Democracy or Theocracy?

"The surest antidote to tyranny is a free people who believe it owes its allegiance to a Higher Power, not the government. The consent of the governed rests upon faith in a sovereign God. Faith as a political force is the very essence of Democracy." - Ralph Reed, Republican political consultant and the former Exec. Dir. of the Christian Coalition.

Think about that quote for a moment.

To start: "[t]he surest antidote to tyranny is a free people who believe it owes its allegiance to a Higher Power, not the government." This logic is based upon an assumption that a "free people" who do not owe their allegiance to religious dogma and institutions are bound to worship at the altar of government. That's typical Black or White, God or Satan, logic. However, our nation is built upon a notion that free people in a democratic system create and manage a government of the people, by the people and for the people. What Reed is suggesting is that without religious belief, the people must affix their allegiances elsewhere and that could only be to the evils of the government. In other words, free people are sheep and their faith (allegiance) to religious doctrines empowers them to resist tyranny.

Next: "The consent of the governed rests upon faith in a sovereign God." So democracy is dependent upon the people's faith in God as all powerful and with allegiance only to him (or the dogma outlined by his Church)? Without faith in God, the governed (free people) are unable to exercise their democratic rights to create and control their government (i.e. "consent of the governed"). That is nonsense. The "consent of the governed" rests upon the actions of free people in winning, maintaining, and protecting their democratic rights to control their own government.

Finally: "Faith as a political force is the very essence of Democracy." That could be said of any political system, whether democratic, theocratic, monacratic, dictocratic, or totalitarian. "Faith" is much broader than religion. Free people - all people in any cultural or national group - must have faith in the organization, structures, and leadership. In our free and democratic society, for it to work the people must have faith in the value of freedom and the ability of free people to maintain democratic institutions and ideals to prevent tyranny.

Dangerous or Just Unbelievably Stupid?

Cool T, dude. Evidence that monumental stupidity thrives.

Commie puke, not worth the blade. What a moron.

Egyptologist Stands Up to Hawass

Chief Egyptologist egomaniac Zahi Hawass has begun to come under criticism from some Egyptian egyptologists and members of the media for his behavior. Specifically, his rough handling of excavations (as he condemns "unauthorized" archeologists for their work) and obsession with positioning himself in every media opportunity as a great discover.

These criticisms are particularly noteworthy in that they are coming from Egyptians, making it difficult for Hawass to simply dismiss them as foreign amateurs intent on plundering his country. As typical, Hawass' reaction is to condemn. Read the article HERE.

For those not familiar, Hawass is the secretary general of the Supreme Council on Antiquities in Egypt. With a board he has developed to be loyal to him, he has for several years seriously restricted access to Egyptian sites for foreign archeologists. However, he has very aggressively launched his own digs, secured exclusive television programs opening tombs and exploring the famed hidden shafts of the Great Pyramid, and launched a campaign to demand artifacts be returned from foreign museums.

Hawass is simply an ego-maniac, drunken with his own self-importance and love for attention. He has succeeded in creating a virtual dictatorship over access to key sites in Egypt. It's a great development that he is beginning to come under fire from fellow archeologists who have refused to toe the line.

Sheehan - Watching a Screwball

What can be said about Cindy Sheehan's squatter status outside of the Bush ranch and her deification by the anti-war left that hasn't already been said?

Is this woman crazy? Maybe a little. What I do think we are witnessing is an angry, slightly off woman who has become so impassioned in a cause, thrust forward as a spokesperson, so intoxicated by the attention, that she isn't about to let go. However, more importantly, she really is a political neophyte whose only utility to the left is the death of her soldier son and the media's attention.

However, it is important to note that she didn't suddenly decide to run off to Texas and become an anti-war heroine. She has been making the rounds for months spewing the most angry and downright stupid statements imaginable. Consider the following comments she made way back in April at a speech in San Francisco, which go in my file of "the stupidest political things people say":

"We are waging a nuclear war in Iraq right now. That country is contaminated. It will be contaminated for practically eternity now...We want our country back and, if we have to impeach everybody from George Bush down to the person who picks up dog s--- in Washington, we will impeach all those people."

From Drudge Report.

Quote of the Day

"Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with." (Atlas Shrugged' 1957)

Conceit of Government - Why Are Politicians So Full of Themselves?

I just stumbled across a great column by Peggy Noonan for the Wall Street Journal highlighting the growing practice by politicians of congratulating themselves as heroic, intelligent, leaders, etc. Great point, Peggy!

An excerpt: "A few weeks ago it was the senators who announced the judicial compromise. There is nothing wrong with compromise and nothing wrong with announcements, but the senators who spoke referred to themselves with such flights of vanity and conceit--we're so brave, so farsighted, so high-minded--that it was embarrassing. They patted themselves on the back so hard they looked like a bevy of big breasted pigeons in a mass wing-flap. Little grey feathers and bits of corn came through my TV screen, and I had to sweep up when they were done."

Read the column HERE.