College Classes for Conservatives to Avoid

At last, a college senior writes about the trashy classes too many colleges foist on their students
by Ashley Herzog: When school starts in the fall, many college students will be paying exorbitant tuition to universities that offer a silver platter of worthless courses: classes in Marxism, prostitution (Sociology of the Sex Industry is all the rage), "queer theory," pornography, and rock and rap music. While some of these classes are easy to spot as non-educational, others masquerade under legitimate-sounding names in mainstream academic departments. As an Ohio University senior who has sat through plenty of college junk courses—many of which were required for graduation—I've compiled a list classes for incoming freshmen to avoid.

1. Don't register for English classes that revolve around the writings of some allegedly oppressed group, such as "Gay and Lesbian Literature" or "Women and Writing." These classes typically have nothing to do with great, or even good, literature. I once signed up for a Women's Writing class to fill a requirement. Did we study the classic works of history's best female authors, such as the Bronte sisters and Jane Austen? Nah. Instead, the class mostly revolved around short pieces by untalented women who whined about America's "sex/gender system." The only assigned book was the biography of Assata Shakur, a female Black Panther who fled to Cuba after she was convicted of murdering a cop.

2. Avoid classes that teach American history not as it actually happened, but as the professor thinks it should have happened. Check out the required texts before registering. If the professor uses books like Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States (which claims that American leaders orchestrated the Civil War to halt the impending socialist revolution), don't waste your money; you're unlikely to learn much. In fact, according to a 2006 study by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute, you might end up among the 40 percent of college students who can't place the Civil War in the correct decade.

3. If possible, avoid the sociology department, especially introductory-level classes. These are often crash courses in politically correct thinking. You will be expected to view all social problems through the prism of race/class/gender oppression, and to display a negative attitude toward religion, law enforcement, morality, marriage, and families.

4. Be skeptical of classes with words like "Non-Western" and "Multicultural" in the title. Some are legitimate and valuable studies of societies outside the West. Others are taught by self-described "cultural relativists" who denigrate America while defending heinous cultural practices in the third world. For instance, I once took a class in which the relativist professor attempted to justify Female Genital Mutilation—a barbaric custom forced on little girls in Africa and the Middle East—by claiming it was no different from adult women in the West undergoing cosmetic surgery.

5. Don't spend your money on what I refer to as "Trash Studies": classes in pop culture, drugs, sex, and the entertainment industry. If your school offers something on the order of Berkeley's "Journal Your Ass Off" or Johns Hopkins' "Sex, Drugs, and Rock n' Roll in Ancient Egypt," avoid them. These classes are especially tempting because students can earn A's without putting forth any intellectual effort. However, if you take your education seriously and want to maximize your tuition dollars, avoid Trash Studies, where you'll inevitably learn a boatload of nothing.

Of course, many of these classes are difficult to avoid and might even be required for graduation. But I hope this list will prevent college freshmen from wasting their precious time and money on the politically correct, non-educational classes that have become so common on our campuses.

Why I Am Not a Liberal

by Dennis Prager: The following is a list of beliefs that I hold. Nearly every one of them was a liberal position until the late 1960s. Not one of them is now. (MY EDITORIAL COMMENTS ARE IN BLUE.) Such a list is vitally important in order to clarify exactly what positions divide left from right, blue from red, liberal from conservative.

I believe in American exceptionalism, meaning that (a) America has done more than any international organization or institution, and more than any other country, to improve this world; and (b) that American values (specifically, the unique American blending of Enlightenment and Judeo-Christian values) form the finest value system any society has ever devised and lived by.

I believe that the bigger government gets and the more powerful the state becomes, the greater the threat to individual liberty and the greater the likelihood that evil will ensue. (Since the beginnings of time) In the 20th century, the powerful state, not religion, was (is and has been) the greatest purveyor of evil in the world.

I believe that the levels of taxation advocated by liberals render those taxes a veiled form of theft. "Give me more than half of your honestly earned money or you will be arrested" is legalized thievery. (And the IRS is a legal form of thuggery intentionally formed to seperate the public from their monies for the benefit of government(s), nothing more.)

I believe that government funding of those who can help themselves (e.g., the able-bodied who collect welfare) or who can be helped by non-governmental institutions (such as private charities, family, and friends) hurts them and hurts society.

I believe that the United States of America, from its inception, has been based on the Judeo-Christian value system, not secular Enlightenment values alone, and therefore the secularization of American society will lead to the collapse of America as a great country.

I believe that some murderers should be put death; that allowing all murderers to live does not elevate the value of human life, but mocks it, and that keeping all murderers alive trivializes the evil of murder. (There is incredible hypocricy in advocating abortion - the muder of innocent unborn life - and opposing society's executing willfull butchers of human life.)

I believe that the American military has done more to preserve and foster goodness and liberty on Earth than all the artists and professors in America put together.

I believe that lowering standards to admit minorities mocks the real achievements of members of those minorities. (Afirmative action is actually a legal form of discrimination requiring the promotion of the lesser qualified over the more qualified simply because of skin color or gender, illegal in any other case.)

I believe that when schools give teenagers condoms, it is understood by most teenagers as tacit approval of their engaging in sexual intercourse.

I believe that the assertions that manmade carbon emissions will lead to a global warming that will in turn bring on worldwide disaster are a function of hysteria, just as was the widespread liberal belief that heterosexual AIDS will ravage America. (A huge lie perpetuated by both the Homosexual and black communities despite all the physical evidence to the contrary.)

I believe that marriage must remain what has been in every recorded civilization -- between the two sexes. (He means genders, of course. Sex is an action.)

I believe that, whatever the reasons for entering Iraq, the American-led removal of Saddam Hussein from power will (greatly) decrease the sum total of cruelty on Earth.

I believe that the trial lawyers associations and teachers unions, the greatest donors to the Democratic Party, have done (THE) greatEST harm to American life -- far more than, let us say, oil companies and pharmaceutical companies, the targets of liberal opprobrium.

I believe that nuclear power, clean coal, and drilling in a tiny and remote frozen part of Alaska and offshore -- along with exploration of other energy alternatives such as wind and solar power -- are immediately necessary. (And was actually called for by liberal President Jimmy Carter and opposed by his party in the 70's.)

I believe that school vouchers are more effective than increased spending on public schools in enabling many poorer Americans to give their children better educations. (Anything that allows kids to attend schools where they are actually thaught the 3 R's instead of being indoctrinated in liberal theology is preferable.)

I believe that while there are racists in America, America is no longer a racist society, and that blaming disproportionate rates of black violence and out-of-wedlock births on white racism is a lie and the greatest single impediment to African-American progress. (Since Blacks prefer aborting their children at a 3 to 1 ratio over whites and kill each other at a similar disproportionate rate while accepting handouts from liberal white government advocates, thier family values and structures have all but disappeared. Successful blacks have removed themselves from the prevaling black culture but Dem Pols want them to continue their destructive ways because Liberal Dems require someone to be victims so they can retain power over something or someone.)

I believe that America, which accepts and assimilates foreigners better than any other country in the world, is the least racist, least xenophobic country in the world.

I believe the leftist takeover of the liberal arts departments in nearly every American university has been an intellectual and moral calamity. (Our Universities are the LEAST free institutions in America requiring uniformity of thought; spoken and written word, and actions must be PC liberal in form and function or not allowed.)

I believe that a good man and a good marriage are more important to most women's happiness and personal fulfillment than a good career.

I believe that males and females are inherently different. For example, girls naturally prefer dolls and tea sets to trucks and toy guns -- if you give a girl trucks, she is likely to give them names and take care of them, and if you give a boy trucks, he is likely to crash them into one another.

I believe that when it comes to combating the greatest evils on Earth, such as the genocide in Rwanda, the United Nations has either been useless or an obstacle.

I believe that, generally speaking, Western Europe provides social and moral models to be avoided, not emulated. (All things Socialist in form are inherently evil in function.)

I believe that America's children were positively affected by hearing a non-denominational prayer each morning in school, and adversely affected by the removal of all prayer from school.

I believe that liberal educators' removal of school uniforms and/or dress codes has had a terrible impact on students and their education.

I believe that bilingual education does not work, that for the sake of immigrant children and for the sake of the larger society, immersion in the language of the country, meaning English in America, is mandatory. (Our laws, mores, customs, rules, regulations, and ideas require English to be properly understood as no other language on earth is capable of equal expression and meaning.)

I believe that English should be declared the national language, and that ballots should not be printed in any language other than English. If one cannot understand English, one is probably not sufficiently knowledgeable to vote intelligently in an English-speaking country. (If you can't read it, write it, or understand it when spoken, how can you make a decision about who is the best candidate for anything, Dogcatcher or President. Understanding what they represent and what their actions will be is key to all election decisions.)

Finally, I believe that there are millions of Americans who share most of these beliefs who still call themselves "liberal" or "progressive" and who therefore vote Democrat. They do so because they still identify liberalism with pre-1970 liberalism or because they are emotionally attached to the word "liberal." (Their are too many who willfully ignore what the Dem Party has become and how low it has sunk in values self-interested perpetuation being its sole pursuit but its leaders are clearly Socialists/Communists/Anti-Americans/Anti-Christians/Anti- deomocratic action and anti- republican (representative) form. Voting for any Dem Pol helps empower the entire party. Only dedicated opposition can correct the descent of the Dem Party and our Nation.)

PL Booth, The Blue Eye View, 8/14/08 - I share that emotion. But one should vote based on values, not emotions.

Illegal Aliens Are Voting in American

ARRA News Service: Hans A. von Spakovsky: In 2005, the U.S. Government Accountability Office found that up to 3% of the 30,000 individuals called for jury duty from voter registration rolls over a two-year period in just one U.S. district court were not U.S. citizens. While that may not seem like many, just 3% of registered voters would have been more than enough to provide the winning presiden­tial vote margin in Florida in 2000. Indeed, the Cen­sus Bureau estimates that there are over a million illegal aliens in Florida, and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has prosecuted more non-citizen voting cases in Florida than in any other state.

Florida is not unique. Thousands of non-citizens are registered to vote in some states, and tens if not hundreds of thousands in total may be present on the voter rolls nationwide. These numbers are significant: Local elections are often decided by only a handful of votes, and even national elections have likely been within the margin of the number of non-citizens ille­gally registered to vote. Yet there is no reliable method to determine the number of non-citizens registered or actually voting because most laws to ensure that only citizens vote are ignored, are inadequate, or are systematically undermined by government officials. Those who ignore the implications of non-citizen registration and voting either are willfully blind to the problem or may actually favor this form of illegal voting.

Americans may disagree on many areas of immi­gration policy, but not on the basic principle that only citizens—and not non-citizens, whether legally present or not—should be able to vote in elections. . . . [Full Report: Illegal Immigrants Are Voting in American Elections]
Hans A. von Spakovsky served as a member of the Federal Election Commission for two years. Before that, he was Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights at the U.S. Department of Justice, where he specialized in voting and election issues. . . . This report was produced for The Heritage Foundation.

Seven Positive Signs for McCain

What's really going on in the presidential election . . .Dr. Bill Smith, ARRA Editor: Glenn Thrush at the Politico has an interesting read about "7 Worrisome Signs for Obama." Since these are making the rounds today in the media, Below is very brief summary with additional notes by Stephen Maloney and myself:

" . . . His [Obama's] supporters are now suffering a pre-Denver panic attack, watching as John McCain draws incrementally closer in state and national polls -- with Rasmussen's most recent daily tracker showing a statistical dead heat."

The seven worrisome signs for Obama:
1. The role Obama's race will play in voters' decisions; "How much does his race factor into tightening contests in Missouri, Wisconsin, Florida, Minnesota and Ohio? Nobody knows — and that’s the problem." (Note: In the 2006 Senate race, Republican George Allen, who waged a terrible campaign, lost by only 9,000 vote to a "moderate" Democrat with a military background. Race is not an issue for a qualified candidate. But Obama's own words of allegiances to his African family, questionable issues concerning his prior Muslim education, and anti-white racist comments by Obama's associates and pastors may affect him with many voters. The issue isn't race but the "cling-ons" of numerous negative factors. America is ready for president of any race and for female president. However, America may not be ready for a person of color forced upon them when that person is definitely not qualified except for his age. Americans, Democrats and Republicans, are still suffering from after-shock that a female with more qualifications was defeated by Obama primarily because of her last name.)

2. "Obama’s strength in Virginia may be over hyped"; Obama staffers look at the state as a 50-50 proposition, and his odds of winning may be less than that. [If Obama doesn't do very well in the DC suburbs, he will lose VA.)

3. "Michigan's in play for McCain"; the Democrats probably can't win without Michigan. There, "McCain has quietly crept up over the past month and could vault ahead if he anoints ex-Gov. Mitt Romney as his running mate." (Note: Michiganders would have much preferred Hillary Clinton as the candidate.)

4. Difficult times can engender fear among voters, and that could benefit McCain, who is more of a known quantity than Obama. (Note: Economics may not be McCain's strongest suit, but he has proven that he has an understanding of the concept. He knows high gas prices hurt the American people and our economy. But it also doesn't look like an Obama strength.)

5. McCain doesn't have to face the "Ross Perot factor" that helped Bill Clinton greatly in bringing down George H. W. Bush in 1992; Former Georgia Rep. Bob Barr, staging an indie bid from McCain’s right, has little cash and doesn’t seem to be a factor in competitive states. (Note: However, the maverick conservative or libertarian who places his or her own interest above those of the country, may indeed sacrifice their vote in an effort to punish the other conservatives and Republicans for not agreeing 100% with their positions. They may be be a spoiler that advances socialism under Obama. These folks will not win in the long run and unlike Ross Perot helping to elect Bill Clinton with A Republican congress, those supporting Barr are willing to send Obama to the White House with a the Democrats in full control of Congress. Even a major libertarian Republican like Rep. Ron Paul has recognized this danger and has tried to rechannel the efforts of his followers to more reasonable avenues of influence for the future.)

6. Obama is NOT a white Southerner with border-state strength, the only kind of a Democrat who has won the White House in the last 65 years (LBJ, Carter, and Clinton);

7. "Americans may WANT divided government"; as one Democratic strategist puts it, ". . . nobody wants a pair of Pelosis [Nancy and Barack] running things." (Note: not to leave out Reid as part of the socialist liberal trio: Reid, Pelosi & Obama. In addition with "No Will To Drill" America will faced with higher prices for not only gas but for the very basics: food, home/rent, utilities, etc. Transportation costs are going no where but up if this 'trio is in office" together.)

Former Democratic Senator Bob Kerrey puts it this way: People "want change, but I'm not sure that the Democratic agenda has the support of a majority of Americans." (Note: Many, including democrats, know that youth has never proven to be a prediction of success and McCain, a maverick in his own party, has reached across party lines his experienced career when doing so benefited the American people. Having served America most of his life, McCain not Obama should be the run away candidate. But, left leaning biased media continues to promote a younger glamor candidate with no almost no experience candidate over the candidate who is better prepared and qualified to confront the global military and economic dangers already on the horizon for the United States.) . . . [ 7 Worrisome Signs for Obama]

Iran - One Good Reason to Vote McCain

Here's another good'un. Iranian Missle- One Good Reason to Vote McCain

Perspective on Abortion

Wallet

230,000 Reasons Lieberman Is Not Acceptable to the GOP as VP

ARRA Editor: While Sen. Lieberman (D disguised as ID) prides himself as a maverick and is supporting Sen. John McCain (R) for President, Lieberman not only caucuses with the Democrats, he also gives them money. He recently made a second donation to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) in what some see as a effort to assure of keeping his position as Chairman of the Homeland Security Committee intact, regardless of the outcome in November. In addition, Lieberman has been giving money through his Responsibility/Opportunity/Community PAC to various re-election campaigns for Democrat Senators.

Glenn Thrush at The Crypt reports:

After forking over $100,000 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee last year, the Connecticut Democrat-turned-Independent has written a second $100,000 check to DSCC chairman Chuck Schumer in recent days, according to a people familiar with the situation. “Basically, he doesn’t want everybody to hate him,” one Lieberman-friendly Democrat said. “Plus he wants to keep his committee.”

Lieberman caucuses – awkwardly — with Democrats at their weekly meetings but is on the outs with many in his longtime party . . . More than a few have talked about stripping him of his committee post after November.

Thus Lieberman’s schmear campaign. Lieberman’s Responsibility / Opportunity / Community PAC, has given the DSCC $30,000 since last year – in addition to doling out smaller donations to the New Mexico Democratic party and the re-election campaigns of Democratic centrists Max Baucus, Mary Landrieu and Mark Pryor.

Did you see the 230,000 Reasons? Money Talks: Lieberman in two years gave the DSCC $100,000 + $100,000 + $30,000 to elect or keep Democrats in power.

Republicans Still Rock the House - Washington D. C. - Aug 8, 2008

ARRA News Service - In the House, the Republican protest over Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s refusal to allow a vote on drilling enters its second week today. The message is clearly having an impact, as Politico reports that “MoveOn.org announced Thursday it was launching radio ads targeting Republicans for organizing the protest.” MoveOn is apparently desperate to blunt the momentum for more drilling; a new Rasmussen poll that shows 57% of Democrats and 61% of independent voters see finding new energy sources as a priority. Rasmussen Reports also notes: “With energy issues taking center stage in the presidential campaign, 81% of Americans see development of new energy sources as an urgent priority. Only 9% disagree.”

BO

 

Obama's Top Ten Flaws That Will Cost Him in November

by John Hawkins in Townhall, 8/6/08

In an election cycle where Republicans are reviled and the GOP candidate, John McCain, seems to inspire less excitement than a Droopy marathon on the Cartoon Network, it's hard for some people to understand how the race is still close. After all, Barack Obama is drawing record crowds and generating the sort of wild-eyed loyalty from the press that hasn't been seen since Guyana, right before they broke out the Kool-Aid -- and yet, on paper, this race is a coin flip.

Why is that? Because this race is turning into a referendum on Barack Obama and quite frankly, he has absolutely nothing going for him besides the fact that he's young, good looking, black, and does a great job of reading the speeches his handlers have prepared for him. Once you get beyond those paper-thin qualifications for office, Obama is nothing but a mass of flaws, bad character traits, and left-wing agitprop. While the press lauds Obama as if he just cured cancer and invented a car that runs on lawn clippings in the same day, everyone else can't help but notice...

The Snobbery: If little girls are made up of sugar, spice, and everything nice, then Obama is made up of arugula, personal presidential seals, and hubris. Never before has a candidate with so few accomplishments to his name looked so far down his nose at the American people.

The Phony Idealism: Silently, there must be a lot of liberal Democrats kicking themselves today because all during the primaries, the race was portrayed as a battle between Barack Obama, the idealist and Hillary Clinton, the pragmatic, say-anything-to-win candidate. Then, the moment Obama captured the nomination, all of those precious ideals flew out the window and Obama started shifting his positions farther and faster than Hillary Clinton ever did. So much for the candidate who was supposed to be a "new kind of politician."

The Anti-White Racism: Obama spent 20 years going to a virulently anti-white, anti-American church while he used Jeremiah Wright -- who's the moral equivalent of David Duke -- as a spiritual mentor and a sounding board. This is not a man who looks kindly upon what he refers to as "typical white people."

The Lack of Patriotism: Rather famously, Obama refused to hold his hand over his heart for the national anthem and publicly made a point of not wearing a flag pin -- and then had the "audacity" to complain when people quite naturally questioned his patriotism. Since then, Obama replaced the American flag on his plane with his own symbol and made a point of running down his country and calling himself a "citizen of the world" while he was overseas. Is having a President who loves his own country too much to ask? In Obama's case, apparently so.

His Liberalism: Although Obama has attempted to shift to the center since he captured the Democratic nomination, his record is one of radical liberalism. In fact, he was ranked as the single most liberal senator in 2007 by National Journal, actually supported a complete ban on handgun sales, and wants to hand out 845 billion dollars to foreign nations as part of an effort to "elimin(ate) extreme poverty." If you would be thrilled to have a President who is as liberal as Michael Moore or Keith Olbermann, then Barack Obama is your man.

His Changing Position On The War in Iraq: In one of the most ironic twists of the campaign, Obama beat Hillary Clinton by being so stridently anti-war in Iraq, but his latest ever-shifting position essentially mirrors that of John McCain. Although Obama is still promising a timeline, he is saying he could leave 50,000 troops in Iraq and that the withdrawal is "entirely conditions-based." Although the lefties are biting their tongues, you know they must be seething that they've been sold down the river on their biggest issue -- or maybe they just assume he's lying, which is entirely possible.

His Inexperience: Obama has never served in the military, the House, or as a governor, was first elected to the Senate in 2004, and his battle with Hillary was the only tough campaign he has ever been in. In other words, if he's elected, he would be one of the least worthy candidates ever to make it to the White House. If we had another 9/11 on his watch or even if one of those infamous 3 AM emergency calls that Hillary campaigned on were to come in, would you rather have Obama or McCain handling it? For that matter, would you rather have Obama or a random person picked out of the phone book handling it? Neither Obama nor the random person from the phone book would have much relevant experience, but at least the random person would probably be humble enough to realize it and ask for help, unlike Obama.

The Poor Judgment: This is a guy who stayed in a racist church and stuck by a bigoted reverend for 20 years, grotesquely leaked his Western Wall prayer to the press, and blew off a visit to see wounded troops while the whole world was watching him overseas. In other words, even when it comes to matters of mere politics, this is not a man who can be trusted to make wise decisions. So, how can we trust him to make good policy decisions for the country?

He's Gaffe Prone: When John McCain makes mistakes, the media tries to portray him as senile. But Obama makes dumber mistakes than George Bush, more mistakes than Dan Quayle, and that's despite the fact that he spends far less time talking to the press than McCain. So, what's his excuse for thinking that we have more than 57 states, claiming America's "fallen heroes" were in the audience listening to him, and his claim that "'10,000 people died' in the Kansas tornadoes when the death toll was really only 12?" Dan Quayle's notorious potato(e) error, which was used to forever portray him as a drooling moron, wouldn't even qualify as one of Obama's top five mistakes.

His Fuzzy Platform: Obama's positions on guns, the war in Iraq, taxes, FISA, and public financing, among other issues, have shifted faster than a cheetah chasing a greyhound through an obstacle course. Since he doesn't have much of a record to go on, seems to have very poor judgment, and he doesn't have a solid platform to stand on, how are people supposed to know what he will do when he gets in the White House?

At the voting place during MO's recent primaries, I met a man who is supporting BO. During the short conversation, he claimed to be a conservative who just did not like McCain so he was for BO. How foolish! How silly! BO has not intertained a single conservative thought or idea that has ever expressed during this electioin cycle. His every pronouncement has been from the far left. In fact, less people support him every day because he is all too obviously a child of the left, racist anti-white, socialist in form and commentary, inexperienced, self possessed, poor in judgement, and absurdly inaccurate. Were the swooning press to actually criticize him as they have done past candidates, he would soon become anathema to even the Socialist Dems. We would be singing America's swan song should he become our president. How weak and disgusting has the Democrat paarty become!

PL Booth , The Blue Eye View, 8/6/08

Call Congress Back Into Session

Read --> Call Congress Back -- Join US!

http://www.mapsofwar.com/images/EMPIRE17.swf

 

http://www.mapsofwar.com/images/EMPIRE17.swf

solshenitzen

Alexander Solshinitzen, RIP, by the editors of National Review Online

 

When 1999 turned into 2000, a lot of people asked, "Who was the Man of the Century?" And many answered, "Solzhenitsyn." That was a very solid choice.

 

Born in 1918, Aleksandr Isayevich Solzhenitsyn became the voice and conscience of the Russian people. There was no greater or more effective foe of Communism, or of totalitarianism in general. His Gulag Archipelago was a crushing blow to the Soviet Union — after its publication in the mid-1970s, the USSR had no standing, morally. The book was effective because it was true.
 
Because he was such a great and important man, it is sometimes overlooked how great, versatile, and prolific a writer he was. He wrote novels, novellas, short stories, poems, memoirs, essays, speeches, and more. The Gulag Archipelago, he called "an experiment in literary investigation."

 

The First Circle, a novel, is many people's favorite book. So is another novel, Cancer Ward.

 

He wrote no more gripping or beautiful work than The Oak and the Calf, his literary memoir. The title refers to an old folk image of a calf butting its head up against an oak: This symbolizes futility. And that was a writer — a lone, persecuted, hounded writer — trying to bring down the Soviet state. Yet the oak fell.

 

With this memoir and The Gulag in mind, Norman Podhoretz once wrote, "[Solzhenitsyn] is returning [to the Russian people] their stolen or 'amputated' national memory, reopening the forcibly blocked channels of communication between the generations, between the past and the present . . ." Few writers have written under such pressure. He would receive mail saying, "Look after your health, Aleksandr Isayevich — we are all depending on you."

 

In his later years — after age 50 or so — he had the support of a wonderful family, consisting of three boys and his wife, Natalia. Their exile home in Cavendish, Vt., was kind of Solzhenitsyn, Inc.: They all helped with the many tasks of writing and publishing. Out on the grounds of their home is a large rock — a boulder. Solzhenitsyn used to tell the boys, when they were little, that this was a magic horse, which would fly them back, when Russia was free.

 

Solzhenitsyn returned to his homeland in 1994.

 

Like everyone else, he had his critics: He was accused of being a megalomaniac, a Slavophile, a right-wing nationalist, an anti-Semite. He was too humane for any of that.

 

 

 

And he did not spend much time on his critics, for better or worse — some of his admirers wished he had. But, as his son Ignat once put it, he could have written The Red Wheel (his multi-novel magnum opus, treating the Bolshevik Revolution) or he could have kept up with his critics. He could not do both. He was not interested in popularity or fame. He simply wanted to tell the truth, wherever it took him.

 

Truth was the essential ingredient of his controversial 1978 commencement address at Harvard: "A World Split Apart." He told the graduates, "[T]ruth eludes us if we do not concentrate with total attention on its pursuit. And even while it eludes us, the illusion still lingers of knowing it and leads to many misunderstandings. Also, truth is seldom pleasant; it is almost invariably bitter." Solzhenitsyn went on to discuss the multiple ailments of the West.

 

This speech rocked the country, with many prominent liberals — e.g., Arthur Schlesinger Jr. — denouncing him for it. Sidney Hook wrote, "Rarely in modern times . . . has one man's voice provoked the Western world to an experience of profound soul-searching."

 

Years later, another of Solzhenitsyn's sons, Stephan, caught some flak in the press for a position he took on an environmental issue. One of his opponents said, "Didn't he learn anything from his father?" Stephan answered, "Yes — mainly that the truth isn't always popular."

 

The hope Solzhenitsyn gave to millions is immeasurable — but we can measure some of it. There is a woman, Youquin Wang, who chronicles China's Cultural Revolution. She does this from the safety of the United States. But, as a girl, she was less safe. Back in the PRC, she found two authors who changed her life: Anne Frank and Solzhenitsyn. After she read The Gulag, she knew what she would do with her life: commit the lives of the lost to historical memory.

 

National Review is grateful to have had a relationship with Solzhenitsyn. Mainly, we admired and cheered him. But occasionally we published him — he once sent us a piece over the transom, which is to say, unsolicited. No magazine could dream of more.

 

Malcolm Muggeridge called him "the noblest human being alive." After passing away yesterday, he is now one of the noblest human beings on earth or in heaven. He is one of the greatest witnesses in all history. And, like all great witnesses, he was inspired by love, the crowning quality of his work and life.

Upper Level Meth Drug Dealers Are Illegal Immigrants

ARRA News Service: Jonesboro, Arkansas Police Chief Michael Yates spoke to a public meeting called Thursday to discuss the problem of drugs. Jonesborro is home to Arkansas State University, the flag ship of the ASU Educational System with many colleges in Eastern Arkansas. Like many large university communities, Joneboro faces the issues and problems created by illegal drug use. But of special interest is that while the drug use problem may be a local, many of the upper-level drug dealers who control the flow of meth out of Mexico tend to be illegal immigrants.

A story by George Jared in The Jonesboro Sun today (Aug 2) reported Chief Yates comments:

A cultural wave of drug abuse and violence has started across the country . . . Unlike the drug and cultural revolution of the 1960s, this new shift is more tied to gang activity . . . . Most of the fight against the sale and consumption of illegal drugs occurs at the local level, but some national policies are making the problem worse, even in Jonesboro. . .

Over the last couple of years the bulk of methamphetamine has come into the city from Mexico . . . Local meth dealers were hampered by laws passed by the Arkansas Legislature in 2005 limiting the amount of ephedrine or similar drugs that could be purchased. These substances are a primary ingredient in producing meth. When local supplies withered, “Mexican Ice,” as its called on the street, began to appear in greater quantities . . .

Mexican meth tends to be higher quality, which makes it more dangerous . . . Many of the upper-level drug dealers who control the flow of meth out of Mexico tend to be illegal immigrants . . . . To stem the tide of Mexican meth, Yates said more inspections of cargo on the border are necessary, and all immigrants need to be accounted for.

“I’m not against people coming here to find jobs and improve their lives,” Yates said. “What I can see is how illegal immigration affects the law enforcement side of the equation.” . . . Some of his opinions about how to curtail the area’s drug problems aren’t “politically correct,” and Yates said he’s more than aware of that. “If I get into trouble for telling the truth, so be it” . . . [Yates weighs in on drug woes]

Executive Summary - Presidential Candidates

ARRA News Service - I know that some of you don't like to read long, drawn-out missives...
so here's the Executive Summary:

Candidate	Congress	Military
John McCain	26 Years	22 Years
Barack Obama	143 Days	-0- Years