Hemingway Exposing Left-Wing Myths About 'Right-Wing, Extremist Christians'

We have recently discussed on this blog the rapid speed in which the MSM jumped on the "Right-Wing Christian Extremist" bandwagon while the shots were still echoing in Norway following the horrific killing spree of Anders Behring Breivik. Mark Hemingway over at The Weekly Standard is obliterating the worn out templates regularly used by Leftists who will not own up to their own kindred spirits being responsible for some of the most devastating attacks in recent memory. First, Hemingway delves into the mindset of convicted bomber Eric Rudolph (above) who stated, according to USA Today...

"Many good people continue to send me money and books," .. "Most of them have, of course, an agenda; mostly born-again Christians looking to save my soul. I suppose the assumption is made that because I'm in here I must be a 'sinner' in need of salvation, and they would be glad to sell me a ticket to heaven, hawking this salvation like peanuts at a ballgame. I do appreciate their charity, but I could really do without the condescension. They have been so nice I would hate to break it to them that I really prefer Nietzsche to the Bible."

I don't know about you, but I've yet to attend a church in which a reading from the Book of Zarathustra segues neatly into that week's sermon.

Next, Hemingway examines the case of (alleged) Anthrax killer, Bruce Ivins...

"As for alleged Anthrax mailer Bruce Ivins being supposedly motivated by his pro-life, Catholic views -- well, that's a pretty unfounded assertion based on a lot of tenuous and anonymous sources. Further, from what we know about his religious views -- to say nothing of considerable evidence that he was mentally ill -- he wanted the Catholic church to liberalize on the issue of female and married clergy. Not exactly what one thinks of when we discuss extremist religious views."

The article goes on to point out the Leftist leanings of Andrew Joseph Stack who flew his plane into IRS offices in 2010 and holocaust memorial shooter James von Brunn . Next time a tragic event unfolds and the finger is immediately pointed at the Right or Christians, just wait for all of the facts to come in. Bill O'Reilly (who I often disagree with) summed it up rather accurately as to why the Left-wing media so readily pounces on such gross mischaracterizations.

"Two reasons. First, some on the left want to make an equivalency argument between Muslim terrorism and other kinds of violent acts. The Oklahoma City bomber, Timothy McVeigh, was often branded "a right-wing terrorist" in the media*. Terrorism is terrorism the analysis goes. It's not fair to constantly emphasize Muslim terrorism without acknowledging the others. Besides, bad men like George W. Bush hype the Muslim threat and use it to do evil things such as invade Iraq.

The second reason is purely political. The left well understands that Christian opposition to things like abortion, gay marriage and drug legalization makes those liberal causes more difficult to achieve. Thus, anything that diminishes Christianity is fair game to be promoted. Every newsworthy sin committed by a Christian is highlighted with a sneering reference to hypocrisy. Any whiff of Christian intolerance is celebrated in the press.

Breivik did not kill in the name of Jesus. He was not a member of a Christian-based al-Qaida-like group. He was not funded by Iran or enabled by Pakistan. It seems he is simply a murderer, a man devoid of any spiritual conscience, a direct descendant of Cain."

* (And positively, NEVER mentioning the fact that McVeigh would often state that "Science is my Religion")

EDIT: Reuters Labels Norway Terror Suspect as ‘Right-Wing’ 25 Times IN ONE ARTICLE

Rauser: 'Why are Atheists so Obsessed with Zeus?'

We've all seen it before if one has been visiting various chat rooms and discussion forums over the last decade or so since the internet began to gain in usage. I've encountered such nonsense personally and now Randal Rauser is wondering why this is....

"It's true. Spend some time as a theist talking to an atheist and pretty soon they'll introduce Zeus to the conversation...

..If it's not the Flying Spaghetti Monster then it's Zeus. The trend is so common that I even named my forthcoming book on apologetics From Angels to Zeus: Apologetics in One Long Conversation. But what is going on here?

I'm sorry to break it to Zeus, but I don't think this revival of interest has much to do with him in particular. Rather, I think this is a mere rhetorical move designed to marginalize current concepts of God by associating them with now defunct concepts, and Zeus is ideal in this regard because he is widely known in popular culture and yet obviously not widely believed in."

Although old Zeus is not believed in, this does not deter the intellectually flacid atheist from lumping all belief systems together as if they are of equal weight and castings such aspersions. They never get around to explaining why it's such a valid comparison and yet they don't actually know anyone who goes around spouting off about their belief in Zeus.

Why is Estonia Beating us in Oil Shale Development?

As to why Estonia is beating the United states in Oil Shale Production, I think the answer comes down to political will to get the job done. Lincoln Brown lays out for us how advanced their process is...

"A company in Estonia is mining a 9 foot high seam of oil shale. From that seam the company has created a plant that is producing something on the order 25 thousand barrels of oil per day. And while environmentalists would tell you that it uses up that most precious of resources: water, water is not used at all in the extraction process. In fact the drier the shale the better. So much for the myth of water going down the proverbial dry hole. Additionally, the Estonian plant meets the exacting air quality requirements of the European Union, which is no small feat in this day and age.

But is it useable? Well, unless the laws of physics in Estonia vary wildly from those in the United States, the Magic Eight Ball seems to say YES. The country of Estonia has a total of eight power plants running off of oil shale. Six of those are in operation and two are in the process of being refurbished. Construction is underway on a new power plant that will generate 600 megawatts of electricity when it goes online.

Impressive numbers? Yes. But a drop in the bucket when you consider that the seam of oil shale in my part of the world is not nine feet high but 70 feet. Consider the possibilities."

Perhaps we could learn something from the Estonians in so far as extracting energy from this abundant resource. There comes a time when, even if energy prices gradually lower over time, that we have to develope our own resources due to instability in the parts of the world where OPEC extracts their oil.

Norway Killer - Darwinist, not Christian

It seemed like the template was already set to roll by the time the smoke cleared in Norway and Anders Behring Breivik (above) was taken into custody. A 'right-wing Christian fundamentalist' we were told by the left-wing media. However, new evidence is beginning to emerge and the explanation offered earlier might not be that simple...

"A review of Anders Behring Breivik's 1,500-page manifesto shows the media's quick characterization of the Norwegian terrorist as a "Christian" may be as incorrect as it was to call Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh one.

Breivik was arrested over the weekend, charged with a pair of brutal attacks in and near Oslo, Norway, including a bombing in the capital city that killed 7 and a shooting spree at a youth political retreat on the island of Utoya that killed more than 80 victims.

Piecing together Breivik's various posts on the Internet, many media reports have characterized the terrorist – who says he was upset over the multiculturalist policies stemming from Norway's Labour Party – as a "right-wing, Christian fundamentalist."

Yet, while McVeigh rejected God altogether, Breivik writes in his manifesto that he is not religious, has doubts about God's existence, does not pray, but does assert the primacy of Europe's "Christian culture" as well as his own pagan Nordic culture.

Breivik instead hails Charles Darwin, whose evolutionary theories stand in contrast to the claims of the Bible, and affirms: "As for the Church and science, it is essential that science takes an undisputed precedence over biblical teachings. Europe has always been the cradle of science, and it must always continue to be that way. Regarding my personal relationship with God, I guess I'm not an excessively religious man. I am first and foremost a man of logic. However, I am a supporter of a monocultural Christian Europe."

The terrorist also candidly admits he finds no support within either the Catholic or Protestant churches for his violent ideas."

Lets monitor this situation closely in order to see if ABCBS/NBCNN even bother to mention this at all.

Reading the Bible Promotes Science

It's from a study done by baylor University so it HAS to be Science!

"What daily practice may help American Christians become more concerned about issues of poverty, conservation and civil liberties?

Reading the Bible.

The answer may come as a surprise to those locked into viewing religious practices in ideological boxes. However, a new study by Baylor University researcher Aaron Franzen found frequent Bible reading predicted greater support for issues ranging from the compatibility of science and religion to more humane treatment of criminals.

The study, one of the first to examine the social consequences of reading Scripture, reveals the effects of Bible reading appear to transcend conservative-liberal boundaries.

Thus, even as opposition to same-sex marriage and legalized abortion tends to increase with more time spent with the Bible, so does the number of people who say it is important to actively seek social and economic justice, Franzen found."

There goes the entire "Bible reading is for mindless lemmings" mischaracterization. Can we now expect atheists to pick up the Good Book in order to reinforce their fetish for science? I'm not holding my breath people.

Thank You Allen West!

I had heard earlier in the day that Rep. (and DNC Chairperson) Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (D-FL, above, right) had gotten into a public tizzie with someone, but I now just found out with whom. Apparently, after Rep. Allen West (above left, R-FL) had left the floor of the US House of Representatives yesterday, Rep. Wasserman-Schultz singled out West for his support of the so-called "Cut, Cap and Balance" budget. Wasserman-Schultz, who isn't West's favorite person anyway, was then the recipient of of an email directly from West....

"From: Z112 West, Allen
Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2011 04:48 PM
To: Wasserman Schultz, Debbie
Cc: McCarthy, Kevin; Blyth, Jonathan; Pelosi, Nancy; Cantor, Eric
Subject: Unprofessional and Inappropriate Sophomoric Behavior from Wasserman-Schultz


Look, Debbie, I understand that after I departed the House floor you directed your floor speech comments directly towards me. Let me make myself perfectly clear, you want a personal fight, I am happy to oblige. You are the most vile, unprofessional, and despicable member of the US House of Representatives. If you have something to say to me, stop being a coward and say it to my face, otherwise, shut the heck up. Focus on your own congressional district!


I am bringing your actions today to our Majority Leader and Majority Whip and from this time forward, understand that I shall defend myself forthright against your heinous characterless behavior……which dates back to the disgusting protest you ordered at my campaign hqs, October 2010 in Deerfield Beach.


You have proven repeatedly that you are not a Lady, therefore, shall not be afforded due respect from me!


Steadfast and Loyal


Congressman Allen B West (R-FL)"

West is correct, in my estimation, that Wasserman-Schultz is indeed the " most vile, unprofessional, and despicable member of the US House of Representatives" Her assertion that republicans were "literally" trying to drag the country back to Jim Crow era laws was particularly low, even for her shoddy standards.



Ms. Wasserman-Schultz continues to live down to the reputation so pervasive among democrats of trying to balkanize various groups and capitilize on their grievances rather than attempting to work together to achieve a mutually agreeable end.

Gay Marriage and the Soft Totalitarianism it Implies

I use the term "soft fascism" every now and again on this blog to denote the intolerance of those on the Left who, while they LOVE to spout off about how inclusive and tolerant they are, they themselves are the most hate-filled, INtolerant bigots on the face of the planet. As author Jonah Goldberg wrote in his landmark classic, Liberal Fascism, The Secret History of the American Left from Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning, (quoting comedian George Carlin) "When fascism comes to America, it will not be in brown and black shirts. It will be in Nike sneakers and smiley shirts. Smiley-smiley."

For example, one way the closed-minded, uncritically thinking screech-monkeys that support gay marriage scarcely notice their strong resemble to their ideological cousins, the racist segregationists of the American south from several decades ago, is in their arguments that they so predictably invoke involving race to rally their cause. Or as columnist Glenn T. Stanton wrote, (paraphrasing David Blankenhorn), "..some Southern racists redefined marriage to make it something it was never supposed to be about — racial purity — when race is not any part of marriage. It was about making marriage do something it was never intended to do for the sake of their own narrow social ideals. Likewise, same-sex marriage advocates today are drafting marriage into their own narrow social cause, as a way to elevate the social standing of homosexuality. Like keeping the races apart then, marriage has no place in this special-interest-based re-engineering... If the Loving [v. Virginia] analogy is exact, we would have to conclude that our current laws on marriage as a male/female union stem from some effort to keep others in their place. Study the anthropological origins of marriage for as long as you want and you will find nothing of the sort."



Getting back to the Left's "soft fascism" resemblance on this particular subject, George Weigel writes of a couple that he knows from a former Eastern Bloc nation who are all too familiar with the coercive power of government to redefine reality and shape it into an imaginary construct of a bureaucratically-approved fairy tale...

"As analysts running the gamut from Hannah Arendt to Leszek Kolakowski understood, modern totalitarian systems were, at bottom, attempts to remake reality by redefining reality and remaking human beings in the process. Coercive state power was essential to this process, because reality doesn’t yield easily to remaking, and neither do people. In the lands Communism tried to remake, the human instinct for justice — justice that is rooted in reality rather than ephemeral opinion — was too strong to change the way tastemakers change fashions in the arts. Men and women had to be coerced into accepting, however sullenly, the Communist New Order, which was a new metaphysical, epistemological, and moral order — a New Order of reality, a new set of “truths,” and a new way of living “in harmony with society,” as late-bureaucratic Communist claptrap had it.

The 21st-century state’s attempt to redefine marriage is just such an attempt to redefine reality — in this case, a reality that existed before the state, for marriage as the union of a man and a woman ordered to mutual love and procreation is a human reality that existed before the state. And a just state is obliged to recognize, not redefine, it.

Moreover, marriage and the families that are built around marriage constitute one of the basic elements of civil society, that free space of free associations whose boundaries the just state must respect. If the 21st-century democratic state attempts to redefine something it has neither the capacity nor the authority to refine, it can only do so coercively. That redefinition, and its legal enforcement, is a grave encroachment into civil society.

If the state can redefine marriage and enforce that redefinition, it can do so with the doctor-patient relationship, the lawyer-client relationship, the parent-child relationship, the confessor-penitent relationship, and virtually every other relationship that is woven into the texture of civil society. In doing so, the state does serious damage to the democratic project. Concurrently, it reduces what it tries to substitute for reality to farce."

When viewed in this light, the term "soft fascism" doesn't seem far-fetched at all.

The Geological Evidence for the Great Flood Part III

The last point I would like to raise concerning the geological evidence for the Great Flood would be evidence found in one of the most inhospitable areas of the planet, or as James Montgomery Boice describes for us in his book An Expositionary Commentary, Genesis Volume I, (Genesis 1-11), Chapter 50....

"The last of these strange facts is the astonishing preservation of thousands upon thousands of mammoth bodies in Siberia. The mammoth was a member of the elephant family and looks like an elephant in reconstructed pictures. But it was larger, standing twelve to thirteen feet high at the shoulder, and was covered with a thick coat of long, coarse, black hair. Its tusks could be nine or ten feet long and measure two-and-a-half feet around the base. Each one weighed on the order of 180 to 200 pounds, as compared to the 40-pound tusks of an average elephant today. The mammoth roamed over most of North America and nearly the whole of Europe. It was particularly abundant in northern Asia.



It is almost impossible to exaggerate the number and distribution of the mammoth remains in northern Asia, particularly Siberia. This area of Russia stretches more than 2,000 miles along the Arctic Ocean. It is level, much like our (US) midwest, and is so thoroughly frozen due to the continual cold at this northern latitude that only a few feet of the topmost soil ever thaws out and that only for a few weeks in midsummer. It is here in this vast, forbidding waste that these creatures are found. Whole areas are filled with fossil bones. One island, Lachov, is said to be composed almost entirely of bones. In other areas, not merely bones but whole animals-bones, skin, tusks, hair, and all-are preserved so thoroughly that the creatures seem lifelike, even today. Moreover, a suprising number of mammoth carcasses and skeletons have been discovered in an upright, standing position, just how they lived. Clearly they were frozen suddenly and thus preserved nearly intact until now.



How many mammoths were there? It is impossible to calculate. But people have been in the business of collecting the ivory tusks of these creatures from the year A.D. 900 at least, and in one twenty-year period in which records were kept, tusks of at least 20,000 mammoths were taken from just one Siberian deposit. Experts estimate that as many as five million of these creatures may have perished all at one time. What known geologic or atmospheric cause could have overwhelmed them, young and old alike, buried them and then preserved them until today? The best possible explanation is a worldwide flood followed by a change in climate so drastic that these northern areas, which had been temperate before, now became arctic and thus preserved these magnificent creatures frozen in the ground."

I hoped you liked reading the arguments raised by Boice as much as I did. Feel free to leave your thoughts in the comment box.

The Geological Evidence for the Great Flood Part II

There were some good articles this week that I wanted to comment on, but I've decided to put them on the back burner for awhile and continue the discussion on the geological evidence for the Great Flood. Of the remaining examples of geological evidence cited by Boice in his great book An Expositionary Commentary, Genesis Volume I, (Genesis 1-11), I wanted to touch on two more examples I found interesting in support of a worldwide deluge. First....

"The existance of large inland bodies of water and the remains of such bodies, called fossil lakes, is best explained by the deluge. Today, much of this water is gone, as we might expect, due to the evaporation and drainage in the millenia since the flood. But at one point, there were vast inland seas on literally every continent. The area of China now known as the Gobi desert was once an inland lake of a size comparable to the present Mediterranean. It was referred to as the great Han Hai or interior sea by the Chinese. Lake Baikal in Siberia (pictured above) is a presently existing sea, which was at one time much bigger than it is today. It stands 1,500 feet above sea level. Areas of India, Mongolia, Turkestan, Africa, and Central Asia were once innundated. It is well known that large areas of North America were once covered by seas or inland lakes. Geologists call these: Lake Algonquin, which filled the Great Lakes region to a height about twenty-six feet above the present level of the lakes; Lake Iroquois, which covered much of New York state; Lake Agassiz, which covered parts of Minnesota, North Dakota, and the Canadian provinces of Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and Ontario; and Lake Bonneville, which filled the valley of Utah's Salt Lake and was about the size of Lake Michigan.



Geologists ascribe different origins to these inland and fossil lakes, and it may well be that there have been different origins for them. The land may have fallen and then been raised again, even to heights of 1,000 or more feet. But it must be admitted that a deluge of a magnitude such a described in the Bible would be a satisfactory explanation for for these lakes since it would provide sufficient water to fill the basins."

I think I will save the last (geological) example I will cite by Boice for another entry. Please consider this your "inland seas" open thread for further discussion on the topic.

The Geological Evidence for the Great Flood‏

Continuing our study on James Montgomery Boice's book, An Expositionary Commentary, Genesis Volume I, (Genesis 1-11), Boice is quite open about several shortcomings in the interpretation of Scripture that geology presents insofar as an actual worldwide flood having occurred. Among the points that Boice raises that can cast doubt on the Bible's account of the Great Flood are Heat Flow from Solidifying Lava, Radiometric Dating, Metamorphism and Plate Tectonics. There is no shortage of evidence out there on those topics if anyone is so inclined, but when it comes to evidence that supports the Bible's account of the Great Flood, there are some examples that can still mystify scientists and we are still waiting for a better explanation than a worldwide deluge. For example, in Chapter 50, we read....

"Scattered throughout the world in various places are large caches of animal bones in what geologists call "rubble drift in ossiferous fissures." Ossiferous fissures are great rents in the earth, such as occur during earthquakes or other violent disruptions of the earth's surface. Rubble drift is a kind of deposit in such fissures apparently placed there by water during the disruption in which the rents occurred. Such fissures have been found in England, France, southern Spain, Germany Russia and other countries. The interesting thing about them is that many are filled with bones of such animals as elephants, rhinoceroses, hippopotamuses, reindeer, horses, pigs and oxen. The skeletons are not intact. They have been ripped apart. but the bones are not scattered. They are thrown together in almost unbelievable profusion. It is a final interesting feature that they usually occur on isolated hills of considerable height.

A classic example is an isolated hill in the area of Burgundy, France, in the Saar valley. The hill rises 1,030 feet above the surrounding plain and has near it's top a fissure crowded with animal bones. In this fissure, the bones of animals not usually found together are intermixed. On the island of Cerigo, near Corfu, there is a mountain called the mountain of bones. The area involved is a mile in circumference at the base, and from base to summit it is literally covered with skeletons. The Rock of Gilbraltar has bone-filled fissures that are 300 feet deep. In a cavern near Palermo, Sicily, more than twenty tons of bones have been discovered. In the northwest corner of Nebraska there is a hill on which a bone bed was discovered in 1876. It is estimated that the bones of about 9,000 complete animals are buried on this one hill. There are similar examples from the Russin steppes near Odessa, from Brunswick and Stuttgart, Germany, from malta and other places.

What can account for the collection of so many bones of so many mutually hostile animals in such unlikely environments-if not the worldwide flood of of Genesis 6-9? One commentator writes, "A great flood of water is the only reasonable explanation for this strange phenomenon. For what else could have driven these animals together on hilltops and caused them to perish in such numbers but the waters of an all engulfing flood?"

Boice mentions a couple of other examples from geology that support the Genesis account, but I can see that this post is running a bit long here. Consider this your open "ossiferous fissure" thread. I hope to get around to the other examples at a later date.

Was the Noahic Flood a worldwide or local phenomenon?

I have heard that there are two competing schools of thought concerning this dilemma for quite some time now. I've never really given it that much thought really. I never believed that the question as to whether the great deluge was a local or worldwide occurance was actually central to my faith in any way. I know that one of the most famous Christian apologists, William Lane Craig, adheres to the local-flood theory although there are many who state that the matter is open to interpretation.



Chapter 48 of James Montgomery Boice's book, An Expositionary Commentary, Genesis Volume I, (Genesis 1-11) yields some interesting information as Boice summarizes his argument that the flood of Noah was indeed worldwide (Instances of emphasis are the author's, not mine) ...

1. "The construction, outfitting and stocking of the ark would have been absurd if the flood were local...

What would have been the purpose of a ship like this if the flood affected only the Mesopotamian river valley, as proponents of the local-flood theory maintain? I would have been far more sensible for God simply to have warned Noah to move out of the valley to higher ground, as he warned Lot and his fmily to leave Sodom. The birds and animals could also have moved out of the area without having to be stored in the ark for an entire year.



2. After the flood was over God promised never again to destroy the earth by flood(Gen. 8:21-22, 9:11, 15), and this is a false promise if the flood to which it refers is local.

There have been many local but terrible floods in earth's history. Many have perished in such floods. If God's promises refer to that kind of flood, they have been broken repeatedly. But this was not the nature of God's promises. They refer to the destruction of all creatures throughout the whole earth and the temprary cessation of the seasons that, God says, will never again occur: "Never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done. As long as the earth endures, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night will never cease" (Gen. 8:21, 22). This makes sense only if the flood of Noah's day was of worldwide dimensions.



3. In later chapters of Genesis, the Bible traces all the peoples of the earth to Noah and his three sons (Gen. 9:18-10:32). It is true, as the proponennts of the local flood point out, that these verses do not mention peoples beyond the rather limited area of the Near East. In that sense, the description is local. But neither do theses verses preclude a further explanation to include other nations! They do not say that these are all the people who desceded from noah. They do say that the world's people descended from him! "The sons of Noah who came out of the ark were Shem, Ham and Japheth. (Ham was the father of Canaan.) Theses were the three sons of Noah and from them came the people who scattered over the earth" (Gen. 9:19-19). "From these the nations spread out over the earth after the flood" (Gen. 10:32)



4. Other biblical references to the flood presuppose its universality or at least do not oppose this interpretation. There are quite a ferw such texts: Job 22:1516; Psalm 104:5-9; Isaiah 54:9; Hebrews 1:7; 1 Peter 3:20; 2 Peter 2:5, 3:5-6."

Given the above arguments by Boice, many of which he quoted from another author (John D. Morris) , I must admit that I am leaning toward the flood as having been a global occurance if the Bible is to be consistant as a literary work. I plan to address some other points such as so-called flood geology and geneologiesin future entries. For now though, I am willing to discuss any opposing views on the global/local question if anyone is so interested.

Happy 4th of July!

I hope everyone out there has a wonderful 4th of July. Thomas Sowell neatly sums up the state of affairs as the exist at the present time as we celebrate our independence...

"Some clever people today ask whether the United States has really been "exceptional." You couldn't be more exceptional in the 18th century than to create your fundamental document -- the Constitution of the United States -- by opening with the momentous words, "We the people..."

Those three words were a slap in the face to those who thought themselves entitled to rule, and who regarded the people as if they were simply human livestock, destined to be herded and shepherded by their betters. Indeed, to this very day, elites who think that way -- and that includes many among the intelligentsia, as well as political messiahs -- find the Constitution of the United States a real pain because it stands in the way of their imposing their will and their presumptions on the rest of us.

More than a hundred years ago, so-called "Progressives" began a campaign to undermine the Constitution's strict limitations on government, which stood in the way of self-anointed political crusaders imposing their grand schemes on all the rest of us. That effort to discredit the Constitution continues to this day, and the arguments haven't really changed much in a hundred years.

The cover story in the July 4th issue of Time magazine is a classic example of this arrogance. It asks of the Constitution: "Does it still matter?"

A long and rambling essay by Time magazine's managing editor, Richard Stengel, manages to create a toxic blend of the irrelevant and the erroneous.

The irrelevant comes first, pointing out in big letters that those who wrote the Constitution "did not know about" all sorts of things in the world today, including airplanes, television, computers and DNA.

This may seem like a clever new gambit but, like many clever new gambits, it is a rehash of arguments made long ago. Back in 1908, Woodrow Wilson said, "When the Constitution was framed there were no railways, there was no telegraph, there was no telephone,"

In Mr. Stengel's rehash of this argument, he declares: "People on the right and left constantly ask what the framers would say about some event that is happening today."

Maybe that kind of talk goes on where he hangs out. But most people have enough common sense to know that a constitution does not exist to micro-manage particular "events" or express opinions about the passing scene.

A constitution exists to create a framework for government -- and the Constitution of the United States tries to keep the government inside that framework.

From the irrelevant to the erroneous is a short step for Mr. Stengel. He says, "If the Constitution was intended to limit the federal government, it certainly doesn't say so."

Apparently Mr. Stengel has not read the Tenth Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Perhaps Richard Stengel should follow the advice of another Stengel -- Casey Stengel, who said on a number of occasions, "You could look it up."



Of course, idealogues like Stengel count on the fact that most people are idiots and probably will never "look it up". Education is the key people! Happy 4th!