ConservativeChristianRepublican - Report - 20090722

Motivational-Inspirational-Historical-Educational-Political-Enjoyable



"Daily Motivations"

Three grand essentials to happiness in this life are something to do, something to love, and something to hope for... -- Joseph Addison

Even if you're on the right track, you'll get run over if you just sit there. -- Will Rogers



"Daily Devotions" (KJV and/or NLT)

"But if we confess our sins to Him, He is faithful and just to forgive us and to cleanse us from every wrong." (1 John 1:9)

God's Word teaches that every Christian should be prepared for battles with sin. There will never be a time in this life when you will be free from temptation. Satan is a real foe, and we must be prepared for both his subtle, cunning ways and his obvious attempts to defeat and destroy us.

There is a difference, however, between temptation and sin. Temptation is the initial impression to do something contrary to God's will. Even Jesus was not immune to temptation. But temptation becomes sin when you meditate on the impression and develop an unholy desire, which is an emotional sin that may be followed by a mental or physical act of disobedience.

So, how do you avoid temptation? First, surrender yourself to the control of the Holy Spirit, trusting Him to direct and empower you. Second, and more practically speaking, you simply recognize your weakness whenever you are tempted and ask the Lord to lead you away from temptation.



"The Patriot Post"

"My anxious recollections, my sympathetic feeling, and my best wishes are irresistibly excited whensoever, in any country, I see an oppressed nation unfurl the banners of freedom." -- George Washington

"When occasions present themselves, in which the interests of the people are at variance with their inclinations, it is the duty of the persons whom they have appointed to be the guardians of those interests, to withstand the temporary delusion, in order to give them time and opportunity for more cool and sedate reflection." -- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 71

"Ludwig Von Mises, that great economist, once noted: 'People must fight for something they want to achieve, not simply reject an evil.' Well, the conservative movement remains in the ascendancy because we have a bold, forward-looking agenda. No longer can it be said that conservatives are just anti-Communist. We are, and proudly so, but we are also the keepers of the flame of liberty. And as such, we believe that America should be a source of support, both moral and material, for all those on God's Earth who struggle for freedom. Our cause is their cause, whether it be in Nicaragua, Afghanistan, or Angola. When I came back from Iceland I said -- and I meant it -- American foreign policy is not simply focused on the prevention of war but the expansion of freedom. Modern conservatism is an active, not a reactive philosophy. It's not just in opposition to those vices that debase character and community, but affirms values that are at the heart of civilization." -- Ronald Reagan



FOR THE RECORD

"Here's how to get a dubious bill into law, or at least past the U.S. House of Representatives, which of late has deserved to be called the lower chamber: -- First, make the bill long. Very long. So long no one may actually read it, supporters or opponents. Introduce a 310-page horse-choker of an amendment at 3 in the morning on the day of the roll-call vote. So it can't be examined too closely or too long. Only after the bill passes may its true costs emerge. ... -- Make sure that the bill itself, which was already 1,200 pages long before this super-sized amendment was added, surpasseth all understanding. (Which may be the only thing it has in common with the peace of God.) ... -- Insert all kinds of exceptions into the bill so those special interests that stand to benefit by them -- whether regional, economic or ideological -- will join the stampede. -- Coat the bill and the campaign for it with high-sounding sloganspeak, if not hysteria. Warn that The End Is Near unless this bill is passed, at least if you consider the year 2100 near. ... -- If necessary, change the subject at the last minute. Say, from climate change to creating jobs. And, hesto presto, though the vote may be close (219 to 212), a confusing bill can be on its way to becoming even more confusing law. Which is just what happened the other day in the U.S. House of Representatives. ... -- Forget the actual content of the bill, since few if any can understand it anyway. Instead, just recite talking points. It's a lot easier than actually thinking. ... Whoever said you never want to see sausage made or laws passed did a grave injustice to sausage-makers, who are surely engaged in a much more wholesome enterprise.." --Arkansas Democrat-Gazette editor Paul Greenberg



LIBERTY

"Hugo Chávez's coalition-building efforts suffered a setback [last week] when the Honduran military sent its president packing for abusing the nation's constitution. It seems that President Mel Zelaya miscalculated when he tried to emulate the success of his good friend Hugo in reshaping the Honduran Constitution to his liking. But Honduras is not out of the Venezuelan woods yet. ...[T]he Central American country was being pressured to restore the authoritarian Mr. Zelaya by the likes of Fidel Castro, Daniel Ortega, Hillary Clinton and, of course, Hugo himself. The Organization of American States, having ignored Mr. Zelaya's abuses, also wants him back in power. It will be a miracle if Honduran patriots can hold their ground. .... [Hillary Clinton] accused Honduras of violating 'the precepts of the Interamerican Democratic Charter' and said it 'should be condemned by all.' Fidel Castro did just that. Mr. Chávez pledged to overthrow the new government. Honduras is fighting back by strictly following the constitution. ... The struggle against chavismo has never been about left-right politics. It is about defending the independence of institutions that keep presidents from becoming dictators. This crisis clearly delineates the problem. In failing to come to the aid of checks and balances, Mrs. Clinton and [OAS Secretary General José Miguel] Insulza expose their true colors." -- columnist Mary Anastasia O'Grady



"AFA"

Please help us get this information into the hands of as many people as possible by forwarding it to your entire e-mail list of family and friends.

National Education Association's top lawyer touts their real purpose

Says those who promote traditional values are a group of "right-wing b****rds"

July 21, 2009

PLEASE READ AND THEN FORWARD

The National Education Association's (NEA) top lawyer, Bob Chanin, recently made clear the goal of the NEA. He called those who believe in and work for traditional family values "b****rds." He also praised the NEA because the organization has "power" and "hundreds of millions" of dollars from dues to spend in promoting their agenda and political candidates.

I have included an article which shows, in their own words, what the NEA is doing. It is time for Christians who are members of the NEA to get out. We are funding the demise of Western Civilization. Please read this article!

Chanin's volley left no doubt where the NEA wants to take the public education system, and our children. It also served as a wake-up call for those who might be considering taking their children out of public schools.

If you are a member of NEA, I suggest you contact some more teacher friends and discuss this matter with them.

If you need legal help, I suggest you contact one of the two organizations listed below:

Liberty Council www.lc.org
Alliance Defense Fund www.telladf.org

Thank you for caring enough to get involved. If you feel our efforts are worthy of support, would you consider making a small tax-deductible contribution to help us continue?

Sincerely,

Donald E. Wildmon,
Founder and Chairman
American Family Association

P.S. Many members of the NEA are not aware how the NEA is using their dues to promote leftwing politics. They can drop their membership in the NEA and secure many of the same benefits by joining other professional organizations which offer the same benefits.

The Association of American Educators is one. You can visit them on the web at www.aaeteachers.org..

Also, Christian Educators offers many of the same benefits. Their website is www.ceai.org.



"The Web"

Trace Adkins and the West Point Cadet Glee Club, USMA, ACM 2009

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0mm4u2VzDs&NR=1



Marginalizing Sarah Palin

by Bill O'Reilly

http://townhall.com/columnists/BillOReilly/2009/07/18/marginalizing_sarah_palin?page=full&comments=true

About a month ago, in this space, I told you The New York Times had rigged a poll about Americans wanting to pay higher taxes to fund government-run health care. The Times poll said 57 percent were willing to pay more tax and 37 percent were not willing to do so. But what the Times did not tell its readers was that 48 percent of those polled voted for Barack Obama. Only 25 percent supported John McCain. Of course the poll results would skew left.

Now we have another media deceit. The most recent edition of Newsweek magazine includes a nasty hatchet job on Sarah Palin by a guy named Rick Perlstein. The piece is presented as hard news -- not an opinion column -- and basically says that the governor is a moron who is supported by dimwitted conservatives at odds with smart Republicans. Perlstein also submits that I and other Fox News people lead the dumb GOP folks.

Anyone reading the story would think that a Newsweek correspondent put it together -- the magazine has a staff of trained journalists to do its reporting and analysis. But Perlstein is not a Newsweek correspondent and is identified only as an author at the end of the piece. Strange.

But it gets even stranger.

Turns out that Perlstein is a far-left zealot who blogs for a liberal site called "Campaign for America's Future." He lists one of his "interests" as "conservative failure." In 2007, Perlstein wrote: "I've just become a proud Fox (News) attacker. Now, you can, too. It's not a boycott. It's simply calling advertisers and informing them what Fox says. Fox can't survive that."

So Newsweek hired a far-left loon to do a hit piece on Palin, conservatives and Fox News, and did not inform its readers of his dedicated point of view. Newsweek editor Jon Meacham basically tried to disguise an ideological attack as news coverage.

Newsweek magazine is in dire financial trouble and is seeking to survive by cultivating a liberal, urban audience. There is nothing wrong with that as long as the editors are upfront about it. But this sneaky media stuff is harming America, and it must be unmasked.

With Barack Obama in the White House, the country is facing profound change. America is already on the verge of bankruptcy, and federal intrusion into private business, health care and the environment is unprecedented. The far left aims to create a huge federal apparatus that will promote income redistribution and "social justice." They also see a major opportunity to knock out Judeo-Christian traditions, replacing them with a secular philosophy.

In order to accomplish this, leftwing media are marginalizing people like Palin who oppose the strategy. Under the guise of hard news reporting, the media are pushing rank propaganda on the citizenry. Dr. Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi propaganda minister, successfully developed this tactic in the 1930s.

Americans need to wake up and smell the corruption. If crazy ideologues have infiltrated the news business, we need to know about it. And now you do.



Report: Fed bailout tab is at least $4.7 trillion

TARP overseer calls Treasury Dept. a poor watchdog. Total is a third of U.S. economy.

By Jim Kuhnhenn
Associated Press

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/business/story/843913.html

WASHINGTON The federal government has devoted $4.7 trillion to help the financial sector through its crisis, a watchdog report said Monday.

Under the worst of circumstances, the report said, the government's maximum exposure could total nearly $24 trillion, or $80,000 for every American.

The figures are part of a tough new quarterly report to Congress from special inspector general Neil Barofsky, who accuses the Treasury Department of repeatedly failing to adopt recommendations aimed at making one component of the government financial rescue effort more accountable and transparent.

The $4.7 trillion commitment to the industry equals about one third of the overall U.S. economy. It takes into account about 50 initiatives and programs set up since 2007 by the Bush and Obama administrations as well as by the Federal Reserve. Barofsky oversees one of the initiatives – the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program.

Much of the government assistance is backed by collateral, and Barofsky's $23.7 trillion estimate represents the gross, not net, exposure that the government could face. No one has suggested that the full amount will be used.

Because of declining participation in short-term loan programs, and because some infusions of money have been repaid, the maximum amount actually spent has declined to a current outstanding balance of $3 trillion, Barofsky said.

The agencies and the programs assisting the financial sector include a newly created Federal Housing Finance Agency, increased deposit insurance initiated by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., and 18 support programs created by the Fed under the special powers it can deploy to address a systemwide financial crisis.

Banks have cut back on their use of the Fed's emergency-lending program as well as other programs to ease credit stresses. Given that, the Fed has reduced the amount it will lend to financial institutions under two programs, and it has decided to let a program to support money market mutual funds expire as currently scheduled at the end of October.

Barofsky's $23.7 trillion estimate represents the maximum exposure that the government would face if all eligible applicants requested the maximum assistance at the same time. It does not account for fees the government charges or for the collateral many of the programs require.

“While quantity and quality of the assets backing all of these programs vary, ignoring that side of these programs misrepresents ‘potential exposure' associated with them,” Treasury spokesman Andrew Williams said.

In his report, Barofsky says Treasury has accepted some of his recommendations for greater accountability. But, he says, the department has not taken steps to require all TARP recipients to report on their actual use of funds. He said Treasury also should report the values of its investments in banks and other financial institutions, disclose the identity of borrowers under a nonrecourse loan program and disclose trading activity under a public-private investment fund.

Barofsky says Treasury's inaction means taxpayers have not been told what the financial institutions that have received assistance are doing with the money.

Barofsky's conclusion is contained in a quarterly report to Congress and in testimony he is to give Tuesday to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

“The very credibility of TARP (and thus in large measure its chance of success) depends on whether Treasury will commit, in deed as in word, to operate TARP with the highest degree of transparency possible,” Barofsky said.

“This administration promised an ‘unprecedented level' of accountability and oversight, but as this report reveals, they are falling far short of that promise,” Rep. Darrell Issa of California, the top Republican on the oversight committee, said in a statement. “The American people deserve to know how their tax dollars are being spent.”

The Treasury has spent $441 billion of TARP funds so far and has allocated $202.1 billion more for other spending, according to Barofsky.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner should press banks for more information on how they use the more than $200 billion the government has pumped into U.S. financial institutions, Barofsky said in a separate report.

The inspector general surveyed 360 banks that received TARP money, including Bank of America Corp., JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Wells Fargo & Co. The responses, which the inspector general said it didn't verify independently, showed that 83 percent of banks used TARP funds for lending, 43 percent used the federal money to add to their capital cushion, and 31 percent made new investments.



Atheists in the Capitol's Foxhole

by Chuck Norris

http://townhall.com/columnists/ChuckNorris/2009/07/21/atheists_in_the_capitols_foxhole?page=full&comments=true

I'm a fighter for the freedoms of speech and religion. They are our constitutional rights -- what the First Amendment is all about. But those freedoms don't give atheists the entitlement to eliminate or revise America's religious heritage in the new $621 million taxpayer-provided Capitol Visitor Center in Washington.

This month, the House and Senate passed identical resolutions approving the engravings of the national motto ("In God We Trust") and the Pledge of Allegiance in prominent places in the Capitol Visitor Center -- a 580,000-square-foot facility under the Capitol -- where 15,500 guests visit each day.

Spearheading the measures were Rep. Daniel Lungren, R-Calif., Rep. Randy Forbes, R-Va., and Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., who are leaders who also have drawn attention to the oversight of religious heritage in the CVC. The YouTube video of Forbes addressing the House on this matter -- called "Our Judeo-Christian Nation" -- has received about 2.5 million hits to date, making it one of the most widely viewed floor speeches in YouTube history. Also, some of the 19 omissions and inaccuracies in the CVC can be seen on the YouTube posting called "War on God."

Engraving the motto and pledge in the CVC sounds so basic and reasonable, doesn't it? Apparently not to the Freedom From Religion Foundation, the nation's largest group of atheists and agnostics, which filed suit in an effort to prevent the engravings.

According to The Associated Press, the Freedom From Religion Foundation says its lawsuit is based upon the foundations that "both the motto and the words 'under God' in the pledge were adopted during the Cold War as anti-communism measures. Engraving them at the entrance to the U.S. Capitol would discriminate against those who do not practice religion and unfairly promote a Judeo-Christian perspective." (I guess that also transforms our coins and bills, which have "In God We Trust" on them, into Christian tracts?) How preposterous!

Some members of Congress who supported the measure are already denouncing the claims as ludicrous.

"This lawsuit is another attempt by liberal activists to rewrite history and deny that America's Judeo-Christian heritage is an essential foundation stone of our great nation," said Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa.

Lungren said he was expecting a lawsuit but called the claims "patently absurd."

And Forbes recently stated in an official memo from his offices: "This lawsuit sheds light on the lengths that a small minority will take to remove our nation's faith history from this generation and future generations of Americans. I, along with many Members of the Congressional Prayer Caucus, intend to fight this unabashed and dangerous effort to silence our nation's history. Truly even our Pledge of Allegiance and our national motto are not spared from these efforts. Our Declaration of Independence states that our rights are 'endowed by our Creator.' If the plaintiffs in this lawsuit are successful, they will succeed not only in removing the history for which our fathers and founders sacrificed so much, but also in removing the very source our Founders believed provided our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

So, could the lawsuit prevail and prevent the engravings in the CVC? Are you kidding? Mark my words: If a few liberal judges get the case and we the people do nothing, it will. And then that precedent will be used to extend their next argument -- that our national motto, "In God We Trust," is unconstitutional.

That is why I am encouraging Americans to write or call the Architect of the Capitol's communications officer (202-228-1793 or emalecki@aoc.gov) and also their representatives to inform them about what they think of the engraved national motto and Pledge of Allegiance within the CVC. While you're at it, remind them that you, the taxpayer, paid for that $621 million facility and that you think some corner of its 580,000 square feet deserves to be dedicated to a permanent display of the Capitol's rich religious history.

Atheists might not be found in every foxhole, but the bunker called the Capitol Visitor Center has a couple of them in there right now. I think it's time that Americans let them know not only that the motto and pledge are at the heart of our country but also that whitewashing God from the walls of history is actually an unfair promotion of atheism and an injustice to all that is America.



18 Years old debating the qualifications to be President of The United States?

http://www..sodahead.com/question/370947/18-years-old-debating-the-qualifications-to-be-president-of-the-united-states/

Clueless in Seattle In a Seattle college classroom, they were discussing the qualifications to be President of the United States. It was pretty simple the candidate must be a natural born ... Clueless in Seattle

In a Seattle college classroom, they were discussing the qualifications to be President of the United States. It was pretty simple the candidate must be a natural born citizen of at least 35 years of age.

However, one girl in the class immediately started in on how unfair was the requirement to be a natural born citizen. In short, her opinion was that this requirement prevented many capable individuals from becoming president.

The class was taking it in and letting her rant, but everyone's jaw hit the floor when she wrapped up her argument by stating, 'What makes a natural born citizen any more qualified to lead this country than one born by C-section?'

Yep, these are the 18 year olds that just voted for the President of the United States.

(May make you question what are being taught to our children in public schools. - oyh)



Sotomayor Would Not Concede a Right to Self-Defense

CNSNews.com
By Adam Brickley

Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor delivers her opening statement on Capitol Hill in Washington, Monday, July 13, 2009, during her confirmation hearing befor the Senate Judiciary Committee. (AP Photo/Ron Edmonds)

Washington (CNSNews.com) – When Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) asked Wednesday whether citizens have a right to self-defense, Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor told the Senate Judiciary Committee, “I don’t know.”

Coburn had asked, “As a citizen of this country, do you believe innately in my ability to have self-defense of myself – personal self-defense? Do I have a right to personal self-defense?”

In reply, Sotomayor said that, “I’m trying to think if I remember a case where the Supreme Court has addressed that particular question. Is there a constitutional right to self-defense? And I can’t think of one. I could be wrong, but I can’t think of one.” She then went on to explain that self-defense rights are usually defined by state law.”

Unsatisfied, Coburn continued, “But do you have an opinion, of whether or not in this country I personally, as an individual citizen, have a right to self-defense?”

Sotomayor responded, “I – as I said, I don’t know.”

Later in the exchange, Coburn said, “I wasn’t asking about the legal question. I’m asking your personal opinion.”

“But that is an abstract question with no particular meaning to me,” Sotomayor relied.

William van Alstyne, a professor at the William and Mary School of Law, said that Sotomayor was technically justified in her answer. “It’s actually a more subtle and elusive question than most people would even reasonably understand,” he said.

Van Alstyne told CNSNews.com that the issue has not come directly before the Supreme Court, and states do indeed have different laws regarding when a person has a right to use deadly force (some say there is a “duty to retreat” if retreat is a safe alternative to deadly force, others say there is not).

However, van Alstyne also said that the court has made rulings that indicate a basic right to defend one’s life.

“Interestingly enough,” van Alstyne said, “I think you may find it, as I would, in the court’s abortion cases.”

He asserted that, “even under Roe v. Wade and all of the other decisions, once the fetus has hit the seventh or, at latest, eighth month, it is deemed quote ‘viable.’”

Continuing this line of reasoning, he stated that, “the woman may, nevertheless, get a physician’s willing help to off the fetus – the viable offspring – if it’s necessary to do so either to save her own life or merely to keep her physical health unimpaired.”

“The Roe court,” van Alstyne claimed, “and the current court, in the majority opinion has taken the position that your right to ‘protect your own life’ as a woman gives you an entitlement to kill the viable human being that you carry.”

“That’s an approximate decision,” he concluded, “that’s at least relevant in the discussion you and I are holding.”

As for his own personal opinion, van Alstyne said that, “for the most part, in my own view, the dicta of the court, the history of the treatment of self-preservation, and of constitutional reasoning and text, inevitably lead to the sensible conclusion that indeed there is a fundamental right to save your life by killing another if those are the alternatives confronting one.”

Van Alstyne also expressed the idea that the right to self-defense is so basic as to be implied by the very nature of the Constitution itself.

“If you go back to the philosophic grounds of the Constitution, a social compact, the theory is that we yield power to others, namely a democratic majority, because it’s necessary so that we don’t live according to a law of the jungle – but if government is unable to protect us from the threat of others to kill, why then we never gave to government the power to deprive us of our natural right of human self defense.”

“So,” van Alstyne concluded, “it is always implicit in the social compact that indeed, if it’s necessary to save our lives those of our family, why then we revert to that natural right, and it is protected by the Constitution.”



Judiciary Republicans Delay Vote on Sotomayor

By John Stanton
Roll Call Staff

Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee formally delayed a final vote on the confirmation of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court on Tuesday, putting off the start of a Senate floor debate until next week at the earliest.

Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) had hoped to hold a committee vote on Sotomayor’s nomination today, but Republicans invoked their right under the panel’s rules to a one-week delay. The vote will now take place on July 28.

“I have been advised by Sen. Sessions that the Republicans wish to put over the nomination of Judge Sotomayor. They have that right to put it over, but we will come back in on Tuesday, rather than Thursday of next week. And we will do that because the U.S. Supreme Court is coming in early for a very unusual case,” Leahy said, referring to the Supreme Court’s rare September hearing of a case challenging key aspects of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law.

Ranking member Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) seemed resigned to the fact that Sotomayor would ultimately be confirmed to the high court, saying that he expects the floor debate to occur “without delay.”

Following the Judiciary meeting, Leahy said that while he is disappointed Republicans delayed the final committee vote, he still believes that Sotomayor’s installment on the bench is assured.

“The irony is that when we begin the [floor] debate, there won’t be a single Senator, Republican or Democrat, who doesn’t know how he or she is going to vote,” Leahy said.

At least four Republican Senators have said they would support the nomination. All Democrats are expected to vote “yes.”



40 Years Later Chappaquiddick Just Distant Memory

By Don

http://www.aim.org/don-irvine-blog/40-years-later-chappaquiddick-just-distant-memory/

Forty years ago today Sen. Ted Kennedy left a party on the island of Chappaquiddick in Martha's Vineyard with a young female passenger to catch the ferry. Instead of heading towards the ferry he somehow managed to drive his car in the wrong direction, then failed to navigate the car over a wooden bridge and wound up upside down in the water.

Kennedy who claimed that he made several unsuccessful attempts to rescue his passenger the 27-year old Mary Jo Kopechne managed to make it safely out of the water and then returned to the party to get help from two other men at the party. After failing in their attempts to help Miss Kopechne Kennedy instructed the men to return to the party and told them he would handle the situation from there. He did so by returning to his hotel room and falling asleep. The next morning at 10 am he reported the accident and it was far too late by then to save Miss Kopechne.

Despite the fact that he was responsible for the death of a young woman, the only punishment Kennedy received was the suspension of his driver's license for one year. He did plead guilty to leaving the scene of an accident but was given a suspended sentence. A grand jury investigation into the incident failed to yield an indictment.

Kennedy also paid the Kopechne family $90,000 in compensation and then went on his merry way winning re-election in 1970 just a little more than one year after the accident.

To this day several questions remain unanswered.

How did he not notice he was driving the wrong way on an unpaved road?
Was he drunk?
Why did he bypass several homes to get help choosing instead to go back to the party house?
Why didn't he report the accident immediately?
Could Mary Jo Kopechne have been saved?
These are just a few of the many questions that I think the public deserves an answer to.

One would think that with the mainstream media's love affair with scandals like Watergate or the Keating Five and their subsequent anniversaries that maybe they would take a similar interest in Chappaquiddick as it reached another milestone. But obviously That would be putting too much trust in the liberal media to not show its bias especially when it comes to the Kennedy's. A google search today found few if any stories in the mainstream press about this anniversary. Newsweek made a brief reference as did a few other publications, but by and large the media is sweeping this under the rug just like they have ever since it first happened.

As an aside let me say that 30 years ago I took a trip with my father, Les Kinsolving and his son to Martha's Vineyard as a member of the Mary Jo Kopechne Memorial Society to commemerate the anniversary of the accident. We tried to hand out flyers and were chased out of shops, we tried meeting with the local newspaper run by the Reston family and were rebuffed but we were also undaunted. On the day of the anniversary we erected a sign at the Dike bridge where the accident occurred complete with a memorial service conducted by Les Kinsolving who also threw a wreath over the bridge in memory of Mary Jo Kopechne. Needless to say the sign lasted less than a day and the crowd at the bridge was less than friendly. I learned during that trip that the Kennedy's could do no wrong and that despite the mysterious circumstances surrounding that fateful night the residents didn't really care. No public outcry means no real investigation.

It is a fair bet that we will never know what really happened that night and will be forever speculating on the events that led to the tragic death of a young woman at the hands of a U.S. Senator and as time goes on it will sink deeper into the background to the point of being totally forgotten. And that is a real tragedy.



"The e-mail Bag"

WORLD'S EASIEST QUIZ

(Passing requires 4 correct answers) NO PEEKING

1) How long did the Hundred Years' War last?

2) Which country makes Panama hats?

3) From which animal do we get cat gut?

4) In which month do Russians celebrate the October Revolution?

5) What is a camel's hair brush made of?

6) The Canary Islands in the Pacific are named after what animal?

7) What was King George VI's first name?

8) What color is a purple finch?

9) Where are Chinese gooseberries from?

10) What is the color of the black box in a commercial airplane?


Remember, you need 4 correct answers to pass.


Check your answers below.


ANSWERS TO THE QUIZ

1) How long did the Hundred Years War last? 116 years

2) Which country makes Panama hats? Ecuador

3) From which animal do we get catgut? Sheep and Horses

4) In which month do Russians celebrate the October Revolution? November

5) What is a camel's hair brush made of? Squirrel fur

6) The Canary Islands in the Pacific are named after what animal? Dogs

7) What was King George VI's first name? Albert

8) What color is a purple finch? Crimson

9) Where are Chinese gooseberries from? New Zealand

10) What is the color of the black box in a commercial airplane? Orange (of course)