was its president from 1985 – 1993.

John was born in Michigan and grew up in the Colorado Mountains. He served as a U.S. Navy submarine officer after graduating from Principia College in 1966. John and his wife Donna have three grown children and a grandson, all living in the Denver area. Senator and Mrs. Andrews are members of Greenwood Community Church.

Solzhenitsyn the Prophet

Greatness never goes out of date. Alexander Solzhenitsyn, who died last year, presented at Harvard in 1978 one of the most perceptive and sobering assessments of civilization's ills in our lifetime. The full text is below. An oft-quoted passage, sadly truer than ever, begins: "A decline in courage may be the most striking feature that an outside observer notices in the West today. The Western world has lost its civic courage, both as a whole and separately, in each country, in each government, in each political party, and, of course, in the United Nations. Such a decline in courage is particularly noticeable among the ruling and intellectual elites, causing an impression of a loss of courage by the entire society. There are many courageous individuals, but they have no determining influence on public life.... Must one point out that from ancient times a decline in courage has been considered the first symptom of the end?" A WORLD SPLIT APART Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s Harvard Address 6/8/78

I am sincerely happy to be here with you on the occasion of the 327th commencement of this old and illustrious university. My congratulations and best wishes to all of today’s graduates.

Harvard’s motto is "VERITAS." Many of you have already found out and others will find out in the course of their lives that truth eludes us as soon as our concentration begins to flag, all the while leaving the illusion that we are continuing to pursue it. This is the source of much discord. Also, truth seldom is sweet; it is almost invariably bitter. A measure of truth is included in my speech today, but I offer it as a friend, not as an adversary.

Three years ago in the United States I said certain things that were rejected and appeared unacceptable. Today, however, many people agree with what I said . . .

The split in today’s world is perceptible even to a hasty glance. Any of our contemporaries readily identifies two world powers, each of them already capable of destroying each other. However, the understanding of the split too often is limited to this political conception: the illusion according to which danger may be abolished through successful diplomatic negotiations or by achieving a balance of armed forces. The truth is that the split is both more profound and more alienating, that the rifts are more numerous than one can see at first glance. These deep manifold splits bear the danger of equally manifold disaster for all of us, in accordance with the ancient truth that a kingdom — in this case, our Earth — divided against itself cannot stand.

There is the concept of the Third World: thus, we already have three worlds. Undoubtedly, however, the number is even greater; we are just too far away to see. Every ancient and deeply rooted self-contained culture, especially if it is spread over a wide part of the earth’s surface, constitutes a self-contained world, full of riddles and surprises to Western thinking. As a minimum, we must include in this China, India, the Muslim world, and Africa, if indeed we accept the approximation of viewing the latter two as uniform.

For one thousand years Russia belonged to such a category, although Western thinking systematically committed the mistake of denying its special character and therefore never understood it, just as today the West does not understand Russia in Communist captivity. And while it may be that in past years Japan has increasingly become, in effect, a Far West, drawing ever closer to Western ways (I am no judge here), Israel, I think, should not be reckoned as part of the West, if only because of the decisive circumstance that its state system is fundamentally linked to its religion.

How short a time ago, relatively, the small world of modern Europe was easily seizing colonies all over the globe, not only without anticipating any real resistance, but usually with contempt for any possible values in the conquered people’s approach to life. It all seemed an overwhelming success, with no geographic limits. Western society expanded in a triumph of human independence and power. And all of a sudden the twentieth century brought the clear realization of this society’s fragility.

We now see that the conquests proved to be short lived and precarious (and this, in turn, points to defects in the Western view of the world which led to these conquests). Relations with the former colonial world now have switched to the opposite extreme and the Western world often exhibits an excess of obsequiousness, but it is difficult yet to estimate the size of the bill which former colonial countries will present to the West and it is difficult to predict whether the surrender not only of its last colonies, but of everything it owns, will be sufficient for the West to clear this account.

But the persisting blindness of superiority continues to hold the belief that all the vast regions of our planet should develop and mature to the level of contemporary Western systems, the best in theory and the most attractive in practice; that all those other worlds are but temporarily prevented (by wicked leaders or by severe crises or by their own barbarity and incomprehension) from pursuing Western pluralistic democracy and adopting the Western way of life. Countries are judged on the merit of their progress in that direction. But in fact such a conception is a fruit of Western incomprehension of the essence of other worlds, a result of mistakenly measuring them all with a Western yardstick. The real picture of our planet’s development bears little resemblance to all this.

The anguish of a divided world gave birth to the theory of convergence between the leading Western countries and the Soviet Union. It is a soothing theory which overlooks the fact that these worlds are not evolving toward each other and that neither one can be transformed into the other without violence. Besides, convergence inevitably means acceptance of the other side’s defects, too. and this can hardly suit anyone.

If I were today addressing an audience in my country, in my examination of the overall pattern of the world’s rifts I would have concentrated on the calamities of the East. But since my forced exile in the West has now lasted four years and since my audience is a Western one, I think it may be of greater interest to concentrate on certain aspects of the contemporary West, such as I see them.

A decline in courage may be the most striking feature that an outside observer notices in the West today. The Western world has lost its civic courage, both as a whole and separately, in each country, in each government, in each political party, and, of course, in the United Nations. Such a decline in courage is particularly noticeable among the ruling and intellectual elites, causing an impression of a loss of courage by the entire society. There are many courageous individuals, but they have no determining influence on public life.

Political and intellectual functionaries exhibit this depression, passivity, and perplexity in their actions and in their statements, and even more so in their self-serving rationales as to how realistic, reasonable, and intellectually and even morally justified it is to base state policies on weakness and cowardice. And the decline in courage, at times attaining what could be termed a lack of manhood, is ironically emphasized by occasional outbursts and inflexibility on the part of those same functionaries when dealing with weak governments and with countries that lack support, or with doomed currents which clearly cannot offer resistance. But they get tongue-tied and paralyzed when they deal with powerful governments and threatening forces, with aggressors and international terrorists.

Must one point out that from ancient times a decline in courage has been considered the first symptom of the end?

When the modern Western states were being formed, it was proclaimed as a principle that governments are meant to serve man and that man lives in order to be free and pursue happiness. (See, for example, the American Declaration of Independence.) Now at last during past decades technical and social progress has permitted the realization of such aspirations: the welfare state.

Every citizen has been granted the desired freedom and material goods in such quantity and in such quality as to guarantee in theory the achievement of happiness, in the debased sense of the word which has come into being during those same decades. (In the process, however, one psychological detail has been overlooked: the constant desire to have still more things and a still better life and the struggle to this end imprint many Western faces with worry and even depression, though it is customary to carefully conceal such feelings. This active and tense competition comes to dominate all human thought and does not in the least open a way to free spiritual development.)

The individual’s independence from many types of state pressure has been guaranteed; the majority of the people have been granted well-being to an extent their fathers and grandfathers could not even dream about; it has become possible to raise young people according to these ideals, preparing them for and summoning them toward physical bloom, happiness, and leisure, the possession of material goods, money, and leisure, toward an almost unlimited freedom in the choice of pleasures. So who should now renounce all this, why and for the sake of what should one risk one’s precious life in defense of the common good and particularly in the nebulous case when the security of one’s nation must be defended in an as yet distant land?

Even biology tells us that a high degree of habitual well-being is not advantageous to a living organism. Today, well-being in the life of Western society has begun to take off its pernicious mask.

Western society has chosen for itself the organization best suited to its purposes and one I might call legalistic. The limits of human rights and rightness are determined by a system of laws; such limits are very broad. People in the West have acquired considerable skill in using, interpreting, and manipulating law (though laws tend to be too complicated for an average person to understand without the help of an expert). Every conflict is solved according to the letter of the law and this is considered to be the ultimate solution.

If one is risen from a legal point of view, nothing more is required, nobody may mention that one could still not be right, and urge self-restraint or a renunciation of these rights, call for sacrifice and selfless risk: this would simply sound absurd. Voluntary self-restraint is almost unheard of: everybody strives toward further expansion to the extreme limit of the legal frames. (An oil company is legally blameless when it buys up an invention of a new type of energy in order to prevent its use. A food product manufacturer is legally blameless when he poisons his produce to make it last longer: after all, people are free not to purchase it.)

I have spent all my life under a Communist regime and I will tell you that a society without any objective legal scale is a terrible one indeed. But a society based on the letter of the law and never reaching any higher fails to take full advantage of the full range of human possibilities. The letter of the law is too cold and formal to have a beneficial influence on society. Whenever the tissue of life is woven of legalistic relationships, this creates an atmosphere of spiritual mediocrity that paralyzes man’s noblest impulses.

And it will be simply impossible to bear up to the trials of this threatening century with nothing but the supports of a legalistic structure.

Today’s Western society has revealed the inequality between the freedom for good deeds and the freedom for evil deeds. A statesman who wants to achieve something highly constructive for his country has to move cautiously and even timidly; thousands of hasty (and irresponsible) critics cling to him at all times; he is constantly rebuffed by parliament and the press. He has to prove that his every step is well founded and absolutely flawless. Indeed, an outstanding, truly great person who has unusual and unexpected initiatives in mind does not get any chance to assert himself; dozens of traps will be set for him from the beginning. Thus mediocrity triumphs under the guise of democratic restraints.

It is feasible and easy everywhere to undermine administrative power and it has in fact been drastically weakened in all Western countries. The defense of individual rights has reached such extremes as to make society as a whole defenseless against certain individuals. It is time, in the West, to defend not so much human rights as human obligations.

On the other hand, destructive and irresponsible freedom has been granted boundless space. Society has turned out to have scarce defense against the abyss of human decadence, for example against the misuse of liberty for moral violence against young people, such as motion pictures full of pornography, crime, and horror. This is all considered to be part of freedom and to be counterbalanced, in theory, by the young people’s right not to look and not to accept. Life organized legalistically has thus shown its inability to defend itself against the corrosion of evil.

And what shall we say about the dark realms of overt criminality? Legal limits (especially in the United States) are broad enough to encourage not only individual freedom but also some misuse of such freedom. The culprit can go unpunished or obtain undeserved leniency — all with the support of thousands of defenders in the society. When a government earnestly undertakes to root out terrorism, public opinion immediately accuses it of violating the terrorist’s civil rights. There is quite a number of such cases.

This tilt of freedom toward evil has come about gradually, but it evidently stems from a humanistic and benevolent concept according to which man — the master of the world — does not bear any evil within himself, and all the defects of life are caused by misguided social systems, which must therefore be corrected. Yet strangely enough, though the best social conditions have been achieved in the West, there still remains a great deal of crime; there even is considerably more of it than in the destitute and lawless Soviet society. (There is a multitude of prisoners in our camps who are termed criminals, but most of them never committed any crime; they merely tried to defend themselves against a lawless state by resorting to means outside the legal framework.)

The press, too, of course, enjoys the widest freedom. (I shall be using the word "press" to include all the media.) But what use does it make of it?

Here again, the overriding concern is not to infringe the letter of the law. There is no true moral responsibility for distortion or disproportion. What sort of responsibility does a journalist or a newspaper have to the readership or to history? If they have misled public opinion by inaccurate information or wrong conclusions, even if they have contributed to mistakes on a state level, do we know of any case of open regret voiced by the same journalist or the same newspaper? No; this would damage sales. A nation may be the worse for such a mistake, but the journalist always gets away with it. It is most likely that he will start writing the exact opposite to his previous statements with renewed aplomb.

Because instant and credible information is required, it becomes necessary to resort to guesswork, rumors, and suppositions to fill in the voids, and none of them will ever be refuted; they settle into the readers’ memory. How many hasty, immature, superficial, and misleading judgments are expressed everyday, confusing readers, and then left hanging?

The press can act the role of public opinion or miseducate it. Thus we may see terrorists heroized, or secret matters pertaining to the nation’s defense publicly revealed, or we may witness shameless intrusion into the privacy of well-known people according to the slogan "Everyone is entitled to know everything." (But this is a false slogan of a false era; far greater in value is the forfeited right of people not to know, not to have their divine souls stuffed with gossip, nonsense, vain talk. A person who works and leads a meaningful life has no need for this excessive and burdening flow of information.)

Hastiness and superficiality — these are the psychic diseases of the twentieth century and more than anywhere else this is manifested in the press. In-depth analysis of a problem is anathema to the press; it is contrary to its nature. The press merely picks out sensational formulas.

Such as it is, however, the press has become the greatest power within Western countries, exceeding that of the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary. Yet one would like to ask: According to what law has it been elected and to whom is it responsible? In the Communist East, a journalist is frankly appointed as a state official. But who has voted Western journalists into their positions of power, for how long a time, and with what prerogatives?

There is yet another surprise for someone coming from the totalitarian East with its rigorously unified press: One discovers a common trend of preferences within the Western press as a whole (the spirit of the time), generally accepted patterns of judgment, and maybe common corporate interests, the sum effect being not competition but unification. Unrestrained freedom exists for the press, but not for readership, because newspapers mostly transmit in a forceful and emphatic way those opinions which do not too openly contradict their own and that general trend.

Without any censorship in the West, fashionable trends of thought and ideas are fastidiously separated from those that are not fashionable, and the latter, without ever being forbidden have little chance of finding their way into periodicals or books or being heard in colleges. Your scholars are free in the legal sense, but they are hemmed in by the idols of the prevailing fad. There is no open violence, as in the East; however, a selection dictated by fashion and the need to accommodate mass standards frequently prevents the most independent-minded persons from contributing to public life and gives rise to dangerous herd instincts that block dangerous herd development.

In America, I have received letters from highly intelligent persons — maybe a teacher in a faraway small college who could do much for the renewal and salvation of his country, but the country cannot hear him because the media will not provide him with a forum. This gives birth to strong mass prejudices, to a blindness which is perilous in our dynamic era. An example is the self-deluding interpretation of the state of affairs in the contemporary world that functions as a sort of petrified armor around people’s minds, to such a degree that human voices from seventeen countries of Eastern Europe and Eastern Asia cannot pierce it. It will be broken only by the inexorable crowbar of events.

I have mentioned a few traits of Western life which surprise and shock a new arrival to this world . The purpose and scope of this speech will not allow me to continue such a survey, in particular to look into the impact of these characteristics on important aspects of a nation’s life, such as elementary education, advanced education in the humanities, and art.

It is almost universally recognized that the West shows all the world the way to successful economic development, even though in past years it has been sharply offset by chaotic inflation. However, many people living in the West are dissatisfied with their own society. They despise it or accuse it of no longer being up to the level of maturity by mankind. And this causes many to sway toward socialism, which is a false and dangerous current.

I hope that no one present will suspect me of expressing my partial criticism of the Western system in order to suggest socialism as an alternative. No; with the experience of a country where socialism has been realized, I shall not speak for such an alternative. The mathematician Igor Shafarevich, a member of the Soviet Academy of Science, has written a brilliantly argued book entitled Socialism; this is a penetrating historical analysis demonstrating that socialism of any type and shade leads to a total destruction of the human spirit and to a leveling of mankind into death. Shafarevich’s book was published in France almost two years ago and so far no one has been found to refute it. It will shortly be published in English in the U.S.

But should I be asked, instead, whether I would propose the West, such as it is today, as a model to my country, I would frankly have to answer negatively. No, I could not recommend your society as an ideal for the transformation of ours. Through deep suffering, people in our own country have now achieved a spiritual development of such intensity that the Western system in its present state of spiritual exhaustion does not look attractive. Even those characteristics of your life which I have just enumerated are extremely saddening.

A fact which cannot be disputed is the weakening of human personality in the West while in the East it has become firmer and stronger. Six decades for our people and three decades for the people of Eastern Europe; during that time we have been through a spiritual training far in advance of Western experience. The complex and deadly crush of life has produced stronger, deeper, and more interesting personalities than those generated by standardized Western well-being. Therefore, if our society were to be transformed into yours, it would mean an improvement in certain aspects, but also a change for the worse on some particularly significant points.

Of course, a society cannot remain in an abyss of lawlessness, as is the case in our country. But it is also demeaning for it to stay on such a soulless and smooth plane of legalism, as is the case in yours. After the suffering of decades of violence and oppression, the human soul longs for things higher, warmer, and purer than those offered by today’s mass living habits, introduced as by a calling card by the revolting invasion of commercial advertising, by TV stupor, and by intolerable music.

All this is visible to numerous observers from all the worlds of our planet. The Western way of life is less and less likely to become the leading model.

There are telltale symptoms by which history gives warning to a threatened or perishing society. Such are, for instance, a decline of the arts or a lack of great statesmen. Indeed, sometimes the warnings are quite explicit and concrete. The center of your democracy and of your culture is left without electric power for a few hours only, and all of a sudden crowds of American citizens start looting and creating havoc. The smooth surface film must be very thin, then, the social system quite unstable and unhealthy.

But the fight for our planet, physical and spiritual, a fight of cosmic proportions, is not a vague matter of the future; it has already started. The forces of Evil have begun their decisive offensive. You can feel their pressure, yet your screens and publications are full of prescribed smiles and raised glasses. What is the joy about?

How has this unfavorable relation of forces come about? How did the West decline from its triumphal march to its present debility? Have there been fatal turns and losses of direction in its development? It does not seem so. The West kept advancing steadily in accordance with its proclaimed social intentions, hand in hand with a dazzling progress in technology. And all of a sudden it found itself in its present state of weakness.

This means that the mistake must be at the root, at the very foundation of thought in modern times. I refer to the prevailing Western view of the world in modern times. I refer to the prevailing Western view of the world which was born in the Renaissance and has found political expression since the Age of Enlightenment. It became the basis for political and social doctrine and could be called rationalistic humanism or humanistic autonomy: the pro-claimed and practiced autonomy of man from any higher force above him. It could also be called anthropocentricity, with man seen as the center of all.

The turn introduced by the Renaissance was probably inevitable historically: the Middle Ages had come to a natural end by exhaustion, having become an intolerable despotic repression of man’s physical nature in favor of the spiritual one. But then we recoiled from the spirit and embraced all that is material, excessively and incommensurately. The humanistic way of thinking, which had proclaimed itself our guide, did not admit the existence of intrinsic evil in man, nor did it see any task higher than the attainment of happiness on earth. It started modern Western civilization on the dangerous trend of worshiping man and his material needs.

Everything beyond physical well-being and the accumulation of material goods, all other human requirements and characteristics of a subtle and higher nature, were left outside the area of attention of state and social systems, as if human life did not have any higher meaning. Thus gaps were left open for evil, and its drafts blow freely today. Mere freedom per se does not in the least solve all the problems of human life and even adds a number of new ones.

And yet in early democracies, as in American democracy at the time of its birth, all individual human rights were granted on the ground that man is God’s creature. That is, freedom was given to the individual conditionally, in the assumption of his constant religious responsibility. Such was the heritage of the preceding one thousand years. Two hundred or even fifty years ago, it would have seemed quite impossible, in America, that an individual be granted boundless freedom with no purpose, simply for the satisfaction of his whims.

Subsequently, however, all such limitations were eroded everywhere in the West; a total emancipation occurred from the moral heritage of Christian centuries with their great reserves of mercy and sacrifice. State systems were becoming ever more materialistic. The West has finally achieved the rights of man, and even excess, but man’s sense of responsibility to God and society has grown dimmer and dimmer. In the past decades, the legalistic selfishness of the Western approach to the world has reached its peak and the world has found itself in a harsh spiritual crisis and a political impasse. All the celebrated technological achievements of progress, including the conquest of outer space, do not redeem the twentieth century’s moral poverty, which no one could have imagined even as late as the nineteenth century.

As humanism in its development was becoming more and more materialistic, it also increasingly allowed concepts to be used first by socialism and then by communism, so that Karl Marx was able to say, in 1844, that "communism is naturalized humanism."

This statement has proved to be not entirely unreasonable. One does not see the same stones in the foundations of an eroded humanism and of any type of socialism: boundless materialism; freedom from religion and religious responsibility (which under Communist regimes attains the stage of antireligious dictatorship); concentration on social structures with an allegedly scientific approach. (This last is typical of both the Age of Enlightenment and of Marxism.) It is no accident that all of communism’s rhetorical vows revolve around Man (with a capital M) and his earthly happiness. At first glance it seems an ugly parallel: common traits in the thinking and way of life of today’s West and today’s East? But such is the logic of materialistic development.

The interrelationship is such, moreover, that the current of materialism which is farthest to the left, and is hence the most consistent, always proves to be stronger, more attractive, and victorious. Humanism which has lost its Christian heritage cannot prevail in this competition. Thus during the past centuries and especially in recent decades, as the process became more acute, the alignment of forces was as follows: Liberalism was inevitably pushed aside by radicalism, radicalism had to surrender to socialism, and socialism could not stand up to communism.

The communist regime in the East could endure and grow due to the enthusiastic support from an enormous number of Western intellectuals who (feeling the kinship!) refused to see communism’s crimes, and when they no longer could do so, they tried to justify these crimes. The problem persists: In our Eastern countries, communism has suffered a complete ideological defeat; it is zero and less than zero. And yet Western intellectuals still look at it with considerable interest and empathy, and this is precisely what makes it so immensely difficult for the West to withstand the East.

I am not examining the case of a disaster brought on by a world war and the changes which it would produce in society. But as long as we wake up every morning under a peaceful sun, we must lead an everyday life. Yet there is a disaster which is already very much with us. I am referring to the calamity of an autonomous, irreligious humanistic consciousness.

It has made man the measure of all things on earth — imperfect man, who is never free of pride, self-interest, envy, vanity, and dozens of other defects. We are now paying for the mistakes which were not properly appraised at the beginning of the journey. On the way from the Renaissance to our days we have enriched our experience, but we have lost the concept of a Supreme Complete Entity which used to restrain our passions and our irresponsibility.

We have placed too much hope in politics and social reforms, only to find out that we were being deprived of our most precious possession: our spiritual life. It is trampled by the party mob in the East, by the commercial one in the West. This is the essence of the crisis: the split in the world is less terrifying than the similarity of the disease afflicting its main sections.

If, as claimed by humanism, man were born only to be happy, he would not be born to die. Since his body is doomed to death, his task on earth evidently must be more spiritual: not a total engrossment in everyday life, not the search for the best ways to obtain material goods and then their carefree consumption. It has to be the fulfillment of a permanent, earnest duty so that one’s life journey may become above all an experience of moral growth: to leave life a better human being than one started it.

It is imperative to reappraise the scale of the usual human values; its present incorrectness is astounding. It is not possible that assessment of the President’s performance should be reduced to the question of how much money one makes or to the availability of gasoline. Only by the voluntary nurturing in ourselves of freely accepted and serene self-restraint can mankind rise above the world stream of materialism.

Today it would be retrogressive to hold on to the ossified formulas of the Enlightenment. Such social dogmatism leaves us helpless before the trials of our times.

Even if we are spared destruction by war, life will have to change in order not to perish on its own. We cannot avoid reassessing the fundamental definitions of human life and society. Is it true that man is above everything? Is there no Superior Spirit above him? Is it right that man’s life and society’s activities should be ruled by material expansion above all? Is it permissible to promote such expansion to the detriment of our integral spiritual life?

If the world has not approached its end, it has reached a major watershed in history, equal in importance to the turn from the Middle Ages to the Renaissance. It will demand from us a spiritual blaze; we shall have to rise to a new height of vision, to a new level of life, where our physical nature will not be cursed, as in the Middle Ages, but even more importantly, our spiritual being will not be trampled upon, as in the Modern Era.

The ascension is similar to climbing onto the next anthropological stage. No one on earth has any other way left but — upward.

Source: http://www.nationalreview.com/document/document060603.asp

RNC leaders condemn bailouts

RNC LEADERS CONDEMN BAILOUTSColoradans support proposed resolution

James Bopp of Indiana, vice chairman of the Republican National Committee, is circulating a draft resolution opposing "bailouts of industries, individuals, or governments by the federal government," to be offered for a vote when the RNC's 168 members meet in Washington in late January.

Colorado's Republican chairman Dick Wadhams and national committeewoman Lily Nunez are listed among the first cosponsors. RedState.com ran a story about the resolution on Thursday. Here is the text in full.

RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE TO TAKE ALL STEPS NECESSARY TO OPPOSE BAILOUTS OF INDUSTRIES, INDIVIDUALS, OR GOVERNMENTS BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND TO AGGRESSIVELY PROMOTE THE CONSERVATIVE PRINCIPLES OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY IN PUBLIC POLICY DEBATES

WHEREAS, America is embroiled in an economic crisis which threatens to become a severe and prolonged recession; and WHEREAS, as an alleged remedy to the economic crisis, the United States Congress proposed the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (“Bank Bailout Bill”), which would authorize the United States Secretary of the Treasury to spend up to $700 billion dollars to bail out the financial industry from the consequences of its own poor decisions and misguided government policies, by purchasing distressed assets, especially mortgage-backed securities, and make capital injections into banks; and WHEREAS, when the original Bank Bailout Bill failed to pass, it was augmented with$150 billion dollars in additional, unnecessary spending designed to earn the incumbent politicians who voted for it the support of their constituents back home; and WHEREAS, Congress adopted, and the President signed, the bloated Bank Bailout Bill; and WHEREAS, the Bank Bailout Bill has neither reversed the economic crisis nor protected the taxpayers, but rather has added $850 billion dollars to their tax bill and raised the national debt ceiling from $10 trillion to $11.3 trillion, which has the potential long-term effect of further weakening the economy; and WHEREAS, the Bank Bailout Bill effectively nationalized the Nation’s banking system, giving the United States non-voting warrants from participating financial institutions, and moving our free market based economy another dangerous step closer toward socialism; and WHEREAS, what was needed, and is still needed, to fix the banking industry is not a bailout, but rather a commitment to fiscal responsibility. This entails more than considering only the quick fixes for Wall Street. It also entails considering how to restore Wall Street to sustainable profitability. It involves common sense legislation from Congress, such as (1) eliminating the capital gains tax, which will lead investors to flood the real estate and financial markets in search of tax-free profits, creating liquidity in the markets; (2) examining, and if need be, amending the Community Reinvestment Act (Pub.L. 95-128, title VIII, 91 Stat. 1147, 12 U.S.C. § 2901 et seq.), to ensure that it accomplishes its purpose of preventing discriminatory lending without also forcing the financial industry to engage in high risk lending; and (3) adopting a “hands off” approach from government 2 toward the financial sector, so that free-market forces can correct the market; and WHEREAS, there have been other federal government bailouts, including the $85 billion dollar bailout of American International Group Inc. in return for its nationalization, with the United States acquiring an almost eighty percent equity stake in the company, a bailout and nationalization of Fannie Mac and Freddie Mac, and a bailout of Bear Sterns; and WHEREAS, the cost to the American taxpayers of the various bailouts enacted by the 110th Congress and signed into law by the President is potentially $8.7 trillion dollars; and WHEREAS, none of these bailouts have forestalled the economic recession, protected the jobs of American workers, made American companies more competitive, or relieved the tax burden on American taxpayers, but rather have threatened to deepen the economic recession, and have increased the national debt and the burden faced by the American taxpayers; and WHEREAS, the “Big Three” Automakers (Chrysler, General Motors, and Ford) appealed to Congress for a bailout bill of their own, seeking up to $34 billion dollars in emergency aid; and WHEREAS, the American people overwhelmingly oppose a bailout of the Big Three, with 61% of those polled opposing government assistance to the automakers and 70% saying that such assistance would be unfair to American taxpayers; and WHEREAS, when faced with both Congressional and public disapproval, Ford announced that it did not need actually need federal money at this time, but Chrysler and General Motors continued to request financial assistance from the government; and WHEREAS, on December 11, 2008, the House of Representatives passed the Auto Industry Financing and Restructuring Act (H.R. 7321) (“Auto Bailout Bill”), which authorized $14 billion dollars in loans to the automobile industry in exchange for, among other things, the nationalization of the auto industry, whereby the United States receives warrants for up to 20% of the common or preferred stock of each automaker, and the appointment by the President of an executive officer (“Car Czar”) to oversee various aspects of the auto industry’s business; and WHEREAS, the Auto Bailout Bill was rejected in the United States Senate, garnering only 52 of the 60 votes necessary to bring the Bill to the Floor for consideration; and WHEREAS, on December 19, 2008, the President announced that he would create a $17.4 billion dollar Auto Bailout Package for the auto industry, taking the money from the funds appropriated by the Bank Bailout Bill; and WHEREAS, the President has announced that Chrysler and GM must prove they are financially viable by March 31, 2009, or face the possibility—but only the possibility—of the recall of the funds extended to bail them out; and 3 WHEREAS, President-elect Obama is under no obligation to insist that Chrysler and GM meet this obligation, or pay back the money used to bail them out and the UAW is already calling on President-elect Obama to reject the wage reduction requirements of the Auto Bailout Package; and WHEREAS, the Auto Bailout Package is not only a bailout of the bad management decisions of the leadership of the automobile industry, but also a bailout of the leadership of the United Auto Workers union (UAW), whose excessive labor wage and benefit demands have substantially contributed to the automobile industry’s financial woes, as demonstrated by the fact that the average hourly cost to the unionized Big Three Automakers for its workers’ salary and benefits is nearly $80 per hour, compared with Toyota, Honda, and Nissan, whose total hourly U.S. labor costs, with benefits, are about $48 per hour; and WHEREAS, the UAW has steadfastly refused to renegotiate its current labor contracts to ease the financial burden on the Big Three, and has also self-servingly insisted that bankruptcy was not an option for any of the Big Three, because bankruptcy would allow a renegotiation of their labor contracts; and WHEREAS, bailing out the UAW with the Auto Bailout Package will not make the automobile industry solvent, because it does not address the underlying cause of its financial difficulties, but merely applies a band aid to tide the industry over for the time being; and WHEREAS, the open-ended nature of the Auto Bailout Package, which only contains the possibility of a recall of the bailout money if Chrysler and GM do not have a plan for financial viability by March 31, 2009, will not provide incentive to their leadership and the leadership of the UAW to create a financially viable business plan, but rather will encourage them to continue ‘business as usual’ and count on future government bailouts whenever such are needed; and WHEREAS, the men and women who work in the automobile industry are patriotic Americans who work hard to supply America with automobiles and also to provide a decent living for themselves and their families; and WHEREAS, America’s auto workers are not helped by a temporary band aid which does not require the automobile industry and the UAW to change practices and create a sustainable profitability. Rather, they need a solution that will enable the American automobile industry to recover and thrive again in order to ensure the long-term survival of their jobs; and WHEREAS, what is needed to fix the American automobile industry is restructuring that will eliminate the competitive disadvantage faced in their costs and finished products relative to foreign brands, which can only be accomplished by (1) negotiating new labor agreements to align their pay and benefits to match those of their competitors; (2) reducing the benefits paid to their retirees so that the total burden per auto for the Big Three is not higher than that of foreign companies; (3) restructuring their business plans with an eye to the future, such that they invest in competitive products and innovative, fuel-saving technologies; and (4) recruiting management teams who excel 4 in marketing, innovation, creativity and labor relations; and WHEREAS, a group of governors met with President-elect Obama to press for their own bailout plan, whereby federal taxpayer would pay $136 billion for state infrastructure projects and untold billions of dollars for state health care costs; and WHEREAS, President-elect Barack Obama decided to propose an enormous public works project, which is really a cleverly disguised Government Bailout Plan designed to bail out state and local governments by providing federal tax dollars to repair and rebuild their local infrastructure; and WHEREAS, some have proposed spending up to $1 trillion dollars to fund the President-elect’s Government Bailout Plan; and, WHEREAS, the Government Bailout Plan will be the biggest earmarked spending program in our Nation’s history; WHEREAS, the Government Bailout Plan will not fix our economic woes, but rather will extend the current economic crisis, much as President Franklin Roosevelt’s Works Progress Administration extended the Great Depression, and will cost the American taxpayers $1 trillion dollars or more; and WHEREAS, what is needed to ease unemployment and stimulate the economy is not a Government Bailout Plan to bail out state and local governments from their deficit spending, but rather common sense solutions which will work, including (1) lowering our corporate tax rate which is the second highest in the world and fifty percent higher than our international competitors, so that corporations will have more ability to invest in product development and job creation; (2) lowering taxes on the middle class and eliminating the capital gains tax, so that America’s families will have more money to invest and spend for their families’ needs; (3) spending to replenish and, where necessary, modernize our military equipment and improve our national defense capabilities against both foreign nations and terrorists; (3) investing in energy research, exploration and development to free our Nation from its dependence on foreign oil; and (4) eliminating wasteful government spending and restructuring government programs that can be accomplished more efficiently. Together, these measures will create jobs, energize the economy and protect our national freedoms, all of which will improve the quality of life of the American family; and WHEREAS, the Republican Party must, for the good of America, reestablish our commitment to the common sense, conservative values of free enterprise, free markets, limited government, and personal responsibility, which are advocated by the Republican National Committee in its national platform; and THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Members of the Republican National Committee commend the Members of Congress who have opposed the bills seeking to bailout American industries and to nationalize American companies; and 5 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Members of the Republican National Committee call for all Members of Congress to oppose any and all future bailouts that might come before the Congress, including President-elect Obama’s public works program; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Members of the Republican National Committee call on Congress to identify the government programs and policies which have lead to the current economic crisis and to revise or repeal them in favor of government policies which promote free enterprise and free markets; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Republican National Committee, in cooperation with Republican Members of Congress and the Republican Governors of the various states, shall be authorized to engage in vigorous debate on public policy issues, including calling for Congress to oppose measures which are detrimental to the welfare of our Nation and our People, consistent with the conservative principles of the Republican Party as expressed in its national platform, and to devote appropriate resources of the RNC for this purpose. Submitted by James Bopp, Jr., NCM IN Randy Pullen SC AZ Lilly Nunez NCW CO Dick Wadhams SC CO Sharon Day NCW FL Steve Scheffler NCM IA Kim Lehman NCW IA Cindy Moyle NCW ID Dee Dee Benkie NCW IN Helen Van Etten NCW KS Kris Kobach SC KS Evie Axdahl NCW MN Cindy Phillips NCW MS Pete Ricketts NCM NE Sean Mahoney NCM NH Rosie Tripp NCM NM Carolyn L. McLarty NCW OK Solomon Yue NCM OR Donna Cain NCW OR Giovanni Cicione SC RI Cynthia Costa NCM SC Mary Jean Jensen NCW SD Cathie Adams NCW TX Fredi Simpson NCW WA Diana Vaughan SC WY

===========================

PREVIOUSLY ARCHIVED MATERIAL ON THIS PAGE...

BLUE TUESDAY: WE DESERVED IT By Eric Weissmann

(Nov. 5, 10am) I’m sure you share my disappointment with yesterday’s election results. As President Bush might say, it was a thumpin’. Much of my distress stems not from the frustration of being on the losing team, but from a firm conviction that the Democrats in general, and President-elect Obama in particular, represent a set of values and policies that – to the extent actually implemented – will amount to a tremendous setback for the nation we love. I fear that a weak, blame-America-first foreign policy will embolden our enemies and do long-term damage to our security and that of our allies. I regret that my fellow citizen’s American dream will be dimmer when they realize that a skilled orator’s vague promises of “hope” and “change” are no compensation for the diminished opportunities produced by “progressive” policies. And, most deeply, I mourn the loss of freedom that is the inevitable byproduct of any move towards a government even more involved in our daily lives.

It’s obvious to me that Obama, Reid, Pelosi, Mark Udall and the others represent a direction for America that deserved to lose. What’s bothering me today is this: I can’t shake the feeling that we didn’t deserve to win.

As a conservative, I stand for small government. Liberals stand for a larger role for government in our lives. Did President Bush and Republicans in Congress adhere to this value when they passed a prescription drug benefit that costs taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars? How about John McCain’s proposal to spend $2 billion of taxpayer money on clean-coal technology? What about Republican congressmen whooping it up alongside Democrats in a mind-boggling orgy of spending?

As a conservative, I believe that a free market is the surest route to prosperity for each American. Liberals believe the economy must be controlled for social ends. Did President Bush live up to this value when he teamed up with Nancy Pelosi to turn the Treasury into a $700 billion hedge fund, picking winners and losers in the financial services industry? 91 Republicans in the House supported the bailout bill. Senator McCain supported this panicky abandonment of principle. Mark Udall voted against it. Who’s happier today?

As a conservative, I believe that parents should have the right to choose where their children attend school. Liberals believe – well, actually, I suspect that many liberals believe this too, but are unwilling to lose the political muscle provided by teachers’ unions. Were the Republican candidates in your district talking about school choice?

As a conservative, I believe that America must accept its leadership role in world affairs. In order to meet our generational challenge of defeating radical Islamist terrorists, we must be a strong nation willing to act alone when necessary. Liberals believe that security can be achieved through multilateral organizations and negotiations with anyone – even terrorists sworn to our destruction and nations with long histories of dishonesty. Did our nation’s foreign policy establishment live up to this value when we outsourced handling of Iran’s nuclear ambitions to a group of wishy-washy European diplomats?

As a conservative, I believe that America is a unique and special nation. When conservatives look at America, we see a nation clearly defined by the freedoms envisioned by our founding fathers and enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. When liberals look at America, they see first its imperfections. Did your Republican candidates speak of how our citizens repay the blessings of freedom by leading the world in morality, charity, industry and justice? Or, did they seek cheap political gain by joining the chorus of doom? In the 1984 election, President Reagan made famous the line, “It’s morning in America.” With our freedoms, it should always be morning in America.

Of course, being true to our principles would not necessarily have meant that the election results would have been better this year. But the first step towards earning electoral success next time must surely be to stand for a consistent, positive alternative to the creeping reliance on government that carried the day yesterday.

We must remember what we stand for in every discussion, every policy idea, every speech or letter to the editor, every campaign contribution, and every vote. Our ideals, our words, and our actions must all be aligned. Let’s start now. God bless America!

Eric Weissmann is an entrepreneur in Boulder. He can be reached at eric@weissmann.net.

=======================================

CONSERVATIVE VOTER GUIDE 2008 Ballot Issues, Judges, RTD Board Also School Taxes & Legislature By John Andrews

Here's your Backbone voter guide on the questions and races that we the people get to decide this year. Many people are already voting by mail. Polls close on Nov. 4. Be informed, do your part. We've got the tools you need. One vote per precinct may decide some contests. Don't let MSM defeatism take you out of the game!

BALLOT ISSUES - See yes/no rundown below.

JUDGES - My recommendations linked here.

RTD BOARD - Don't guess, click & be sure.

SCHOOL TAXES - Cherry Creek 3A & 3B analyzed here.

LEGISLATIVE RACES - Top Republican candidates listed here.

Colorado voters face a record 18 ballot issues in this election. But don't be annoyed with that. Don't vote no on all of them, or guess as we sometimes did on school tests, or simply abstain. Be grateful we have the power to directly alter our statutes and constitution; people in many states don't. Do a little homework, cast an informed conservative vote, and feel the Founding Fathers smiling on you. This is America as it was meant to be.

Below I'll give you my checklist of yes and no votes. If we differ, fine. That's America too. But first let me give you my thought process behind the checklist. This crowded ballot puts Colorado at a crossroads, no matter which candidates win nationally and here in the state. By our decision on the various issues...

** One road can lead to growing the economy, keeping taxes down, improving our highway system, ensuring racial equality, protecting the unborn, curbing union power, reducing corruption, and keeping government neutral in partisan politics.

** While the other road can lead to higher prices and higher taxes, energy shortages, job losses and a weaker economy, bigger government and more bureaucracy, all wrapped up in a state constitution that will always be harder for citizens to go in fix from now on.

You can tell which road I think makes sense. With this as a roadmap, here are the issues I will personally support and oppose.

Amendments ------------------- Yes on 46 for colorblind laws (Civil Rights Initiative) Yes on 47 to curb union power (Right to Work) Yes on 48 to protect the unborn (Personhood Amendment) Yes on 49 to keep government neutral in partisan politics (Ethical Payroll Standards) Yes on 52 for better roads (Severance Surplus to Highways, no tax increase) Yes on 54 to reduce corruption (Clean Government Amendment) -------------------- No on 50 so gambling doesn't increase and government doesn't either No on 51 so sales tax won't go up $186 million - help the disabled from existing budgets and privately No on 53 so trial lawyers don't ruin companies and cost jobs (CEO Liability) No on 55 so free enterprise doesn't go the way of France (Just Cause Termination) No on 56 so health care mandates don't sink employers No on 57 so a litigation lottery doesn't cripple the state's economy (Safe Workplace) No on 58 so oil and gas won't bear $321 million in new taxes, passed along to consumers No on 59 so billions in TABOR refunds won't stop reaching taxpayers in coming years (SAFE Amendment)

Note: Proponents of 53, 55, 56, and 57 withdrew them on 10/2, with the result that votes for and against them won't count. I'm voting no on these dogs anyway.

Referendums ---------------------- No on L so politicians' average immaturity doesn't get lower still (Age 21 Legislators) No on O so revision of the constitution isn't further shifted from citizens to politicians ---------------------- Yes on M for constitutional housekeeping - non controversial cleanup measure Yes on N also constitutional housekeeping - another non controversial cleanup

My no-votes are guided by a few common-sense rules. Don't tax a faltering economy. Don't attack employers with a recession coming on. And don't centralize power from citizens and voters to government officials and judges, ever.

I'm a son of the Goldwater years. All I've done in politics from the 1960s until today has been done with a faith in the Declaration of Independence and a concern that government is too big, growing too fast, costs too much, too intrusive in our lives, and delivers too little value for the dollar.

By passing the six amendments I have marked "yes," and defeating the ones I've warned against, you and I can make a real difference in the right direction this year, regardless of who wins in other races. Thanks for jumping in. The stakes are so high.

---------------------------- RESOURCE MATERIALS

The Bluebook, Colorado's official, nonpartisan, fact-based voter reference publication on all the ballot issues, including pro-con arguments and fiscal notes on the latter as well as evaluations for judges facing retention, is at this link.

A quicker summary at a glance is provided by the Independence Institute here.

Sam Adams Alliance has the indispensable, nationally complete Ballotpedia website with data on every state including this Colorado section.

But none of these three sources takes sides on the issues. We do, and so should you!

STILL MORE RESOURCES: Rocky Mountain Family Council issues guide