Last night, American Freedom Alliance’s Literary Café hosted a dinner at the home of Robert and Leslie Hamilton with author Stephen Meyer, followed by a discussion of his book, “Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design”.

Stephen Meyer has a Ph.D. from the University of Cambridge in the Philosophy of Science. A former geophysicist and college professor, he now directs the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute in Seattle. His book was named one of the top books of 2009 by the Times Literary Supplement (London).

Meyer began by explaining he had always been interested in the intersection of science and philosophy. Many of the early philosophers were scientists. He believes our world view is influenced by how science is interpreted.

Meyer spoke of the study of DNA causing many scientists to consider Intelligent Design. He mentioned Dean H. Kenyon, Professor Emeritus of Biology at San Francisco State University, who had believed in biochemical evolution but, after studying DNA, now believed in Intelligent Design.

The study of DNA has revealed that the center core of the DNA molecule contains coding more sophisticated than any computer programmer could design. DNA stores information in digital form. Bill Gates said DNA is like a software program but much more complex. Where does a software program originate? It’s source is an intelligent mind. Where does the DNA coding come from?

Meyer explained that when he went to England to study the origins of life, he was given Darwin’s, “On the Origin if Species by Means of Natural Selection”. He became interested in Darwin’s forensic form of investigation of the past. Unlike present scientific research where you can examine and test a subject and repeat the outcome, studying the past requires one to compare what happened then to causes now known. Darwin used “multiple competing hypothesis” to explain his theory of evolution. Darwin admitted there was the appearance of design but that it was simply the product of natural selection.

Meyer wanted to explain ID (Intelligent Design) using the same forensic methods Darwin used. Darwin never explained where first life came from. Even present day Darwinist, Richard Dawkins admits no one knows where or how life began.

Opponents of ID argue that ID is not testable, therefore, not “science”. Meyer used the same method Darwin used so if ID is not science, neither is Darwin’s theory.

When the DNA double helix structure was discovered by James Watson and Frances Crick in 1953 until about ten years ago, scientists believed a small section of the long strand contained all the information to build protein and the rest was just junk DNA.
In the early 2000’s scientists discovered the coded information contained in the core of the DNA molecule. We now know there was no “junk” DNA. There is nested coding and auto-correct features in DNA, not likely to be the result of accident. This has opened the discussion for many of the secular scientists to the existence of ID.

Meyers was asked what ID explains. He replied that it provides a causal explanation of the origin of life. The only cause of functional information is the mind. DNA contains digital, coded information that must have originated from somewhere….an intelligence.

Dawkins argues if there is ID, who designed the designer? But that question begs counter questions, who designed the evolver? Where did matter and energy come from?

Stephen Hawking’s Ph.D. thesis was on Black Holes. He applied the dynamics of Black Holes to the origin of the universe. He thought all the universe would have been compacted into the smallest sphere. If true, where would matter have come from?

Meyer was asked why there is such intense resistance to ID? What are so many scientists and most politicians afraid of? It’s such an emotionally intense issue.

Meyer told us about an article he wrote called, “Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington” that was the first peer-reviewed article explicitly advancing the theory of intelligent design published in a mainstream scientific periodical (housed at the Smithsonian Institution in DC). After the article was published, the Smithsonian’s Museum of Natural History erupted in internal controversy, which was soon discovered by the scientific press. The Smithsonian was angry and embarrassed by the editor, Richard Sternberg (an evolutionary biologist with two Ph.D.’s), who published the article. He lost his office, his access to scientific samples and was transferred to a hostile supervisor. This, because he published a peer-reviewed article.

Meyers said ID gives a sense of human purpose. He said if you take Darwin and Dawkins theories to their conclusions, there is no purpose to life. You can’t have a purpose driven life if life has no purpose.

Meyers was asked how ID gets the attention it deserves. The problem is access. The media is not going to report on ID objectively. But there is a network around the world of scientists trying to get the word out. He said between 30% and 40% of English scientists were sympathetic to ID. He said molecular biology is in crisis. It has hit a wall, there is nowhere to go. ID best explains life.

Meyers was then asked if the political climate didn’t have something to do with the resistance to ID. Judeo-Christian philosophy says God loves man and wants him to be free. The Left wants central planning and control over man’s activities.
Meyers believed that was possible but ultimately truth surfaces. People don’t go to a museum and think wind and erosion caused the Rosetta Stone. You either believe life originated from random material causes or a mind.

Meyers believes that the acceptance of God or Intelligent Design would lead to more fruitful and productive scientific endeavors.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment


Robert Renner is a very clever filmmaker, although not a very honest one. He opened his film at the Magic Castle in Hollywood with a magician explaining the slight off hand. If you can divert people’s attention from what you are actually doing, you can make them believe something else.

He then spent the first part of his film showing endless clips of tobacco company executives saying smoking doesn’t cause cancer. Ahhhh…..am I’m a little slow here, am I supposed to believe that proves global warming skeptics are lying? Scientists whose life long research doesn’t agree with the catastrophic claims of Warmers are equal to highly paid tobacco executives who make a living selling cigarettes?

The film then went on to slander well known skeptics such as Senator Jim Inhofe, “Junk Science” Steve Malloy and Austrian-born, physicist and emeritus professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia, Fred Singer, among others. The film implies they are funded by BIG oil, tobacco and chemical companies to deny anthropogenic global warming. Professor Singer’s work had been highly respected for decades. He was a leading scientist in our early space research and was involved in the development of observation satellites. But we’re to believe he all of a sudden decided to take bribes from oil companies to deny science.

By the way, I don’t understand the demonization of oil companies. Cheap abundant oil is directly responsible for the development of this country, the high standard of living we all enjoy (even our poorest), and our ability to travel where and when we want. You can’t compare oil companies to tobacco companies whose product does none of those things.

James Hansen was heavily featured in Merchants of Doubt. Hansen served as head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies from 1981 to 2013. He is one of the most well known global warming activists. Hansen did extensive studies of Venus and asserts that several billion years ago Venus’s atmosphere was more like earth’s but greenhouse gases caused the temperature to increase to the point life was not possible. Hmm, yet there is no evidence SUV’s were ever on Venus.

Hansen has become more of an activist than a scientist these days. He has been arrested several times protesting the Keystone pipeline. Physicist Freeman Dyson criticized Hansen saying, “Hansen has turned his science into ideology”. Fifty former NASA astronauts, engineers and scientists wrote a letter to Hansen objecting to his using NASA and the Goddard Institute to promote what they believe is NOT “settled science”. I guess the film didn’t have time to include that information.

One of the most prominent people featured in the film (as she co-authored it) was Naomi Oreskes. She is a Professor of the History of Science at Harvard University.

Oreskes asserts there are only a “handful” of scientists who obscure the truth of global warming. She claims (as all Warmers do) that a “consensus of scientists”, in fact 97%, all believe in anthropogenic global warming. She claims that “handful” of skeptics are denying the facts and fighting science. She implies but never proves, they are being funded by BIG Oil, BIG Tobacco and BIG Chemical companies.

Oreskes then mentions “The PetitionProject” that 31,000+ scientists signed. She dismisses it out of hand. She said Mickey Mouse and other phony signatures appear on the petition. Even if that were true, how would that discount the thousands of real scientists who signed it? However, it isn’t true. I met the scientists who circulated the petition at the Climate Change Conference in Las Vegas last July. Dr. Willie Soon sat at my table. He explained, while they were collecting signatures, they heard people were going to sign phony names to debunk the project so they vetted EVERY SINGLE name……and still the Warmers make the claim because who is going to go through 31K signatures to prove them wrong?

Oreskes claim of a consensus of scientists was debunked:
However, that isn’t mentioned in the film either.

One of the more amusing segments (and I’m not sure why they included it as it doesn’t help their argument) was focused on former Republican Congressman Bob Inglis. He explained that he had changed his mind on global warming when he visited the Artic several times and saw ice cores that showed CO2 increased after the industrial revolution (did he see ice cores from the Jurassic period when CO2 was 5 times higher than now?). http://www.livescience.com/44330-jurassic-dinosaur-carbon-dioxide.html

Inglis introduced HR2380 that imposed a carbon tax. He was primaried the next election and lost BIG TIME to Trey Gowdy. Apparently, Inglis is still running for something. The film followed him from a speaking engagement to a local radio station where he was interviewed by a host who was a skeptic and cut his interview short.

Oreskes and others in the film frame themselves as the “good guys” and the skeptics as the “bad guys”. They accuse skeptics (bad guys) of being free market fundamentalists who oppose environmental regulations, but, although, they acknowledge many environmentalists (good guys) are socialists who love regulations, they say that doesn’t mean global warming is a myth (nor does it mean it isn’t).

According to Oreskes the public doesn’t have a good grasp of the essential scientific facts about global warming and that is the fault of the skeptics and the media coverage of their disinformation. Actually, studies have shown the media coverage of global warming is very much weighted in favor of anthropologic global warming.
Oreskes admits all the problems caused by global warming (if it were true and catastrophic) require BIG government to address. But she says it’s necessary because “People Will Die”.

“Merchants of Doubt” is based on a book by Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway. The following is an objective review of the book and this film: http://www.academia.edu/4754580/Debunking_skeptical_propaganda_Book_review_of_Oreskes_Conway_Merchants_of_Doubt

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | Leave a comment


Last night I attended a debate at UCLA between Jason Riley of the Wall Street Journal and Law Professor Randall Kennedy of Harvard University.

Jason Riley is a columnist for the Wall Street Journal where he is a member of the Editorial Board. He is a commentator for Fox News and has written two books, “Let Them In” which argues for more free-market oriented immigration policy and his most recent, “Please Stop Helping Us”, which is about the efforts of government to help Blacks actually harming them.

Randall Kennedy teaches courses on race relations and freedom of expression at Harvard University. He makes numerous appearances on the lecture circuit and has written six books, including “Nigger: The Strange Career of a Troublesome Word” and recently “For Discrimination: Race, Affirmative Action, and the Law”.

Jason Riley started off the debate, however, I missed the beginning of his remarks wandering around UCLA looking for Rolfe Hall. As I entered he was quoting Martin Luther King, “Do you know that Negroes are 10% of the population of St. Louis and are responsible for 58% of the crimes? We’ve got to do something about our moral standards….We know that there are many things wrong in the white world, but there are many things wrong in the black world, too. We can’t keep on blaming the white man. There are things we must do for ourselves.”

Riley said the first time he used that quote the media accused him of making it up. They couldn’t believe MLK would say such a thing. He suggested they do their job and google it. He said it’s too easy for Black leaders to blame Black problems on white racism.

Riley spoke of a Black culture that doesn’t value education and produces Black children who fear sounding “White”. He spoke of the importance of self help and self development. As long as Blacks see themselves as victims of White racism nothing will change. He pointed out that Blacks were making greater strides when there was more racism than there is now. Riley said the only poverty program needed is getting married before you have children.

Professor Kennedy began by praising the Civil Rights Acts and Voting Rights Act. He said Liberal Social Policies were about insurance against catastrophe. He said you buy insurance against floods and other catastrophes so how is insurance against social catastrophes different.

Kennedy said Riley spoke of welfare killing incentive. He said we have social programs that help Veterans and they don’t appear to kill incentive. (My answer to that would be that Veterans are highly trained, highly motivated and willing to put their lives on the line to protect this country. The average welfare recipient is generally not.)

Kennedy said there are 45 million impoverished Americans. What about their children? Yes, he continued, their parents may, very well, be schmucks. Are the children to be blamed for their parents being schmucks?

Very dramatically (he would have put Johnny Cochran to shame), Kennedy said it’s about JOBS. He said he believed the government should provide jobs for everyone who wants one. He said what government should NOT do, is say, “you are on your own.”

Riley rebutted by saying, government providing jobs can’t work. It’s not whether to help, but how to help. He asked if the policies have actually helped the poverty rate, or the crime rate, or the number of single parent families. He said between 1940 and 1960 the Black poverty rate fell 40%. After 1965 it continued to fall but at a much slower rate. He said between 1940 and 1970 the number of Black “white collar” workers quadrupled without Affirmative Action.

Riley said Affirmative Action takes a psychological toll on Blacks. It makes them victims that can’t succeed unless the bar is lowered.

Kennedy admonished Mr. Riley, saying he obscures the achievements made since Civil Rights. He said if Liberal policies harmed Blacks, the Republican Presidents since it was passed, Reagan, Bush Sr. and Bush Jr., would bear some of the responsibility.

He said there was nothing wrong with being a victim. There are victims of rape, victims of natural disasters, and victims of racism. He said racism isn’t responsible for all Black problems but it is one of the causes.

He went on to say he is a champion of Affirmative Action. He is an Affirmative Action baby and he is certainly not embarrassed to be one. At that point I submitted a question (they ran out of time before getting to it) asking if he was admitting, without Affirmative Action, he didn’t have the intellect, grades or talent to become what he has become.

Kennedy said it is not an accident that before Civil Rights there were no Black Cabinet members. Kennedy is forgetting or failing to mention there was a Black Speaker of the House and eight Black Senators in the 1800’s.

The debate ended at this point and they opened it up to Q&A. Riley was asked if he thought “red lining” contributed to Black hopelessness. Riley replied, no, there are no neighborhoods Blacks can’t live in if they can afford to live there. This is true for any race. He said the problem is when government tries to shoehorn people into neighborhoods they can’t afford to live in.

Riley said if you poll Blacks they prefer to live in Black neighborhoods. Kennedy said he had no rebuttal.

The next question was for Kennedy. He was asked when we will know when Affirmative Action is no longer necessary. He said he believes Affirmative Action should be used for any and all disadvantaged groups. He couldn’t say when or if it should ever end……maybe when race is no big deal.

Riley replied that Affirmative Action should end IMMIDIATELY. He pointed out that no Affirmative Action program has come close to the outcomes for Blacks before Affirmative Action. He said in 1996, Proposition 209 ended racial preferences in college admissions. Black graduation rates increased 50% AFTER the preferences ended. Affirmative Action funnels kids into schools and programs they aren’t prepared for. They might be sent to MIT where they can’t keep up, instead of a less competitive school where they would excel. Riley said Kennedy was justifying Affirmative Action instead of talking about the results.

Kennedy replied that the Civil Rights Act of 1988 apologized to the Japanese who were put in interment camps and it gave them reparations. I didn’t understand what that had to do with the debate but then I noticed Kennedy tended to digress quite often. Very dramatically, Kennedy said every American should address racial inequities.

The next question was for Kennedy. He was asked if he didn’t think there was more benefit in rewarding merit than racial identity. Kennedy said he didn’t think merit mattered. Social need was more important. He gave the example of the Russians putting Sputnick in space. He said it inspired us to put more emphasis on math and sciences. He said it was a complicated issue with many trade offs.

Riley said Liberals won’t be satisfied until racial proportioning is achieved. They constantly say there are not enough women, not enough Blacks, not enough of something. But groups are different, they have different priorities. When Blacks are graduating with an 8th grade reading level, Affirmative Action is not going to make up for that.

Riley was asked if he was denying racial bias. He replied that Blacks made more strides between 1940 and 1960 during Jim Crow laws when there was more racism, than they are now with Affirmative Action. Two out of three Black children were raised with two parents. Now, 70% to 90% of Black children are being raised by single parents.

Kennedy then went off on a tangent about criminal justice. He said all communities, especially poor minority communities, need good police forces. But that blatant abuse of the Rule of Law by the guardians of the Rule of Law can’t be tolerated. The blatant abuse of prosecutors and Grand Juries protecting rogue cops can’t be tolerated. They must be held to a higher standard!

Riley reminded Kennedy that our Criminal Justice system is run by a Black man…… who answers to a Black man. He said we can all agree that rogue cops need to be prosecuted but that rogue cops don’t explain Black crime. Pretending our morgues are filled with young Black men shot by police is a false narrative. Police shootings are only 2% of Black violent deaths. Riley said Blacks shoot Blacks. He asked if Blacks valued Black lives.

Riley continued that Black crime and incarceration is higher now than in the 40’s. He said Blacks aren’t killing each other because of White racism or rogue cops. He said fatherless homes, hopelessness and lack of values is what needs to be focused on.

Riley asked if we wanted to reduce the Black body count should we focus on the 2% who are killed by cops or the more than 90% killed by other Blacks? He said if we passed a law tomorrow against cops shooting Blacks for any reason, it wouldn’t make a dent in the Black mortality rate. He said young Black men aren’t walking around being afraid of being shot by cops, they are walking around being afraid of being shot by other young Black men. That is the reality.

The speakers graciously stayed a good 45 minutes to an hour after the debate to speak to members of the audience.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment


I met Dr. Enstrom last year at a Conference on Climate Change in Las Vegas. We speak on the phone and email each other and are both members of the American Freedom Alliance. He is a Board member and I am an Associate Fellow. But I was unaware of the valiant fight he was fighting.

He has been fighting to restore his reputation and his work. In 2010 Dr. Enstrom was fired after over 30 years as a professor/researcher at UCLA. UCLA’s justification for his firing was that his research was not “aligned with the department’s mission”. Really? What is UCLA’s “mission”? To support truthful science or push a political agenda?

Dr. Enstrom received a PhD. in Physics from Stanford and a M.P.H. in epidemiology from UCLA. His work had been careful, through, peer-reviewed and respected until the Green Agenda became the cause celeb.

In 2003 Dr. Enstrom published his peer-reviewed research showing second hand smoke didn’t kill people. He was criticized for doing such a study but his research wasn’t disputed. This wasn’t well received by those who want a reason to ban smoking from everywhere. I don’t smoke but I think those who want to, should be able to. I also believe laws should be based on the truth not a political agenda.

He offended the PC police again in 2005 by publishing his peer-reviewed research that showed fine diesel particulate matter isn’t killing people either. Since CARB’s (California Air Resources Board) banning of diesel engines from California was based on the claim that diesel particulates kill thousands a year, his study didn’t go over well.

Dr. Enstrom questioned the study CARB used to justify their diesel regulations. He knew the particulate matter wasn’t as high as Hien Tran’s study said it was. He investigated Tran’s credentials and learned Tran’s PhD. from UC Davis was purchased for $1000 from a diploma mill. It is my understanding that Tran’s “study” was also fraudulent. That he used a study done in a different state. But what is more disturbing is that Mary Nichols, chairwoman of CARB, knew of Mr. Tran’s fraudulent diplomas before the vote on diesel emissions and kept the information from most of the members of the board.

This fraudulent study was the basis on CARB’s onerous regulations on diesel trucks and buses. It caused business owners tens of thousands of dollars to refit or replace their trucks. This was an outrageous, expensive and completely unnecessary regulation imposed on California businesses. And, of course, ultimately, the costs get passed on to you and me in higher prices.

Dr. Enstrom’s investigation into CARB also resulted in the removal of scientist John Froines. He had served 25 years on the board when there is a three year term limit. Froines being on the board that long prevented other more objective scientists from serving on the board. Coincidentally, Froines was also a voting member of UCLA’s Environmental Sciences Department that terminated Dr. Enstrom.

The American Center for Law and Justice represented Dr. Enstom in a wrongful termination suit and last week UCLA agreed to settle. They reinstated him with the title of “retired researcher” and restored his access to UCLA’s research resources. It’s not the vindication he deserves, but we’ll take it. Dr. Enstrom was right but he was fired, Hien Tran was a fraud but he is still employed by CARB.

Remember, the results of Dr. Enstrom’s research were peer-reviewed and not proven wrong. UCLA was upset that he did the research because it disagreed with their “Green” agenda. They didn’t want to risk losing grants and funding that come from the government and environmental groups. Professor Stephen Schneider said in the documentary, “Cool It”, that they had to give scary scenarios to get funding.

These days if you want a grant to study Three Toed Tree Frogs, you better study the effects of Climate Change on Three Toed Tree Frogs…..and it’s doubtful you’ll get more funding if your study doesn’t find a negative effect from Climate Change.

You can tell when the Left thinks it’s narrative is losing. They go from push to shove. The public’s interest in Global Warming isn’t even in the top 20 issues they are concerned with. As time passes and NONE of scary prediction have come to fruition, the scientists (and there are tens of thousands of them) who disagree with anthropogenic climate change are being heard, in spite of our government, our universities and our media doing their best to silence them. Now the Left is in shoving mode. They are trying to discredit and slander the scientists who disagree with them. Scientists whose work has been highly respected for decades are being called “flat-earthers”.

In the last few weeks both our President and our Secretary of State have told the public Climate Change is more of a threat to us than ISIS. And Al Gore said last week Climate Change deniers should be punished.

We need more James Enstrom’s who are willing to do the honest research and stand up to the criticism. Congratulations to him for winning his fight and protecting scientific integrity.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | 2 Comments


Chancellor Angela Merkel admitted multiculturalism is a complete failure and, of course, she’s right. But why did anyone think it would succeed in the first place? http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/oct/17/angela-merkel-germany-multiculturalism-failures

I would love to have been in the room when our world leaders decided to inflict multiculturalism on the Western World……….and without our knowledge or consent. Yes, yes, we know they didn’t want any more World Wars. They said nationalism and religion were the cause of wars, therefore, if all the Western countries immigrated people from other countries, national cultures and identities would be erased. People would get used to other cultures, all the countries would look the same and everyone would live happily ever after. That was the excuse for doing it, but that’s not the reason. I doubt very much they believed multiculturalism would work. In fact, how could it? They immigrate people from other countries who don’t speak their language, don’t share their values, culture or religion. They, not only, don’t require the immigrants to learn their language or assimilate, they discourage it. And, in fact, accommodate the new immigrants while restricting the rights of the natural born citizens. What is the natural evolution of such a policy? The immigrants band together, take over cities and create small nations inside your country. Natural born citizens become angry, resentful and frightened. It doesn’t bring people together, it divides them further.

World leaders have been pushing for Global Governance for a long time. They know it’s the only way to control the population, both in numbers and behavior. Don’t you ask yourself why all the Western Countries are on the same page with this? Everything is about “diversity” and “multiculturalism” and being “inclusive”. This was never about bringing people together to create peace in the world. It was about creating chaos in the rich Western countries so that World leaders would have to step in to solve it. This was about changing the demographics of the Western countries. And they justify it with altruistic sounding reasons, such as “fairness”.

All the Western countries are immigrating many more people than they actually need. We’re told natives aren’t having enough children to repopulate our countries and fill our jobs, so we need to bring in more people. But if that were the case, wouldn’t it make more sense to wait until there was a labor shortage (which would result in higher wages) and then bring in people with the skills for those jobs? Isn’t the point of immigration to benefit the country, not burden it? We are bringing in large numbers of poor, unskilled people who don’t speak our language or share our values and not requiring them to learn our language or assimilate. And then, through chain migration, we’re bringing in their extended families, who are also poor and unskilled. Why? How do new immigrants adjust to a new country and get jobs if they can’t speak the language? How does it benefit the country to flood it with millions of poor people we can’t communicate with? How do they expect the native citizens to welcome and accept people they can’t communicate with?

Another form of immigration is going on quietly, under the radar. H1B visa workers are being brought in by the thousands, not because there is a shortage of high skilled American workers but to replace them with foreign workers who will work for less. A very large number of our illegal immigrants are these H1B visa workers who simply stay after their visa’s run out.

As with all Leftist policies they “sell” their destructive agendas in the name of compassion and fairness, “We can’t separate families”……”They just want a better life for their families”……..”We aren’t replacing our populations”……..”They do jobs we don’t want to do”………etc. etc. We’re told it’s mean and selfish to send illegal immigrants back to their countries. Never mind their first act was to break our laws. We’re told we’re rich enough to provide for these people. We’re told we can’t turn away the “children”…….and their parents……and their grandparents…..and Aunts and Uncles and cousins. We’re told we need to be inclusive. Which, in practice means Western countries need to be inclusive but the new immigrants…..not so much.

Aren’t these world leaders the same people who want to reduce the population to under one billion? So why are they concerned with replacing countries populations? Especially, when technology is resulting in fewer jobs overall. Wouldn’t the rational thing be to allow populations to decrease and only bring in foreign workers to fill jobs that actually aren’t being filled by the citizens? How is all this immigration benefitting us? Or is this about the destruction of the Western culture and the redistribution of it’s wealth?

What is happening to our culture with all this immigration, both legal and illegal? Instead of assimilating into our culture, immigrants are demanding accommodations and privileges for their cultures and religions….and getting them. Our schools no longer say the pledge of allegiance or sing the national anthem so as not to offend other cultures. Most universities have “Diversity Office’s” and seem more concerned with diversity than academics. There are no “American Culture Offices”. Recently the University of California at Irvine removed American flags. They said they did it because many of their students see the flag as representing American imperialism. That begs the question, when has America colonized a country it defeated? Is Mexico our colony? Is Japan or Germany?

When our leaders decided multiculturalism was the answer to nationalism they left human nature out of the equation. It is human nature to seek what is familiar. We need to belong to families, communities and countries. We need to feel that we belong to something bigger than ourselves. Traditions are important to the wellbeing of people. Our traditions and values are under assault. When people are forced to live side by side with people whose culture is the antithesis of theirs they become more protective not less.

The Left likes to tell us we are a nation of immigrants, and yes, we all came here from somewhere else, including the Indians. But our immigrants in the past came to America wanting to be Americans. They brought their cultures and traditions with them but they embraced our culture and traditions as well. They left oppressive countries for the freedom America offered and they were grateful to be here. They learned our language, they learned about our government and they wanted to be part of this great nation.

Multiculturalism was destined to fail because of human nature. This country was founded by people who sought religious and individual freedom. Most of us aren’t willing to give that up.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | 2 Comments


Saturday I drove to Santa Barbara for a brunch where the Director of News Operations at the Santa Barbara News-Press, Don Katich was going to speak about the newspaper’s recent battles for free speech.

Santa Barbara is my home town. I was raised in Santa Barbara, I graduated from Santa Barbara High School, I was married in Santa Barbara and my children were born there. I love Santa Barbara and anything that happens there is of interest to me.

A few months ago the Santa Barbara News-Press was attacked and vandalized by pro-illegal alien protestors. They spray painted, “The border is illegal not the people who cross it”, next to the front door and paint bombed the rest of the building. What did the paper do to warrant such an attack? They printed a headline that said, “Illegals line up for drivers licenses”. The grievance army has become so emboldened, anything they perceive as offensive warrants the complete destruction of the offender.

A few weeks after the attack there was a rally in support of the News-Press. I attended that rally and so did the pro-illegal alien crowd. They did their best to provoke the News-Press supporters. They shouted down speakers, they shouted epithets, they got in people’s faces. I’m constantly frustrated by people here illegally demanding rights they aren’t entitled to……..and our government allowing it. No wonder they feel empowered.

The Santa Barbara Woman’s Federated arranged a brunch at the La Cumbre Country Club for Don Katich to explain the New-Press’s position on this attack on free speech. Valerie Watson from the Woman’s Federated introduced Don and after listing his many accomplishments, she said he was also a member of the NRA, to great applause.

Don began his talk by saying how sad it was that exercising your 2nd Amendment rights would receive applause.

Don let us know the News-Press is not going to change it’s position. “Illegals” is the accurate term, it’s a term used by the Federal government and a term the News-Press has used for years. They have every intention of continuing to use it.

Don spoke of many examples of free speech being attacked in Santa Barbara. He cited an attack on a pro-life teenager by an assistant professor on the University of California, Santa Barbara campus. The young woman was physically assaulted and her display destroyed by the UCSB employee who was never held accountable for the assault.

Mr. Katich spoke of the 1st Amendment being our greatest gift and the basis of all our other rights. He said once the Rule of Law becomes subjective, tyranny follows.

He said he believes in American Exceptionalism as evidenced in our Bill of Rights and Constitution. He said it is the newspaper’s job to report the news truthfully, not to be politically correct.

He told us about the fight in 2006 the new publisher had with the union (I didn’t know reporters were unionized…..no wonder so many are Liberal) over control of the content of the paper. They didn’t walk out over wages, hours or conditions.

The new publisher wanted to end the Liberal bias that existed. The union members walked out and sued for control of the content. Fortunately, a judge ruled that the publisher had control, not the employees.

Don said the future can’t be controlled by kissing ass, but by kicking ass. He said it’s time to be informed, be involved and be BOLD.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment


Last night AFA’s Cinema Gateway hosted “The Making of American Sniper” at a lovely private home in Beverly Hills. There was a cocktail hour followed by a sumptuous dinner with the evening’s speaker Andrew McLaren.

Andrew McLaren served with and became a close friend of Chris Kyle. He was a member of the Marine Corps Security Force Company Europe. He was deployed to more than ten countries during his service and his unit had been deployed to rescue our Libyan Ambassador when they were mysteriously told to stand down.

After Andrews service in the Marines he joined BlackwaterUSA, a civilian company contracted by the State Department and the CIA to provide security for politicians and diplomats visiting war zones.

Andrew and Chris Kyle starred in NBC’s “Stars Earn Stripes”, a show where “stars” went through war games in teams with former military members. Anti-war, anti-military activists and Muslims boycotted and protested the show until, even though the ratings were good, NBC caved into the pressure and cancelled the show.

We were shown clips from “American Sniper” and “Stars Earn Stripes”. After the clips Andrew explained how “American Sniper” was made. Bradley Cooper contacted Chris Kyle saying he wanted to make a movie based on Chris’s book. Stephen Spielberg was attached as director, but he wanted a much bigger budget and he wanted the story to be about Chris and the Iraqi sniper (the one Chris shot from more than 2000 feet away). He wanted the movie to have no good guys or bad guys. He wanted the Americans to be morally equivalent to the Iraqis. Eventually, Spielberg dropped out because the studio wouldn’t increase the budget. When Chris was killed and the studio saw the public reaction, people standing along the freeway and on the over passes in the rain, that they had to use the Dallas Stadium to hold all the mourners, they changed direction. Clint Eastwood came on board and wanted to make a patriotic movie about an American hero. The rest is history. “American Sniper” broke all records. The majority of Americans are not anti-military. We respect our military and love our heroes.

Andrew spoke about our military. Contrary to John Kerry’s portrayal of our military as being savages indiscriminately killing people for fun, he said, except for a few bad apples that you’ll find in any organization, our military men just want to serve their country honorably. They want to protect our country and their brothers in combat. He said there is no moral equivalence between American soldiers and the Iraqis or ISIS. He said ISIS is as barbaric as depicted in “American Sniper”. They are perfectly willing to use women, children and disabled as suicide bombers. They are happy to use a drill on a child’s head. He said Chris Kyle was a true hero, who saved countless American soldiers. Chris was also a wonderful father and family man. Andrew gave an example from shortly before Chris was killed. He called Chris and told him he was going to do another series and he could get Chris on it. Chris told him his brother had just had a baby and he wanted to be with family during this time.

Andrew also explained how our military has been weakened by this administration. He said they are not allowed to be involved in any offensive actions. They can only be defensive. They also can’t shoot on any buildings where civilians “might” be located. Our enemy doesn’t play by the rules. They are terrorists not soldiers. They fire on our troops from public buildings knowing our troops can’t fire back. We aren’t fighting to win. Strong, fit military men like Chris and Andrew are being replaced with gays and women. The standards for combat have been seriously lowered.

Andrew has started a company, Black Globe and is trying to raise money to build a private army. There are plenty of former military men willing to fight ISIS. All this administration is willing to do against ISIS is drop a few bombs near them a few times a day. ISIS troops only need to go into a building to avoid the bombs.

ISIS is growing, recruiting more and more young people. America’s weakness is empowering them not appeasing them. They say they are at war with America. If we don’t stop them in the Middle East, they will come here.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment