The Republican Club of Sun City N E W S L E T T E R

May 2015

Everett Schmidt, Editor Sun City Texas

rcsctx.com

(Subjects Of Reports In This Issue: The Evacuation of Saigon; Is Lying Now Accepted As Virtue?; Club Donates “Essential Elements” Booklets To Vacation School; Will Court Rulings Hasten The Secularization of America? Science Makes Case For God)

 

PARTICIPANT IN 1975 EVACUATION OF SAIGON TO ADDRESS CLUB

April 30, 1975 Marks the 40th Anniversary of the Evacuation and the End of the Vietnam War

Bill Kelberlau, the Intelligence Officer on the aircraft carrier USS Hancock during the evacuation of the US Embassy in Saigon in 1975, will address the club during its dinner meeting scheduled for Thursday, May 14 in the ballroom of the Social Center in Sun City.

The evacuation of the embassy began around April 28, 1975 and was concluded on April 30, 1975, a date now commemorated as the fortieth anniversary of that event, and the date generally recognized as the one which brought the Vietnam War to a close.

The American Embassy was defended from the North Vietnamese forces by American military and some South Vietnamese; however, Saigon itself was defended primarily by South Vietnamese forces, the American military having started a gradual withdrawal  of troops from Vietnam in 1969 as directed by President Nixon after he took office that year.

Because the area’s airport could no longer accommodate fixed-wing aircraft, about the only means of escape – other than small boats which might be available – were helicopters which moved evacuees from the roof of the American Embassy primarily to an American aircraft carrier stationed in the South China Sea, the USS Hancock, where our speaker was on duty as the ship’s Intelligence Officer.

In that capacity, he could closely observe and participate in that evacuation. His presentation at the club’s dinner meeting will be a description  – with photographs – of that tension-filled and historic event.

The Social Period, Dinner and Program. A social period will begin at 6:00 p.m. The dinner will begin at 6:30 p.m. and will be followed by the program. The dinner will consist of grilled chicken breast with white wine glaze, roasted pork tenderloin with assorted sauces, red skinned mashed potatoes with cream gravy, ultimate green bean casserole, dinner rolls, cookies, iced tea, lemonade and coffee.

Cost. Cost is $16 per person. Checks made out to “The Republican Club of Sun City” should be mailed to: The Republican Club of Sun City, 1530 Sun City Blvd., Suite 120, Box 227, Georgetown, TX 78633. The deadline for payment or reservations is Friday, May 8.

Bill Harron, treasurer, has set up a special collection box on his front porch at 125 Stetson Trail for individuals wishing to hand-deliver payments, with the proviso that the Friday deadline has been met. For information about reservations, contact Bill at 512-864-0965 or Bharron@aol.com

VISITORS ARE WELCOME!

 

STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION MEMBER TO ADDRESS CLUB IN JUNE

Tom Maynard, member of the State Board of Education representing District 10, will address the club during its dinner meeting scheduled for Thursday, June 4.

Information about this meeting will be provided in the June newsletter.

 

OTHER CLUB NEWS

Vice president (for membership) John Congden reports that current membership stands at 257.

Treasurer Bill Harron reports that 145 individuals attended the March 12 dinner meeting with an estimated additional 10-12 individuals attending as observers.

Corrections to March newsletter: The state GOP convention is scheduled for May 12-14, 2016 (not May 6-8, as was reported). The convention will select 155 delegates (not 108, as reported) to the national convention.

 

SOME HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENTS PRECEDING THE EVACUATION

Foreword. In order to provide some context for this report are the following selected accounts of some of more significant developments involving the US in the Vietnam conflict, from the diplomatic efforts after World War II to contain the spread of communism, to certain military actions, to the behavior of the press in reporting that war, to Lyndon Johnson’s refusal to run for re-election, to Ronald Reagan’s comments about the war.

The Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO). SEATO was established in February of 1955 and involved the U.S., Australia, New Zealand, Britain, France Pakistan, Thailand and the Philippines. Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos were accorded observer status.

SEATO was established primarily at Washington’s instigation in the aftermath of the French military defeat at Dien Bien Phu in northern Vietnam in April of 1954. It was part of an emerging global US led containment strategy directed at the the Soviet Union and “international communism” generally.

The main significance of SEATO may have been that it formalized the U. S. commitment to Southeast Asia, at a time when the administration of Dwight Eisenhower (1953-1960) had embarked on an increasingly costly attempt to help turn the Republic of Vietnam (South Vietnam) into a stable noncommunist nation-state; however, the organization itself played no direct role in the conflict in that part of the world.

(Source: Dictionary of American History)

The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. The U. S. war in Vietnam essentially began on August 4, 1964 when North Vietnam ostensibly made an unprovoked torpedo boat attack upon two Navy ships while they were steaming peacefully on the high seas in the Gulf of Tonkin.

There had been a U. S. military presence in Vienam before then, at a time when soldiers were called “military advisors;” however, the August 4 attack reported by then-president Lyndon Johnson led to congressional action that allowed him (and, later, President Nixon) to escalate our military presence enormously, and to wage full-scale war not only in Vietnam but also covertly across Southeast Asia. That action was the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, passed on August 7, 1964. It stated in part:

 

Now, therefore, be it Resolved . . . that the Congress approves and supports the determination of the President,

as Commander in Chief, to take all necessary measures to repel any armed attack against the forces of the United States

and to prevent further aggression.

 

The veracity of the claim of an attack by the North Vietnamese has been questioned. In an interview with the Washington Post well after the ending of hostilities, former Vietnam-era Defense Secretary Robert McNamara said he was now sure the August 4 attack never happened.

(Source: John White, The New American)

The 1968 Tet Offensive. The 1968 Tet Offensive is generally recognized as the watershed event of the U. S. war in Vietnam. The outcome of the offensive ultimately led to a major shift in American strategy from trying to defeat the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese Army to finding a way to disengage from the conflict. That being said, the Tet Offensive was a crushing defeat for the Communist forces.

The timing, magnitude, and violence of the attacks had achieved maximum surprise and had caught the South Vietnamese and America forces almost totally off guard. Despite Cronkite’s consternation [see following section], the allies had quickly recovered from the initial surprise.

The offensive was actually a costly military defeat for the the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese, whose casualties, by some estimates, would total more than 58,000 by year’s end. However, the early reporting of a smashing Communist victory went largely uncorrected in the media, and this contributed to a great psychological victory for the Communists.

(Source: James Wilbanks, U. S. News and World Report)

Walter Cronkite’s Remarks of February, 1968. Walter Cronkite’s remarks at the end of his February 27, 1968 evening news broadcast were a watershed event in the credibility of the media. Some of his remarks were these:

 

Who won and who lost in the great Tet offensive against the cities? I’m not sure. The Vietcong did not win by a

knockout, but neither did we. The referees of history may make it a draw.

It seems now more certain that ever that the bloody experience of Vietnam is to end in stalemate.

But it is increasingly clear to this reporter that the only rational way out then will be to negotiate, not as

victors, but as honorable people who lived up to their pledge to defend democracy, and did the best they could.

 

Today, it’s hard to fully appreciate the stature and status Cronkite held in 1968. When President Johnson heard of Cronkite’s comments, he was quoted as saying, “That’s it. If I’ve lost Cronkike, I’ve lost middle America.” Following in a critique of the  significance of Cronkite’s comments – which represented a departure from the norm – by Lee Cary writing for The American Thinker:

 

He overtly and figuratively stepped out from behind the microphone to add his personal commentary to the

news. We had not seen this before. By doing so, Cronkite issued an implicit license to his journalistic colleagues to

interject personal opinions into their factual reporting of the news. The difference is that Cronkite clearly labeled it as

personal opinion, while many MSM news personalities today weave their opinions into reporting. His sentiment

registered with many, perhaps most, of his viewers that night. He changed opinions by offering his own.

(Source: Lee Cary, The American Thinker)

 

The Decision of LBJ Not to Run for Re-Election. In the concluding remarks of his address to the nation on March 31, 1969, President Johnson said this:

 

What we won when all of our people united just must not now be lost in suspicion, distrust, selfishness, and

politics among any of our people. Believing this as I do, I have concluded that I should not permit the Presidency to

become involved in the partisan divisions that are developing in this political year.

With America’s sons in the fields far away, with America’s future under challenge right here at home, with our

hopes and the world’s hopes for peace in the balance every day. I do not believe that I should devote an hour or a day of

my time to any personal partisan causes or to any duties other than the awesome duties of this office – the Presidency

of your country.

Accordingly, I shall not seek, and I will not accept, the nomination of my  party for another term as your

               President.

 

Suggestive of the criticism of reporting behavior of Cronkite provided by Cary (above) is the report of James Jones, LBJ’s Chief of Staff, who, in 1988, stated that Johnson was greatly concerned about “the discrepancy between Government reports and news stories in The New York Times written from Vietnam. The President mused aloud on more than one occasion that either the Times reporter, R. W. Apple Jr., was working for the enemy or that our Government’s intelligence apparatus was misleading him.”

Jones also contended that while the real reason for Johnson’s withdrawal was Vietnam, Johnson, as events unfolded in 1968, continued to talk about his family, including reference to the fact that his father and grandfather had each died of heart failure at age 64. Ironically, some 4 years after his withdrawal, Johnson died of a heart attack on his ranch – at the age of 64.

(Source: James Jones, The New York Times)

 

EPILOG

 

American became involved in the Vietnam War, in the Korean War and in various aspects of the Cold War in an effort to contain the expansion of Soviet Communist; however, the brutality of the communism of that era may not be understood today. In part, this may be because the younger generations, not being alive at the time, could not have experienced the tension and fear which then existed because of the communist threat. Further, with the secularization and growing socialism of today, there is less tendency to resist communism or, alternatively, to even embrace some of its tenets as appears to be the case with the current administration.

Columnist Walter Williams, however, dramatizes the brutality of the communism of that era when he points out, “The former USSR is the world’s premier murderer: Between 1917 and 1987, the USSR murdered 65 million people. Red China comes in second place with a murder count of 35 million. If we were to include Cambodia, North Korea, Vietnam and other socialist/communist countries, the murder toll exceeded 97 million people.”

What accounts for the brutality of the communists? Alexander Solzhenitsyn, a former prisoner in a gulag and a brilliant writer, may have an answer. He states: “Within the philosophical system of Marx and Lenin and at the heart of their psychology, hatred of God is the principal driving force, more fundamental than all their political and economic pretensions . . .To achieve its diabolical ends, communism needs to control a population devoid of religious and national feelings, and this entails a destruction of faith and nationhood.”

Although the military serving in the Vietnam War has had many critics, Ronald Reagan, a decade or more later, lashed back at those critics, saying probably in reference to the media, “Finally, history is catching up with what has to be our most lied about war . . .” At another occasion, he commented on the nation’s involvement in that war, and the shabby treatment some of our veterans received at home, saying:

 

It is time we recognized that ours was, in truth, a noble cause. A small country newly free from colonial rule

sought our help in establishing self-rule and the means of self-defense against a totalitarian neighbor bent on conquest.

We dishonor the memory of 50,000 young Americans who died in that cause when we give way to feeling of guilt as if we

were doing something shameful, and we have been shabby in our treatment of those who returned. They fought as well

and as bravely as any Americans have ever fought in any war. They deserve our gratitude, our respect, and our

continuing concern.

There is a lesson for all of us in Vietnam. If we are forced to fight, we must have the means and the

determination to prevail or we will not have what it takes to secure the peace. And while we are at it, let us tell those who

fought in that war that we will never again ask young men to fight and possibly die in a war our government is afraid

to let them win.

 

IS LYING NOW ACCEPTED AS VIRTUE?

Are Democrats and Republicans Equally Guilty of Lying?

Foreword. The reader may recall the accusation, made without any supporting evidence, made by Harry Reid during the 2012 presidential election that Mitt Romney hadn’t paid taxes during the previous 10 years. When challenged on a lack of justification for his charge, Reid, instead of supplying that information, said, “Let him prove he has paid taxes, because he has not,” and later, when told that many considered his behavior to be “McCarthyite,” he defiantly said, “They can call it whatever they want. Romney didn’t win, did he?” When White House press secretary Josh Earnest was recently asked if Reid’s lie should be condemned, he unbelievably dismissed the matter by saying, “Not for something that’s three years old!”

The host of outright lies by Reid and other Democrats which have been perpetrated on the public form the foundation of this report which focuses on two issues: (1) have Democrats and Republicans been equally guilty of lying?  and (2) Why has the acceptance of lying – if not the admiration of lying – come about in this nation?

The Importance of This Report. Columnist David Limbaugh probably reflects the sentiments of virtually all conservative Republicans when he says in regard to the claim that both parties equally lie, “I’m also weary of the intellectual laziness and cynicism that cause so many, including on the right, to let this type of statement stand, unchallenged.” Concerned about the deleterious effect of lying by elected officials on the best interests of the nation, Limbaugh says, “This is an insidious path we’re on, for when you effectively glorify lying in politics,  you are disenfranchising the people.”

Do Democrats and Republicans Equally Lie? A rhetorical question for the reader: Can he or she cite any incidents of lying on the part of Republicans equal in number or in seriousness to the following partial list of some of the more notorious acts of lying or deception by Democrats of rank:

• The primary election of 1948 when Lyndon Johnson – who was complicit in the coverup of fraud – won his race by 87 votes which suddenly appeared several days after the election.
• Bill Clinton lying under oath in a court proceeding about his affair with an intern.
• Obama’s lies too numerous to mention, including lies about Americans being able to keep their insurance and their doctors, and many other lies suggesting he is a pathological liar.
• Hillary Clinton’s lies – also too numerous and to well-publicized to mention here.
• Harry Reid, while Senate majority leader, lying about Romney not paying taxes, as reported above.
• Four of Illinois’ last 7 governors were convicted and sent to prison.

Why the Seeming Toleration of Hillary Clinton’s Lies? Wall Street Journal columnist Bret Stephens, in an op-ed piece titled “Hillary and the Liberal Way of Lying,” offers the following rationale to the question just posed: “For you and me, the Clinton lies were statements demonstrably at variance with the truth . . But to the “initiated” [those smart enough to see through it all] . . . lying was for the greater good, usually to fend off some form of Republican malevolence . . .Why moralize when they [her supporters] could collude?”

Perception v. Truth Regarding Racial Matters. Columnist Dennis Praeger submits some observations regarding the damage which follows when perception is substituted for truth: “Many blacks see racism almost everywhere – especially in arrest, conviction, incarceration rates, and in white police interactions with blacks. On the other hand, whites (especially whites who are not on the left) think that white racism has largely been conquered.”

Continues Praeger: “It is difficult to overstate how damaging [the reliance upon perception alone] is. It denies the very existence of the two pillars of civilization – objective truth and moral truth.” With the left, neither truth nor morality exists. Like truth, morality is just perception. Consequently, in the aftermath of the riots which followed Ferguson’s grand jury decision, there is only black perception and white perception.

The Application of Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals by Leftists. Alinsky’s book has been and continuies to be the “Bible” for much of the left, including Obama, Hillary Clinton and other leftists. Consistent with much of the foregoing, Alinsky states that the organizer or politician “does not have a fixed truth – truth to him is relative and changing.” Is It possible that  Alinsky’s teaching accounts for much of the lying – now at or approaching a pathological level – as practiced by Obama and Clinton?

But Alinsky’s advice extends beyond merely defining truth; it extends to aggressive tactics which have been used by leftists for their purpose. Columnist Pete Peterson, writing in the Wall Street Journal, describes some of tactics he had noted:

Arizona Rep. Raul Grijalva, the ranking Democrat on the House Natural Resources Committee, sent letters to seven university presidents ostensibly seeking information on their professors who had given congressional testimony that failed  to endorse the left’s wisdom about climate change, an agenda item for leftists. But the inquiry was not for information; it was for the purpose of intimidating, as Alinsky advocated.

Targeting institutions and their leaders (the presidents) –  instead of the professors – is pure Alinsky. And

so are the scare tactics . . .such as asking if the professors had accepted funding from oil companies, and then following the initial inquiry with phone calls. A relevant Alinsky rule now comes into play: “Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.”

In addition, the congressman’s office arranged additional pressure by notifying national and local media that theses professors were under “investigation.” On the day the letters went out, the Washington Post blared: “House Dems: Did Big Oil Seek to Sway Scientists in Climate Debate?”

And yet another Alinsky rule comes into play. Alinsky recommended irreverence, ridicule and deception, saying, “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it.”

How did Alinsky’s tactics gain such traction? To understand the answer, one must be aware that when there is a fair debate forum, the conservatives, being more realistic and logical and less emotional, may have the stronger argument. The left, not always able to respond to intellectual challenge, is forced to employ Alinsky tactics. Further: “What has happened is that a generation of American politicians who came of age during Alinsky’s lifetime has moved into positions of institutional power that Alinsky so often derided as ‘the enemy.’”

The Muslim Doctrine Taqiyya. Conservatives must not only contend with leftists, they must also contend with a doctrine of the Muslims called Taqiyya which encourages Muslims to lie if, in the opinion of the liar, telling the lie will be “good” for Islam. The Quran allows Muslims to have a declared or a secret agenda.

Conclusions. Limbaugh contends, “It’s inevitable that the side that believes in moral relativism and the end-justifies-the-means would lie more often.” Currently, one side exhibits more and more hostility toward the Judeo-Christian tenets, while the other side is aware of and can feel pangs of conscience by the Commandment, “Do Not Bear False Witness,” which Praeger contends should be controlling in all situations, saying:

 

The most important ingredient to building  a moral society is truth, both inside and outside a courtroom. The

prohibition against “bearing false witness” does not only demands that truth reign supreme in a trial, but that it is a

societal value throughout the culture. Bad things happen when people believe lies. With truth, we can build a decent

society. Without it, even the other nine commandments won’t help.

 

CLUB DONATES “ESSENTIAL LIBERTY” BOOKLETS

TO VACATION LIBERTY SCHOOL

A supply of the booklet titled “Essential Liberty” – the booklet containing the Declaration, Constitution and historical information issued to club members – was recently donated by the club to the Vacation Liberty School which is scheduled to meet in July. A “thank you” note from the school staff stated that having copies of the Constitution and Declaration will “help develop patriots.”

According to information on the school’s web site, the school provides a program designed for children ages 7 to 12. The children will learn about the role of faith in the Revolutionary War, see how faith influenced the founding fathers, learn the story of the Constitutional Convention, and learn of other related matters.

The booklets appear ideal to help the school meet those learning objectives, for in addition to revealing the full text of the Declaration and the Constitution, the booklet reveals quotations of the founders – which can provide the basis of interesting discussion – and historical matters. Further, the explanation of certain important topics are especially valuable inasmuch as they reflect the original thinking of the founders themselves on those subjects. This is important because the beliefs of our founders have by now been distorted considerably by court decisions and a leftist educational system. The distortion of the “separation of church and state” phrase is but one example.

Following is a sampling of topics and quotes of founding fathers published in the booklet:

Sons of Liberty – The Fight for Freedom

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” -Thomas Jefferson

 

“Endowed by their Creator”

“In the supposed state of nature, all men are equally bound by the laws of nature, or to speak more properly, the laws of the Creator,” – Samuel Adams

 

The Rule of Law

“They define a republic to be a government of laws, and not of men.” – John Adams

 

Socialism and the Welfare State

“I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means.  I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I traveled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for  them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.” -Benjamin Franklin

 

“A republic, if you can keep it”

Our new Constitution is now established, and has an appearance that promises permanency; but in this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes.” – Benjamin Franklin

 

Some reflection on those aspects of the school’s curriculum concerning faith can be instructive. While there can be no denying – with credibility – by religious, non-religious or anti-religious individuals that the nation’s founding was based largely on Judeo-Christian tenets, it is instructive to note that the teaching of those tenets in the public (or government) schools may be seriously compromised or even non-existent today.

There are several reasons why this is so, including wrongly-decided court rulings (like the separation of church and state), a general hostility toward Christianity by much of the public, a likelihood of complaints by parents who now resist the influence of religion, and a liberal education establishment.

Newt Gingrich, a former educator, explains the growing number of younger citizens who are virtually illiterate about the nation’s religious heritage, and explains further the problem of teachers gaining knowledge of that heritage:

 

The secular left has a problem. They dislike – and in may cases – fear America’s religious heritage. But how can they talk about America without talking about the role of faith in shaping our country? The answer is: they can’t. So they simply ignore the topic of American history altogether. If you don’t want to teach about divine providence, you don’t have to teach about those words in the Declaration of Independence that we are “endowed by [our] Creator with certain unalienable rights . . .”

 

In regard to a related matter, it is important to note that numerous studies reveal that the political and philosophical preferences of faculty are skewed to the left. For example, a 2005 survey of 1,643 full-time faculty at 183 universities and colleges found that 72% identified themselves as liberal or left wing, as compared to only 15% who identified themselves as conservative or right-wing. The differences are even greater in certain fields. For example, 81% of the professors in the humanities described themselves as liberal, as did 75% of those in the social services. More recent studies are very likely to reveal an even more striking separation to which can be added now a downright hostility toward Christian students.

(Note: Club members needing a copy of the booklet should contact vice president John Congdon.)

 

WILL RECENT COURT RULINGS HASTEN

THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A SECULAR HUMANIST IDEOLOGY?

Various court rulings, in various jurisdictions, are contrary to traditional Judeo-Christian ideology, especially those involving life, marriage, and various LGTB matters. Already, a number of churches have modified their teachings on these and other matters as if to, if effect, repudiate much, if not all, of the tenets of the Judeo-Christian ideology. (Ideology is defined as “a systemic body of concepts about human life or culture.”)

This development has, it turn, enhanced the standing of a competing ideology, one known as Secular Humanism, an ideology which has been codified into a document known as the Humanist Manifesto of which the original version dates well back into the previous century.

Following are excerpts from the Humanist Manifesto of 2000. The reader may be stunned at the extent to which its tenets have already infiltrated society.

ATHEISM.

We find insufficient evidence for belief in the existence of a supernatural; it is either meaningless or irrelevant to the question of the survival and fulfillment of the human race. As nontheists, we begin with humans not God, nature not deity. But we can discover no divine purpose or providence for the human species. The unique message of humanism on the current world scene is its commitment to scientific naturalism.

EVOLUTION

Humanism believes that man is a part of nature and that he has emerged as the result of a continuous process. Science affirms that the human species is an emergence from natural evolutionary forces. The scientific theory of evolution, however, provides a more parsimonious account of human origins and is based upon evidence drawn from a wide range of sciences.

 

AMORALITY

We affirm that moral values derive their source from human experience. Ethics is autonomous and situational, needing no theological or ideological sanction. Ethics stem from human need and interest. To deny this distorts the whole basis of life. In the area of sexuality, we believe that intolerant attitudes, often cultivated by orthodox religious and puritanical cultures, unduly repress sexual conduct.

 

SOCIALISTIC ONE-WORLD GOVERNMENT

We deplore the division of humankind on nationalistic grounds. We have reached a turning point in human history where the best option is to transcend the limits of national sovereignty and to move toward the building of a world community in which all sectors of the human family can participate. Thus we look to the development of a system of world law and world order based upon transnational federal government. The world needs at some point in the future to establish an effective World Parliament – and elected to it based on population – which represents the people, not their governments.

We recommend an international system of taxation. This world community must renounce the resort to violence and force as a method of solving international disputes. War is obsolete.

 

SCIENCE INCREASINGLY MAKES THE CASE FOR GOD

Eric Metaxas, author of the widely-read book, Bonhoeffer, wrote an op-ed piece titled “Science Increasingly Makes the Case for God” which appeared in a December 2014 issue of The Wall Street Journal. In it he describes that astrophysicists “now know that the values of the four fundamental forces – gravity, the electromagnetic force, and the “strong” and “week” nuclear forces – were determined less that one millionth of a second after the big bang,” and that if any of the forces had been off “by the tiniest fraction of the the tiniest fraction . . . then no stars could have ever been formed at all.” Metaxas thus begins to provide evidence that a “designer” is at work.

Fred Hoyle, the astronomer who coined the term “big bang,” said that his atheism was “greatly shaken” and conceded that “a common-sense interpretation of the facts suggest [there is] a “super-intellect.” Other scientists state in one form or another that “the appearance of design is overwhelming” and that the “hypothesis that there is a creator . . .gains more credibility.”

Metaxas reports that his op-ed piece went “viral,” and that there were numerous objections to it from some in the scientific community. But he also reports there was considerable support.

There has been another discovery which, like the discoveries just reported involving the universe, also supports evidence of a designer or creator. That evidence, termed “intelligent design,” is illustrated by the following description of the fantastically complex – one too complex to be developed by the natural selection process of evolution – propulsion device in the bacteria known as E.coli:

 

a microminiaturized rotary motor and propeller system that drives a tiny vessel through liquid. The engine and

drive mechanism are composed of 40 parts, including a rotor, stator, stator, driveshaft, bushings, universal joint, and

flexible propeller. The engine is powered by a flow of ions, can rotate at up to 100,000 rpm (ten times faster that a

NASCAR racing engine), and can reverse direction in a quarter of a rotation. This system comes with an automatic

feedback control mechanism. The engine itself is about 1/100,000th of an inch wide – far smaller that can be seen by

the human eye.

 

With those two discoveries, there is now the potential that the evolutionary theory – which could not account for them – may crumble like a house of cards, and maybe Secular Humanism with it. Author David Noebel provides these bases for considering that possibility: (1) Without the theory of evolution, the Humanist would have to rely on God as the explanation for life, which would necessarily destroy his atheism and hence his Humanism, (2) “Survival of the fittest” is a major tenet of Darwinism; however, the only moral stemming from it is survival – a concept which is bloodthirsty, and one not caring for the poor, (3) To admit that life cannot arise from non-life would shake the worldviews of secular humanists to the very foundation, and (4) There is no evidence that mankind and society are moving toward perfection. In fact, there is evidence to the contrary, of devolution.

Could an understanding of these discoveries by citizens help stem the drift away from the tenets of the nation’s founding?

 

NOTES ON THE PASSING SCENE

(Some random observations on this crazy world in which we live)

According to The Advocate, club member and Justice of the Peace for Precinct 3 Bill Gravell was elected President of the Central Texas Justice of the Peace and Constables Association. With 2000 members, this association is the largest group of elected officials in Texas. Its primary mission is to educate and train JPs, constables and court clerks. As president, Gravell will also speak to House and Senate members in regard to various matters of concern, including truancy and child protection laws.

In addition, because of savings of money and space which came about through the use of technology, the staff of his court has been recognized by Tyler Technology as the “Best in Texas.”

California’s unique election laws may produce a primary ballot with no Republican Senate candidates. Under California’s new primary system enacted in 2010, all candidates run in a nonpartisan primary, and the two candidates who receive the most votes face off in the general election regardless of party affiliation.

With Republicans compromising just 28% of the statewide electorate, there is a good chance that the top two candidates will be Democrats.

While GOP presidential candidates have already been “politiking” for several weeks, we can expect a noticeable uptick in their efforts as a series of presidential debates on TV draws closer. The first of these debates is but a few months away – in August, in an event hosted by Fox News – with one or more of such events scheduled for each of the subsequent months of 2015. At least 4 debates are scheduled for January and February, 2016.