Monday, December 31, 2007

The elephant has left the living room

Excellent post by Bear-i-tone over at Spirit's Sword on arguing elephants with blind men Obviously he has spent some time in academia and knows his topic. Often it is difficult to have a discussion/debate in today's society. Not only are few interested in debating a point versus blindly trying to convince everyone of their own intellectual superiority. But as Bear points out, most ignore any facts that make the debate difficult. It has to be either-or, black or white, good or evil.
Were deconstruction simply a lie we would have an easier time combating it. But it has its points, and those who hold these points run into a problem like the men in the legend: they see only deconstruction. Further, they also have a problem that is quite rife in modern academia: the disregarded middle. To put it simply, it is easiest and clearest to argue black or white on any issue, rather than grey. It is easiest to argue all or nothing, rather than some. As soon as the question of "some" arrives, it is almost immediately followed by "how much?" and "Where do we draw the line?" These questions are difficult to answer, difficult to uphold and nearly impossible to defend. So the modern academic very often pretends these questions does not exist. Therefore, only the extreme is reality. Anything in between is discarded. The problem is, the extreme is often absurd. You can find yourself arguing, with all seriousness, that an elephant is a large plant. Even more absurd, you may find yourself wondering how you can argue against someone who believes, in all seriousness, that an elephant is a large plant.
And yes, they are so confused they will actually believe their own twisted rational.

And if you think I am kidding, just visit a few sites dedicated to either fringe. It won't take long to find the lost skill of debate missing.

Friday, December 28, 2007

Broad shoulders

Don't know as I have broad shoulders, but it looks as if I am gonna need them. According to the Zenit article, How Dads Can Help Raise Strong Daughters my job just got double tough. As I have one daughter about to enter the teen years, and now a new one to keep me on my toes..
Research shows that a father's influence builds up self-esteem, helps his daughter to avoid sex, drugs, alcohol, and stay in college. What it is that a father offers is that he carries an authority in his daughter's eyes. This authority is not ascribed to the mother, not that she is not important, but a father's influence is different.

When a girl is little, her dad is her primary male love relationship. When he gives her something as a man, she learns lessons about men, setting a template in those early years on her heart about what to expect, to think, to feel, and know about men from there on out, affecting even her relationship to God, because Christ is a man.
That last line is enough to make even the best father tremble. Not just Christ being a man, but God being the Father and whom all fathers are in the image of. Like I said, Lord help me in my task. Hopefully I will do better with my second daughter than I did with my first. Not that she is a failure, but I look back at my decisions and failings as a new father with sadness. How much more I could have done. Hopefully I didn't screw up my first child with my stubborn and unserving ways.

The section that struck me most in this excellent article has me looking deeper into all my children.
Real joy and happiness comes when kids understand that they have a purpose in life, and a mission to fulfill. The only way to get them to understand this is to look beyond self and doing good for others.

This is the source of real transformation, but this can't happen without humility, the opposite of which is pride. When parents instill humility, a kid understands that he or she is important, and lovable, but not separate from others in their humanity. If a kid really wants to feel good about himself, humility brings people closer, whereas pride separates.

A kid raised without humility will always strive to be better than others, smarter than others, but can only bring a frustrated "happiness" because no one can always be the best at everything. True happiness for kids, then, is to give them a purpose to fulfill through working, striving, giving to and for others.

I can see that lack of humility in at least one of my boys too. Wonder where they got THAT trait? Anyone that rights a book on "how to raise children" and seems to have it all figured out either is 1) deceived or 2) done raising children. The rest of us must keep learning and adjusting. Our fallen nature and the supreme task we face dictate that much.

Thursday, December 27, 2007

Different perspectives

My brother in law was helping me hang the speakers for the surround sound of our entertainment system. (nothing special or new, just finally figuring out it does sound better with the rear speakers behind)

As we were getting ready for supper and the kids were at a fever pitch, he wondered why I needed speakers. "It's always surround sound hear." Yes indeed. Dolby 5.1 too.

Wednesday, December 26, 2007

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder

Unless we are talking Nebraska here. Just loved this quote of noteJ by Tim Jones on Tim is discussing the ugly piece of "art" selected for the new Italian Lectionary. As far a beauty being in the eye of the beholder, Tim says that only goes so far.
This is why people drive as fast as they can through Nebraska to get to Yellowstone Park, and not the other way around. Sorry, Nebraska. I give thanks for you every time I open a bag of tortilla chips, but there is just not much to look at there.

Aligning the stars

Take this quiz to see which candidates are closely aligned with your views.

Hillary and John Edwards were at the bottom of my list. Not surprisingly, Ron Paul was at the top. via Leon at the CUF.

Saturday, December 22, 2007

Some heady topics

Not your typical soundbite media that most candidates provide.


Encore, Encore!

I updated the link so it would be direct to her picture. Sorry for the confusion

Tuesday, December 18, 2007

Entre' Acte

For those who know the down and distance and are keeping score via the blog, queue the Overture, this blog will now be on Entre' Acte.

So it wasn't festivus first?

A marvelous example of what I really enjoy about the Internet. Mark Shea corrects a common misconception about Christmas and the pagan festival. A misconception I used recently held (as recent as the few minutes it took to read the article.)
most people, took it for granted the winter solstice and, in particular, the Roman Feast of the Birth of the Unconquered Sun were simply pagan celebrations that hung around into Christian times. In fact, when I set out to write this book I still thought this. But I discovered the reality is far more complicated and interesting. Indeed, it turns out this widely assumed "fact" that "everybody knows" is probably another sample of pseudo-knowledge. For according to William Tighe, a church history specialist at Pennsylvania's Muhlenberg College, "the pagan festival of the 'Birth of the Unconquered Sun' instituted by the Roman Emperor Aurelian on 25 December 274, was almost certainly an attempt to create a pagan alternative to a date that was already of some significance to Roman Christians. Thus the 'pagan origins of Christmas' is a myth without historical substance."
The crucial thing is not, "Did the early Christians get the date of Christmas right?" It is, rather, "What mattered to them as they determined the date of Christmas?" And when you look at that, you again immediately realize that what dominates their minds is not Diana, Isis, sun worship, or anything else in the pagan religious world. What interests them is, from our modern multicultural perspective, stunningly insular. Their debates are consumed, not by longing for goddess worship, or pagan mythology, or a desire to import Isis and Diana into the Faith, but the exact details of the New Testament record of Jesus' death, alloyed with a Jewish—-not pagan—-theory about when Jewish—-not pagan—-prophets die. They don't care a bit how pagan priests ordered their worship in the Temple of Diana at Ephesus. They care intensely about how Levitical priests ordered their worship in the Temple of Solomon at Jerusalem. These Christians are completely riveted on Scripture and details of Jewish and Christian history and tradition. They don't give a hoot what sun worshipers, Osiris devotees, or Isis fans might think.
read the whole thing, and thank the Curt Jester for the link.

From those who have been there

A quote worth noting. A reader of Mark Shea shares his thought on the evils of torture.
But there's even worse than that. Given the right sort of emergency accompanied by the right sort of hysteria *anyone* can find himself in that cellar. I know a country where it happened. Proven loyalty and patriotism saved no one, if it was their fate to end up in that cellar. Your barber or the guy next door could put you in that cellar. And you could put him there. They don't call it a Terror for nothing.

You have no idea what can happen. God bless the law.
All it takes is one regime change, one act of terror and suddenly anyone can be a suspected "terrorist". Just because you aren't doing anything wrong, don't take it for granted that someone wouldn't consider you an enemy of the state. There are many out there that think Christians are dangerous. Just as the martyrs back in Rome.

Interesting note on a song I love

One of my favorite Christmas songs, 'Do You Hear What I Hear?': The Story Behind the Song A bit different inspiration than I had imagined, but it is what it is, an inspiring song with a profound message.
Their masterpiece, however, is “Do You Hear What I Hear?” Many people mistakenly assume this Christmas classic has been around for years and that it is of European origin. But it was written in 1962 during the Cuban Missile Crisis as a powerful plea for peace by a man who had experienced the horrors of war.
via the Curt Jester

Monday, December 17, 2007

Fortunate Perfection

I've been tagged with The Lucky Seven Meme by Bear at The Spirit's Sword. The rules are as follow:

1) Link to the person that tagged you, and post the rules on your blog.
2) Share 7 facts about yourself that you think most people don't know.
3) Tag 7 random people at the end of your post, and include links to their blogs

There's a fourth rule which everyone seems to ignore, so I will too.

1) I am currently enjoying that the "We happy few, we band of brothers" speech from the remake of Shakespeare's Henry V is absolutely annoying my wife and daughter. It is a guy's type of speech and I almost have it memorized. Punishment in the form of recited Shakespeare is marvelous.

2) I really like fall. If only for the football.

3) I took both Calculus I and Calculus II twice in college. Even though I was a math wiz in Jr High and early high school.

4) I was into head banging hard rock before I had kids. I still enjoy the heavy beat and bass guitar, but now I cringe when I hear the words.

5) Most of my best ideas for blogging are lost into the wild blue yonder of my mind. How many, who knows, but I get ideas while driving quite often that never come back.

6) I am rather anti-social.

7) I really despise these "personal memes". I don't share too much about myself online. Hence I am not going to tag anyone. If you read this and want to share, go ahead.

Look at me and my newfound intellectual prowess

Just wanted to highlight a comment by Matthew over at CMR. He does a lightweight fisking of a Rabbi who Says Cancel Christmas. I say lightweight not in reference to Matthew's writing skills, but because the Rabbi doesn't offer any thought provoking material.

The quote of note:
Doesn't this reek of a guy who just read a book and now wants to run around proving to everyone how smart he is. Advice for Rabbi David: Shhhh. You're not proving how smart you are.

Friday, December 14, 2007

Tyranny in the name of tolerance.

That has to be the best line of the year. Tim Jones hits it head on as he notes how the non-Christians in Britain aren't offended by Christmas.
Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs and everyone else of genuine good will will not be offended at my public displays of faith for the same reason that I won't be offended by theirs... because we are not jerks. People who are offended at the mere sight of perfectly ordinary religious symbols or behaviors are the ones who have a problem with intolerance and bigotry. They are jerks, they are rude and they are the ones trying hardest to shove their beliefs down the throats of others. This is just becoming more and more evident as these bitter, carping, politically correct foot soldiers endeavor to push any display of religious faith further and further out of public view. The intention and unavoidable result of this kind of thinking is to eventually confine all religious behavior strictly to the private thoughts of the individual. Ironically, it can only end in forced education (or "de-programming"), book-burning and the like. Tyranny in the name of "tolerance".[emphasis added]

I am sure Margret Sanger would approve

Of the wonderful job of parenting these two are doing. Their daughter is a liberated adult entertainment worker (alleged) but the parents didn't approve of her being pregnant, especially since the father was black. So they tie her up at gunpoint and tried to force her to get an abortion.

Sad story all around, but by the looks of the photo at least the beautiful baby lived.

Good form

Been seeing this error on the status bar of Mozilla Firefox lately. Not sure what the error is, but I rest easy knowing what ever the error, it is at least well formed.


Thursday, December 13, 2007

Big misconception

Dawn Eden is on patrol and she has quite a number of Planned Parenthood posters.  And even more here from around the world.  Some fit in quite well with Margaret Sanger's vision of babies as "human weeds"

My favorite line is the subtitle

Because we love children

Sure, and I donate to Planned Parenthood regularly.

Man, woman and all of us

When you're trying to focus your attention, there's nothing worse than silly, needless distractions. Today at Mass, during the recitation of the Creed I could hear, amidst the unison of worshippers in attendance the dissenting voice of a lone woman who decided to replace every masculine pronoun in the Creed that referred to God with the word, "God." So, for instance, instead of "Through Him all things were made." She would say, "Through God all things were made." And instead of "And with the Father and the Son He is worshiped and glorified", in reference to the Holy Spirit, she said, "And with the Father and the Son God is worshipped and glorified". And so on. It was so distracting.[emphasis added]

Source article

I know I can relate.   It is difficult enough to focus while minding the children and keeping the mind from wandering without someone trying to make a point by being different.

Where does this end? It's all so absurd. But as bad as it's been in the past, my experience today raised things to a new level of inanity. I've never heard such a stubborn and methodic insistence to surgically remove every masculine pronoun in a prayer or profession as I encountered today with this woman. I couldn't help glancing over my shoulder to get a look at the offender, and in the process probably providing her with the attention she sought. I expected to see a 1960's type (you know what I mean), but much to my surprise, there sat an elderly woman, with a cute handkerchief wrapped neatly over her white hair. How on earth, I wondered, did this nice old lady become so smitten with the insanity that is the political correctness movement in America?

I am not so surprised.  I have noticed the elderly are especially susceptible to the political correctness run amok.  Why, I don't know.  Seems to fly in the face of the wisdom of the elderly.  Could be the "Wisdom Works" seminars that target the elderly and find it easy to confuse them.  Sort of how the scam artist target them also.

Sad when one considers the elderly as they near the end of their life.  As my wife has said, at that time of life, one needs the unvarnished truth.  Not some happy-happy-joy-joy mumbo jumbo.  One closing quote that sums it up.

The trend today, to include a "he or she", or "humankind", is not only patronizing but it's deeply distracting, even from a literary point of view because it is superfluous.

Wednesday, December 12, 2007

Sour grapes

Lookes like the former Archbishop Marini isn't happy he got demoted. Archbishop's book tells of battles over control of liturgical reform
VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- In a new book, a Vatican archbishop has chronicled the birth pangs of the liturgical reform generated by the Second Vatican Council and warned of a Roman Curia tendency to return to a "preconciliar mindset."

The book, "A Challenging Reform," was written by Archbishop Piero Marini, who recently ended a 20-year tenure as papal liturgist. His Vatican career began in 1965 in the office charged with implementing liturgical renewal.
Perhaps he should take note that it isn't all about him. Perhaps the Mass is greater than all of us.

I think Bear said it best: Man who was once important but is now irrelevant is unhappy with the change.

Google down? *update*

I was going to be the first to post that Google seems to be down today, but hard to post that on my blogspot address without Google.

I thought my network was having issues when I saw my google mail icon went dark. Never occurred that Google may be down, but no, no blogspot, no gmail.

If you need me, I will be on the street corner wearing a poster board. How else should I communicate the end of the world is here.


Seems somebody at noticed that I noticed. Funny thing, the referring URL for their visit was blocked. How about that. A business built on referring links blocks their own.

Tuesday, December 11, 2007


Indeed this is a reference well worth the bookmark. It is called Biblia Clerus, and put on by the Congregation for the Clergy of the Holy See.
This program offers Sacred Scripture, its interpretation in light of Sacred Tradition and the teachings of the Magisterium, with appropriate theological commentary and exegesis.
The downloadable version allows you to connect Sacred Scripture to the complete works of many Doctors of the Church, Councils, Encyclicals, teachings of the Popes, Catechisms, as well as commentaries from secular literature, etc.
Clearly I am going to be spending some time there. You can even download the entire content. I linked to the English version, but there are five other languages available as well.

via Leon at CUF.

Monday, December 10, 2007


100 movies for 100 years

Dom tagged me with this meme. *Update* Here is the Link to the top 100 movies. My apologies.

1. Your favorite five movies that are on the list. (tough selections. I really had to reach for a top 5.

1. Ben-Hur

2. Raiders of the Lost Ark

3. The Manchurian Candidate

4. Schindler's List

5. Mr. Smith Goes to Washington

2. Five movies on the list you didn’t like at all.

1. Apocalypse Now

2. Platoon (was okay, but not worth the hype. Hamburger Hill was much better)

3. The Sound of Music (just because it is the musical of musicals. And I don't like musicals.)

4. Lawrence of Arabia (okay, but terribly long.

5. Fargo (how it made the list, I don't know.)

3. Five movies on the list you haven’t seen but want to.

1. Star Wars

2. The Godfather

3. Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid

4. The Bridge on the River Kwai

5. The list was too under-whelming to find 5.

4. Five movies on the list you haven’t seen and have no interest in seeing.

1. Pulp Fiction

2. Dances with Wolves

3. Rebel Without a Cause

4. Many of the rest of the list. Very uninspiring list to me.

5. Your favorite five movies that aren’t on the list. (in no particular order. This list could go on much longer than 5)

1. Saints and Soldiers.

2. Bella (simply profound)

3. The Passion of The Christ (and a couple other Gibson movies, Braveheart, the Patriot)

4. I Confess (and many other Hitchcock movies.)

5. Fiddler on the Roof (how could that not be on their list)

Of course the Lord of The Rings series.

Other 5 stars from my Netflix list, The Pianist, Molokai: Fr. Damien, The Great Raid, Pursuit of Happyness. I love the older movies that are available on netflix.

Consider yourself tagged:

Bear and Puff

Ironic Catholic (if she can find time during the end of the term)

Anyone else wanting in on the fun.

Saturday, December 08, 2007

Priestly service

Some of us over at Catholic Dads have recently been discussing kids at Mass. They are often a distraction, but taking them is part of their training and they belong there as Catholics.

But a thought occurred to me today at Mass for the Feast of the Immaculate Conception. As fathers, we have a priestly role for our domestic church, our family. And what would one think if the priest decided to sit down and watch the consecration because he wanted to "not be distracted" by being in the service of the people?

As a father we are consecrating our children to God, and by becoming a father we have given up the right to spend our Sunday's at Mass simply for ourselves. We become servants to our children in the way that the priest is the servant of his spiritual children. So my time at Mass is spent training and building up my children rather than immersed deeply in private prayer.

Vaticanmystic white

That is the new color for the new popemobiledonated by Mercedes. That must be close to the Holy Spirit white, but with a tint dark due to fallen human nature.

Friday, December 07, 2007

That's why

Your slip is showing

Oops, looks like Mitt's slip is showing. Perhaps this is a new revelation? (sorry bad Mormon joke).

Seriously, I thought this was his profound breakthrough to being pro-life? But now Mitt Romney Backs Some Embryonic Stem Cell Research, Opposes Funding
"So what kind of embryos -- embryos that are created for procreation and then would be discarded? Are those the ones that you feel are perfectly fine from which to cull cells for stem cell research?" Couric asked.

"Yes," Romney responded, "those embryos that are referred to commonly as surplus embryos from in-vitro fertilization."

Romney said he would first like to see human embryos adopted by families before put up for their destruction. However, he explained how he would have no problem with parents who want to allow those human embryos -- unique human beings -- to be destroyed for research.

"But if a parent decides they would want to donate one of those embryos for purposes of research, in my view, that's acceptable," he said. "It should not be made against the law."
Always easy to rationalize a stance when you don't stand for anything. Sorry Mitt, either it is immoral to destroy life or it is not. Not surprising to see "Flip" Romney changing positions again.

Pulling the plug

Michael Shaivo has disbanded his PAC he formed to "oust pro-life lawmakers". It looks like it was on extraordinary means of life support. Perhaps he can explain to the FEC that he expected it to hang on without support for a little longer.
In an indication that activity at TerriPAC began to fade in the days leading up to Michael's announcement he was disbanding it, the PAC has only taken in a little over $1,100 in donations since July.

Schiavo says on the group's web site that the PAC limited his ability to speak out about his viewpoint on Terri's death and that he doesn't like asking for money for the political group to continue.

"After nearly three years, it’s clear that I can remain engaged in the political process and social debate and in fact do more – speak out more often and tackle related issues –without the legal constraints of a PAC," he explained.

"Traveling around the country, making political donations and keeping up with the required legal paperwork takes funds," he said. "But to keep the process moving we have to keep asking for money."

Schiavo claims the PAC was a success at ousting more than a dozen pro-life members of Congress even though it only contributed to a handful of candidates because of poor funding.
Okay, enough of the euphemisms . But did anyone really think Shiavo would remain committed for very long? And it isn't like there was a need for another anti-pro-life PAC.

Thursday, December 06, 2007

Some answers

To the questions about Romney and the Mormon faith. Jimmy Akin is Not Impressed. There are still too many unanswered questions. Romney claims he is a faithful Mormon but won't take marching orders from the Mormon leaders. That is a problem.
Further, the Mormon prophet has a history of weighing in on social and political issues, such as whether polygamy should be allowed or disallowed and whether black people should have the same rights or not as white people, and the prophets have gone different ways at different times.

How can Romney intelligibly claim that values but not leaders will influence his decisions when the values flow from the leaders via new divine revelation?[emphasis added]
Jimmy also points out the biggest missing answer to the question no one seems to ask.
To bend a phrase from Bill Clinton, "It's the Polytheism, Stupid."

Something conspicuously absent from almost all press reporting on the controversy over Romney's religion is the fact that Mormons are polytheists. That is, they believe in multiple gods. They also believe that men can become gods (and women can become goddesses).

This is a radically different vision of God and man than that taught by the Christian faith. It cuts out and replaces the central doctrine of Christianity--its understanding of God and man--and replaces it with an alien one. This means that Mormons are simply not Christians.

Yet they claim to be Christian.
That is my biggest issue with having a Mormon in a position of leadership. I don't trust them. They claim to be something they are not, and that destroys any trust I would have in them (not that Slick Mitt has engendered any trust so far). They want to be known as Christians so they can fit in, so they don't stick out like some radical cult. So far the makeover campaign has worked. Most people take them on their word that they are Christians. They will say they believe in the Trinity, but they won't reveal the different meaning they have for "trinity". They will say Jesus is God, but won't tell you they all can become gods.

I would trust a Muslim leader more than I would trust a Mormon. At least I know the Muslim will speak what he believes. No double talk or manipulating words to make it sound like we believe in the same God. In fact I would say Muslims are worshiping the one true God, albeit in a limited and often twisted sense, where the Mormons are not worshiping God.

Christmas songs we will never hear

At least we can hope not. Here is Paul's list at Alive and Young that started it. My additions below:

- It's beginning to look alot like winter festival season.
- Oh Holiday Family Tree.
- Santa Claus is really ticked and not coming to town.
- The True Meaning of Christmas (by Philip Pullman).
- Santa Claus is coming to (the tent) town.
- All I Want for Christmas is Whirled Peas (by my children)
- Grandma got run over by a John Deere

Also, Bulletin Boards Not Seen
- Keeping the 'X' in x-mas.

Prince Caspian movie

Here is the trailer for the next movie of the Chronicles of Narnia Prince Caspian, via CMR

Can't wait until May 16th, 2008

Wednesday, December 05, 2007

word games

Funny how the "tolerant left" is so intolerant of anyone who doesn't agree with them. Those that want us to tolerate any sort of repulsive behavior won't allow anyone to speak against them because "someone may be offended". Irony Alert: Catholic Disallowed to Speak About Intolerance Toward Catholics
The Royal Commonwealth Society barred a well-known Roman Catholic commentator from attacking intolerance towards Christians at its annual carol service.

Cristina Odone, a writer and editor on religion, was to be one of the "celebrity readers" at a service in St Martin in the Fields church in central London next month, which is attended by diplomats and politicians.

She intended to speak about how secularists are intolerant of those of faith. But she was told that those words were inappropriate and then told she couldn't speak.

"I am incandescent," said Odone after being told that the words she had written were "not appropriate because the congregation would include people of little or no faith who presumably would be upset. Even more insultingly, I was asked instead to read a passage from Bertrand Russell, a militant atheist."

She developed the theme of secular intolerance towards believers of all faiths, from the British Airways worker suspended for wearing a cross to the Muslim schoolgirl banned from wearing the veil.

What do you say

Once someone gets a glimpse of Ron Paul and starts to look into his positions on the issues, some will inevitably come up with a few facts, padded by many misconceptions and conclude,
In short, Paul is extreme.
He also receives support from such organizations as the (an offshoot of another white supremacist group), the John Birch Society, and conspiracy theorists who believe 9/11 was an inside job and that the evil CFR and New World Order is out to get us, whom he also panders to on a regular basis.
Find a nice big kook bin and throw everyone in there. If anyone would actually look at the John Birch Society rather than run away scared, they would see they don't fit in that group. I haven't heard of the Council of Conservative Citizens, and the 9/11 Truthers are over the top with the conspiracy stuff.

But just because some kooks support a guy doesn't mean he panders to that type of thinking. Up here in Idaho we have some racist white supremacists. One makes lots of noise about Ron Paul. But that only serves to detract from his message of freedom. Just because a few facts intersect with some far out ideologies doesn't make those facts wrong. Same with a man campaigning on a certain agenda. Did anyone rail against Gore because the eco-terrorist group Earth First supported him?

One of my favorite answers of the recent YouTube debate was when Dr. Paul was asked directly whether he supported the "conspiracy theories". He responded with the facts. (and I am paraphrasing him here) There is a European Union where there used to be sovereign nations. There is a push to form the American Union, NAFTA and the mega-highway legislation bear that out. It isn't a "conspiracy theory", there are different ideologies. One believes in the formation of the American Union and would strip us of our sovereignty. That isn't a theory, it is fact. The Texas and Oklahoma legislature has passed laws fighting the mega-highway. Dr. Paul said he is of a different ideology that those trying to remove our sovereignty.

Ron Paul effectively removed the scare quotes from around the "theory" and presented facts. And that exposed a breed of politics that he opposes.

He isn't an isolationist, he has made that clear many times. He wants to approach countries as a free nation interested in doing business and being friends, not pushing the U.N.'s nation building policies. In the article, Mr. Dart refers to Ron Paul wanting
to withdraw from the U.N. and let Sudan work out the Darfur genocide itself.
And we are supposed to find that scary because the U.N. has done so much to stop the Darfur genocide? And the U.N. was so instrumental in saving the millions of lives in Rwanda and other African genocides?

Mr. Dart could stand to do a little homework here and not just regurgitate all the propaganda he could dig up against Dr. Paul. Listen to the man and decide, or listen to the media sound bites and scare quotes. One has an agenda, one doesn't. Figure it out or don't, I am sure one of the other clowns will offer some warm fuzzies to sooth that fear.