No He Can’t

I had this forwarded to me in an email recently. I read it and wondered to myself immediately if it was real. I have a mind to be skeptical of whatever it is that I read and I immediately assumed that this was probably written by a white Republican trying to make a point. So I researched a bit and found that everyone from Lew Rockwell to other WordPress sites have reprinted it. Once I found it to be verified, I decided that I was going to share it with my readers because this lady says it so succinctly and certainly better than I could have done if I had sat down and written a letter like this.

What I am always worried about is the fact that so many Americans today are not thinking before they open their mouth, or fill in that oval on the ballot form. We are faced today with a government that is massive in proportion. We are faced with a public that is so overwhelmed with finding a way to survive that they don’t have time to think about what is happening. More importantly they are not taking the time to think critically about what the long term implications are for the actions they ask government to take today. 

He Addresses the Congregation

He Addresses the Congregation

Let me give you an example: Back in the days I discussed in the recent “March to Socialism Part 3” post, Americans were desperate, and they wanted government to do something, anything to put food on their table. And as a result, the welfare system as we know it was created. And it has destroyed America. It created a dependency on government that has evolved into the apathy and demands for socialism that we see today. Americans then did not realize that the small actions by government then would create a dependency class in America that would continue to grow and eat away at the American spirit. Americans went from a people that grudgingly accepted charity to a people that angrily demand more of it because they feel they are entitled to it. THAT is what welfare does. And THAT is why I want the welfare system as it exists eliminated completely in America. 

One more example from today’s world. I have seen the debates rage on this site between the Christians and those less devout as to the role religion should play in today’s America. I understand the sentiment. Christians are good people, and they would like their “good people” rules applied to to everyone. But they fail to understand that giving that power to government can have unintended consequences. The majority in America opposes abortion, and so do I. And that majority would have government outlaw it, but I say no way. If we do that, we give the government the right to legislate a religious belief. And once we give them that right, they would then have the right to make it a legal requirement later if the majority feels that abortions are not only moral, but needed. Christians imagine how you would feel if your views became the minority and were outlawed. It seems extreme to lay it out that way but I feel as though extreme is the only way to break through the fog. That is why I oppose legislating religion.

It is this failure to see what the unintended consequences of our choices today are that has gotten us to the point that we are in now. Citizens concerned only with “now” and not thinking about later. If they thought about unintended consequences, the global warming folks might demand a bit more proof that man causes it or that man is capable of affecting it before they give government the control they are demanding. If they thought about the dependent culture welfare creates they might not demand so much of our income gets redistributed to those who don’t work for it. Anne Wortham has thought about the future, and she doesn’t like what she sees. And I am right there with her. 

Anne Wortham

Anne Wortham

Anne Wortham is Associate Professor of  Sociology at Illinois State University and continuing Visiting Scholar at Stanford University ‘s Hoover Institution.  She is a member of the American Sociological Association and the American Philosophical Association.  She has been a John M. Olin Foundation Faculty Fellow, and honored as a Distinguished Alumni of the Year by the National Association for Equal Opportunity in Higher Education.

She has published numerous articles on the implications of individual rights for civil rights policy, and is currently writing a book on theories of social and cultural marginality.  Recently,  she has published articles on the significance of multiculturalism and Afrocentricism in education, the politics of victimization and the social and political impact ofpolitical correctness.

So read and enjoy, a letter from Anne Wortham (with pictures I added) entitled:

“No He Can’t”

Fellow Americans,

Please know: I am black; I grew up in the segregated South. I did not vote for Barack Obama; I wrote in Ron Paul’s name as my choice for president. Most importantly, I am not race conscious. I do not require a black president to know that I am a person of worth, and that life is worth living. I do not require a black president to love the ideal of America.


Oprah and Friend Grant Park

Oprah and Friend Grant Park

I cannot join you in your celebration. I feel no elation. There is no smile on my face. I am not jumping with joy. There are no tears of triumph in my eyes.

For such emotions and behavior to come from me, I would have to deny all that I know about the requirements of human flourishing and survival – all that I know about the history of the United States of America, all that I know about American race relations, and all that I know about Barack Obama as a politician.

I would have to deny the nature of the “change” that Obama asserts has come to America. Most importantly, I would have to abnegate my certain understanding that you have chosen to sprint down the road to serfdom that we have been on for over a century. I would have to pretend that individual liberty has no value for the success of a human life. I would have to evade your rejection of the slender reed of capitalism on which your success and mine depend.


Jackson at Grant Park

Jackson at Grant Park

I would have to think it somehow rational that 94 percent of the 12 million blacks in this country voted for a man because he looks like them (that blacks are permitted to play the race card), and that they were joined by self-declared “progressive” whites who voted for him because he doesn’t look like them. I would have to be wipe my mind clean of all that I know about the kind of people who have advised and taught Barack Obama and will fill posts in his administration – political intellectuals like my former colleagues at the Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government.

I would have to believe that “fairness” is equivalent of justice. I would have to believe that man who asks me to “go forward in a new spirit of service, in a new service of sacrifice” is speaking in my interest. I would have to accept the premise of a man that economic prosperity comes from the “bottom up,” and who arrogantly believes that he can will it into existence by the use of government force. I would have to admire a man who thinks the standard of living of the masses can be improved by destroying the most productive and the generators of wealth.


Grant Park, 11/04/2008

Grant Park, 11/04/2008

Finally, Americans, I would have to erase from my consciousness the scene of 125,000 screaming, crying, cheering people in Grant Park, Chicago irrationally chanting “Yes We Can!” Finally, I would have to wipe all memory of all the times I have heard politicians, pundits, journalists, editorialists, bloggers and intellectuals declare that capitalism is dead – and no one, including especially Alan Greenspan, objected to their assumption that the particular version of the anti-capitalistic mentality that they want to replace with their own version of anti-capitalism is anything remotely equivalent to capitalism.


Hanoi Jane

Hanoi Jane

So you have made history, Americans. You and your children have elected a black man to the office of the president of the United States, the wounded giant of the world. The battle between John Wayne and Jane Fonda is over – and that Fonda won. Eugene McCarthy and George McGovern must be very happy men. Jimmie Carter, too. And the Kennedys have at last gotten their Kennedy look-a-like.

The self-righteous welfare statists in the suburbs can feel warm moments of satisfaction for having elected a black person. So, toast yourselves: 60s countercultural radicals, 80s yuppies and 90s bourgeois bohemians. Toast yourselves, Black America. Shout your glee Harvard, Princeton, Yale, Duke, Stanford, and Berkeley. You have elected not an individual who is qualified to be president, but a black man who, like the pragmatist Franklin Roosevelt, promises to – Do Something! You now have someone who has picked up the baton of Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society.

But you have also foolishly traded your freedom and mine – what little there is left – for the chance to feel good. There is nothing in me that can share your happy obliviousness.

No He Can’t.

Obama 2008

November 6, 2008


  1. Bravo!
    She put feelings and intelligent thought into words to describe exactly how a true patriot such as she has analyzed the election fiasco that has brought us Obamaism.
    I can’t help but identify to how she feels.Her essay is both full of emotional patriotism and thoughtful anaylisis.

  2. Wow. I’m speechless…she said it all. Can’t wait for her book.

  3. Great article! Finally someone that has played the race card and can’t be called racist for doing so.

    USW, I am a Christian and I do not want to impose my religious beliefs via the government on everyone–I agree, too much power for the government. However, I do not see how anti-abortion is a specific Christian belief. Sure, the Bible says ‘do not murder,’ and I believe that abortion is morally wrong; but this country was founded on anti-murder. I believe abortion should be outlawed because it violates “the life and liberty” (Constitution) of that small person inside the womb–not because the Bible tells me to forbid it (although that helps my conscience).

    • First let me say I disagree with US’s premise of the majority of America being antiabortion. I also don’t think we were founded on anti-murder; we began with a violent revolution.

      But anyway, yes I agree that the issue is not soley christian nor soley religious. Once we get past religion, the argument becomes when does a person obtain legal rights of a person, which is a sound legal argument. I don’t really want to debate that as you won’t change my opinion and I won’t change yours. I just feel that once anyone having a legal argument invokes religion the debate is over as logic and law is no longer being discuss.d

      • So what you’re saying Skot is that men like George Washington, John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, John Hancock and Benjamin Franklin couldn’t have had any legal arguements involving religious debate since there would be no logic used?The men that wrote the Constitution, Declaration of Independence, and Articles of Confederation never had a logical religious debate? LOL

        The end result justifies the means used in referance to your statement that this country was not founded on anti-murder.Go read the papers listed above then come back and tell me how you could even think this country was not founded with anti-murder being a principle.That’s just utterly ridiculous.

      • Murder and killing are two very different words. They must not be used interchangeably.

      • OK ok, forget the bs anti-murder it was fluff anyways. Although my religious comments… I am sure our founding fathers had many a great debate on religion and other unworldly things. I also bet that their beliefs influenced our founding articles. However, while having a discussion on the merit of laws and regulations of a wordly state, religion should have no sway. It is my opinion that once one states that theirs is the true argument because their invisible friend says so, YES, I believe logic has been thrown out the window.

        • I’d be damned if religion did not influence our founding articles. Have you forgotten why this country was formed? why the colonists wanted to leave England? The whole issue of taxes didn’t come for another 100 years or so. We came to this chunk of land for religious freedom from the Church of England. I’d say that religion was top of their minds when it came to founding this nation.

          Correspondingly, I find it hard to imagine a time when religion was not infused with the state. Why does the state regulate marriage? It, too, is solely religious. (anti)Murder, however, while religious, is not solely religious. What I’m trying to say is that the argument to keep religion out of government (i.e. what you say is abortion) is futile because religion will always be interspersed with the government and everyone in it.

          • I would believe it safe to say that the majority of our American cultural mores and our American societies criminal laws can be linked back to the religious beliefs of the founding fathers but suffice it to say we have had this discussion under the topic “Silencing Christianity” and it doesn’t pertain to this topic today so lets not hi-jack the thread!

          • David –
            First, let me quote myself: “I also bet that their beliefs influenced our founding articles.” So don’t be damned.

            Second, yes religion will be “interspersed” with govt, politics, whatever. BUT my point was that once someone not only uses their beliefs as an influence for legistlature but goes further as to say “I believe this because GOD blah blah, and I’m right” the debate is over because no logic can convince a god-fearing man otherwise. If the only merits of an argument are because god says it is so, that arguement has little merit.

        • Religion aside, I don’t believe government belongs in my body. While I would not have one myself, I think it’s a personal decision.

          • I would think the personal decision would be at the time of consenting to have unprotected sex with a partner, with the possibility of conceiving a child; rather than the option of having an abortion after the fact when that unborn child had been conceived.You are essentially taking away the oppurunity that we as adults have had to experience and enjoy life from an unborn human thats only crime was having irresponsible parents.

            • True. (Even though protected sex is not 100% either)
              I should have expressed my point better. Comming from a communist country, I am extremely sensitive to gov’t in my personal life. : )

        • Skot stated:”However, while having a discussion on the merit of laws and regulations of a wordly state, religion should have no sway.”

          My reply to this at post #8

      • To too take offense at the premiss that this is a religious issue. My thoughts on this go beyond my Religion to the rule of law. Please explain to me how it can be murder if another person take the life of the unborn by accident or by commiting another crime (murder or assult) but it is not murder if the mother chooses to take the life of the unborn. It is like having 2 laws that are completely contradictory. There may be instances where it is necessary to take the life of the unborn…but that should be the courts or Doctors place to find that not me. But if we are going to charge John Doe with manslaughter when he kills the unborn in an auto accident or while commiting another crime…..why do we not charge a mother who wantonly takes the life of the unborn?

        • esomhillgazette says:

          I have brought that very fact up myself before in an Article of US’s. I don’t understand it either.

        • That is a great point… I never really thought of that, truly. I guess I would argue that the death of a fetus by another would be infringing on the mother’s right as it is her body whereas it is the mother’s body, so an abortion would be fine because it is her choice, as self mutilation is not a crime.

          • Maybe…but, I still have never understood…because taking a life is still taking a life. So under that resoning if a woman was on her way to do away with the baby and some one did something and she lost the baby then they could only be tried for one murder or if the mom lived just assult, even though the baby lost it’s life? I don’t think the law gives the mother the option of prosecuting or not in those instances So they have laid out a double standard that makes no sense to me.

            • I really don’t know. If a woman who jumps off a bridge in order to commit suicide was shot to death in mid-air by a man, should the man be persecuted for murder? The woman was killing herself anyway.

  4. The mainstream media wouldn’t do it. So we are trying to get your important messages to the American people. 8 This post is a suggested read at,

  5. Christine Gravel says:

    This so well written. I am speechless. I would read the book !!!

  6. Thank you for sharing this USW; I’ll pass it on.

  7. esomhillgazette says:

    She said it better than I ever could. No matter how I, as a white person, could possibly have said that very thing; I would have been branded by some who read it as a racist. She, as a Black Woman CAN say it, though I still feel as if some who read it will call her Racist names like “Uncle Tom”. But those people are fools. I too would love to read her book. She, like our fellow blogger Nubian, are two ladies I would really like to meet and talk to! I feel they could answer questions that I could not ask just any person of color. And asking questions is the FIRST step in achieving a true understanding of different races and cultures. As long as there is no understanding, there will always be Racism; in BOTH directions.

    US. I too have to disagree with you that Abortion is a Religious issue. However, I DO think that we will never overturn Roe v. Wade simply because there can never be dialogue about this issue without Religion being thrown into the discussion. And there I actually agree with Skot, that once that happens, Pro-Life loses. I don’t like Abortion. I think Abortion is plain murder. I believe life begins at Conception. I also believe that the woman makes her “choice” when she lays down and has sex with a man. I know what you’re thinking out there, it takes two to make a baby. But it only takes the woman to get pregnant. That is Human Life. That is the Facts of Life. And that small life is all that concerns me. But I can argue this all day. It won’t change what is. But it may one day be left to the States to decide, which I feel is the right move. Or at least a step in the right direction.

    That is my belief.

    Peace and Smilies to All, EHG

    • esomhillgazette says:

      After thinking about it I would REALLY like to have Nubian’s response to this Article. After reading her posts on your site US, I think she could give a unique perspective of Ms. Wortham’s letter.

    • CanadianFox says:

      EHG, I am not sure how to say this because I know how “passionate” people are who do not think abortion should be allowed. But I am going to try. One statistic that pro-life people like to use in their arguments is that 50,000,000 fetuses have been aborted in the USA (not sure how long of time frame). With our current rate of unemployment being close to 15% do you realze how many more people today might be on the unemployment rolls? Now you seem to like history as do most people on this blog. What do you think one of the reasons countries have gone to war in the past for? How many recent wars have been fought (not by us) because the economy was terrible and too many able bodied males were out of work- and their was extreme UNREST. Do you really believe that those “ethnic cleansing” wars are just about cultural differences? Now you put another 7,500,000 (15% of 50 million) on the streets of our country and what do you think would happen? I only use this example to open the discussion to a wider point of view and make you think. Many, many people would not agree with you that life begins at conception. Many people are concerned that a woman or mother should have a choice as to whether that potential life can be properly cared for if born. They would also be concerned that that woman should have access to proper health care to keep her safe. In addition, the pro-life movement has hurt itself because of people in their own group who object to sex education, distribution of birth control etc. And they have even injected it into the political arena so that it affects other countries that depend on us to provide help to control the spread of STD’s and more unwanted and unneeded children. So what I am attempting to do here is to help you understand that there is more to it than the “small life is all that concerns you”. And that is why I believe that we were given our greatest gift – our minds – so we can think in bigger picture terms. But most of all I do not believe the topic belongs in politics anymore. It is like what you said above – it is what it is. We have much more pressing issues to solve with those of us on this planet now and for the ones who will be born and not aborted. Sorry if I upset you, but I do not believe it is a “simple, black and white” issue. That law, in my opinion will never be overturned. And all this topic has done is divide people, tear parties churches apart.

      • OK, try this one on for size. If the damn border had been secured in 1973 or thereabout, Reagan would not have had to do an amnesty. Had there not been an amnesty, there would not have been another 12 to 30 million flooding over the border so that we have to have the amnesty debate all over again.

        Assuming for a moment that all my illegals and their offspring over the last 40 years do not add up to your 50 million aborted “fetuses” (a much easier word to use than babies), how about the lack of abortion on demand leading to more careful and responsible sex. Put those together, and the current US population would probably be below what it is now.

        Every time I raise the border fence issue with someone of a liberal (I don’t care what you call it) stripe. I get complete and utter silence. Be it guns, gang violence, overpopulation, drugs, scarce resources, Public Health or whatever, I get the same dumb silence. What say you? Willing to fence the border to cut down on population growth and save us from those wars? Let me know, a simple yes or no will do. It is quite a simple question.

        Jeez, pregnancy and Aids, the two most preventable things in the world. We can’t even control them here and you want us on a crusade around the world?

        Just once on these debates I wish I would run into some linear connect the damn dots thinking.

        • CanadianFox says:

          Sk, but you are not talking reality on this one. If businesses do not play by the rules on immigration how do you stop the illegals? If you do not want more government intervention and have to pay more taxes for it, how can the borders of our huge country ever be secured? That 50 million number was just the USA alone. Look at the other countries numbers of aborted fetuses (or babies), then look at the “finite” resources that continue to dwindle. Overpopulation of countries (especially those ill equipped to handle it with their culture or economy) will always be a huge, complicated problem – even for established nations. I am just pointing out there are no easy solutions and everyone needs to be aware of how overpopulation affects everyone in the world. Abortion has been practiced for many centuries especially in countries that do not have a lot of more sophisticated options. It is a huge problem that cannot be settled by a law. Choice I think will always be with us.

          • See, you can’t do it. You just can’t agree that the border should be shut. Maybe some day when a new strain of some disgusting disease comes across, or a bio-weapon, or Mexico completely collapses and 2/3rds of their population makes a run for the border then, just maybe, you might agree. Even then I doubt it because you are a true “citizen of the world”.

            Son, this country mobilized 16 million people in the armed forces between 1942-1945 with less than half it’s current population. Everybody else got into war production. It built the Panama Canal 100 years ago, and wiped out Yellow fever along the way. It virtually wiped out Polio, went to the Moon and rebuilt Europe and Japan after the war.

            This country could do anything it wants to do, including sealing the border, and do it tomorrow afternoon.

            Businesses not playing by the rules? Throw them in jail, auction their assets but, if you sealed the border, there would ultimately be no one to hire now wouldn’t there? Linear thinking my friend, linear thinking.

            The answer to overpopulation is education and economic progress. look at Europe’s birthrate and ours for that matter. We don’t need ten kids to tend out goats or hoe our crops. So, we don’t have them. Basically only first generation immigrants do that in this country still having their mindset overseas somewhere. Their kids don’t think that way.

            Regarding Taxes, yes,I and I think most others who are against ILLEGAL immigration would be willing to pay more. We also know that once we succeed, as we did in WW 2, those taxes would go away. The nice thing about the Southwest, for an old Combat Engineer like myself it that the area lendsitself to interdiction really well. Beats the hell out of mountains and jungles.

            • CanadianFox says:

              SK, I am probably as old as you and have traveled extensively to both of our “neighboring” countries. Do you really understand the “magnitude” of the task of shutting down the borders? If you object to government involvement now, this does seem a consistent argument coming from you. Have you any idea the government “jobs” that would be created and perpetuated with that move?

              • Yep,

                But then again, WW 2, the Panama Canal, the Appolo program were all pretty big too. The duty of the damn government is to protect the borders. Giving out food stamps is not. As previously stated, once you finish construction of the moat, fence, wall, whatever, the cost of monitoring goes down.

                Here, look at it as a highway program. Build a 6 lane highway on our side of the border. It will open up tons of new jobs. It will open up whole new areas for recreation. Then, to protect our neighbors to the south from noise pollution build a noise barrier the length of the highway. Simple no?

                Nothing is impossible if it hasn’t been tried. I wish folks would understand that. It’s too easy to say it “can’t” be done. It’s a cop out or worse. Actually, if it can’t be done, we are finished as a nation.

                While it may offend the sensibilities of some, I don’t yet see the necessity of a Northern fence. As soon as millions of poor illegals start pouring over from Cabnad, drug merchants and all, I will worry about building that fence.

              • CanadianFox says:

                Sorry SK, unless you are going to go back and reinstitute the “draft” – and no politician in their right mind will touch that one – the argument is a non-starter.

              • Actually Charlie Rangel tried to touch it but then chickened out.

                You are using really selective perception here on responding to me. The Panama Canal was built under Army Corps of Engineers supervision by civilians. Off hand it was a bigger project than a border fence.

                Should you want to actually use the military, there is the National Guard and Texas, Arizona, New Mexico also have state guards or militias.

                Let us all remember the Obama chant, “Yes we can, Yes we can!”

                Again, if it ain’t been tried, you don’t know it won’t work. This, ain’t been tried.

  8. U.S.Stated: Christians are good people, and they would like their “good people” rules applied to to everyone. But they fail to understand that giving that power to government can have unintended consequences. The majority in America opposes abortion, and so do I. And that majority would have government outlaw it, but I say no way. If we do that, we give the government the right to legislate a religious belief.

    If your arguement of government not pulling from religious beliefs were true then the legislated beliefs of murder, stealing, libel and monogamy should be taken out of our criminal laws as well since they are christian religious beliefs?While were at it lets change up the work week and work from Sunday to Thursday?

    The Bible, with its high morals and absolutes of right and wrong, coupled with mercy, forgiveness, acceptance and a savior for eternal life — who brings consolation and coherence — has been America’s historical foundation and source of common law. Without a high moral standard to lead, we are lost in the abyss of unknowns and instability.There has to be a standard to pull morals and what is right/wrong else’ how could you define a law?

    But I digress, we’ve had this discussion already!

    • Murder, theft, and libel encroach on others’ freedom. I was unaware the monagamy (or rather adultery) was criminalised. I do not believe anyone is saying that our govt cannot have laws that coicide with scripture. I am NOT saying we should not allow marriage because god does allow it. I am saying that we should not create laws whose only justification is religious.

      Sorry to not let you digress (and/or hijack this thread), but discussions and dialogues need to repeat and evolve lest we never change our minds about anything.

      • Skot stated:
        “Murder, theft, and libel encroach on others’ freedom.”

        So…are you saying that abortion is not encroaching upon the freedoms of an unborn child that has the rights of all that entails being a human being but can not even speak to defend themselves?

        • Yes I am. I do not share your beliefs that an unborn child has said rights.

          • TexasChem says:

            So… if a divorced woman was in labor and about to give birth and her estranged husband forced his way into the room and killed her and the baby would he be charged with a double homicide since the baby was minutes from birth?

            There is no plausible arguement that can dispute the fact that at the time of conception you are dealing with a living seperate human being from the mother.Her body nourishes the child yes but the child is still a seperate entity.Therefore it is murder to abort that child.

            • Careful there Texas…

              There is no plausible arguement that can dispute the fact that at the time of conception you are dealing with a living seperate human being from the mother.Her body nourishes the child yes but the child is still a seperate entity.Therefore it is murder to abort that child.

              But you are incorrect. There is no plausible argument that you would accept. Because of your beliefs, you accept no plausible arguments. What if the reality is that a child is not a separate human being until it is capable of living and developing on its own outside the mother? That is a plausible argument. You will refuse to accept it because it differs with your religious belief, but that does not make it “not plausible”. I only wish that many of the pro-life movement spent a fraction of the time trying to stop the murder of the born as they do trying to stop the murder of the unborn.

              I will ask the question, but don’t give me an answer just yet. I will provide an abortion debate article THIS week, as it seems to be coming up a lot in the threads. If I provide that forum can we all agree to keep the debate there rather than letting it spill into so many other threads?

              So the question for you to have an answer to when I post that article, is where did you find, in the word of god, the answer to where life begins?

              • TexasChem says:

                US stated:
                So the question for you to have an answer to when I post that article, is where did you find, in the word of god, the answer to where life begins?

                I’m not basing my conclusions on religion I am basing it on scientific fact.

  9. I don’t know how you do it USW, read my mind that is, but you seem to manage to go on topics that I have thought about deeply in the previous 72 or so hours.

    I tend to think a lot and it gets me in trouble with just about everyone. My patron saint is Cassandra, daughter of Priam, King of Troy (for those of you who didn’t have to read and re-read the “Iliad” in High School and College, she’s the one that had bad vibes about bringing in the damn wood horse) . Unfortunately they don’t strike medals in her honor or I would wear one.

    Anne Wortham has written a wonderfully precise article but I would like to take her argument back further in time. She touched on it. The “veneration” of Obama. Previous comments including that of USW bring in the bogeyman of “religion”. If we do X,Y or Z suddenly we have become a Theocracy or worse, the government adopts our religious views and outlaws all others. Where exactly did this scare tactic originate? How did we get to the point where the discussion of religion or religious beliefs in the Public arena is a bad thing? Did it start with “Inherit the Wind”? I hope not, Spencer Tracy, playing the Darrow part was a flawed but observant Catholic and would have been appalled at some of the recent commentary I’ve heard on the play/movie.

    In any event, the thrust of my comment is that with the weakening hold religion has on American and Western society, that “need” we seem to all have for something greater than us has been transferred from religion to other things.

    All you have to do on weekends is sit and watch C-Span (no knock on C-Span intended). We have the Gay’s advocating Gay Marriage, The abortionists advocating for unrestricted abortion, the greens demanding we all more or less freeze to death in the dark to “save” the planet, the anti-smoking zealots willing to almost kill you to stamp out smoking and save your life, and of course, those who will go to any length, launch any lawsuit to prevent the mere mention of God in Public.

    We can all look at the above causes and see their merits or not but their supporters are nothing less than rabid. Rational discourse is gone, period. Disagree and you are shunned, become anathema, and they will, ring the bell, slam the book shut and blow out the candle for you in any organization you may have belonged to where you have failed to jump off the cliff with your fellow members. Think scientists who disagree with Man made Global Warming here.

    Secular Humanism has become the new religion, health, the environment, gayness, greenness, abortion, hedonism, and atheism are the sacraments. What we have been looking for we have found, the high priest of our new religion.

    I know people complained about the Hitler=Obama signs at the tea parties and I too think that was dumb but the religious fervor I see in the supporters of the above causes remind me of nothing so much as Nazism. The crowds at Grant Park, while not being as well dressed or orderly as those at Nurenberg eighty years ago, still could not be mistaken for anything but what they were, worship of the leader. If all these causes manage to permanently coalesce around Obama, we have very big trouble on our hands.

    Am I off base? ,

    • Well said S.K.

      The standards, mores’, and values of society have been lowered with the about face belief of having no standard to draw from.Right/wrong has become a grey line in our society that should be erased.

      • esomhillgazette says:

        Not only are ya’ll right, but it will continue to get worse as time goes on because of that “No standard to draw from”.

    • I think you are off base a bit. Well more but……

      Let’s start where I agree. The cult of personality following Obama is scary. He does kinda have the whole fearless leader thing going for him. Yet, I wouldn’t equate him to hitler as I feel Bush was far more fascist and I don’t think Bush was hitler either (well…..).

      Now to disagree, allow me to describe the three things that frightened me while I was in DC for Obama’s inauguration (Yes, I went and it was an awesome spectacle.)

      1. The mindless chanting of Obama, Obama, Obama….
      2. The booing of a former president who (for all my problems with him, still) left office as legally required of him.
      3. The reciting of the Lord’s prayer by a crowd of millions.

      Let’s skip 2 because it doesn’t prove my point. Both 1 and 3 scared the hell out of me, as I felt I was alone in a sea of people brainwashed. Maybe it’s because I’m not a christian, or maybe it’s because a million people speaking symultaniously seems eerily totalitarianesque.

      Either way, I think you are wrong to assume lack of religion means lack of morals, ethics, standards, laws… Or that because I am an athiest (agnostic) I am in need of something else in which to cling.

      • Skot,

        Do not take what I said the wrong way. I would not equate Obama with Hitler but the movement and his supporters remind me of those beautifully staged and cathartic Nazi propaganda events. As a former student of psychology, I was reluctant to say before what I felt I was watching. Looking at them, you could feel their orgasm. I know that’s disgusting and not fit to print but I feel it’s true.

        A lack of religion does not preclude morality. You can be a very moral atheist. Morality, proper behavior, comes from a willingness to respect the rights of others. It sort of reminds me of the honor codes at the academies” I will not lie, cheat or steal or tolerate those who do” No moral relativism, absolutes only.

        In college my best friend was an atheist and later, a member of the ethical culture society. We used to thrash this stuff out on almost a daily basis. I feel we learned a lot from each other.

        Re: the Lord’s Prayer. Yes, I could see where you would have a problem with that. As a prayer though it’s pretty good. Covers all monotheistic religions and tells us to do good things like forgive those who have trespassed against us. But, as in all prayer, it can’t be rote, it has to mean something.

    • SK,

      What a well written reply. I don’t know if you are off base or not when it comes to the secularism of Americans. I want to make sure that I am understanding you correctly, so allow me a moment to summarize… You believe that the decline of the church in America is what created the void? And that void has been filled by the secular groups you discussed. And what we have seen now is the rise of a messiah to lead those secular groups. Is that an accurate summary?

      I have never considered this exact line of thinking so I am going to have to ponder it for a bit. I would be really interested in having you expand and clarify this thought process in a guest commentary. I think it is well worth exploring. And I think the discussions that could come from it would be noteworthy as well. It usually takes about 1000-1500 words for an article. Some longer, some shorter. Would you be interested? If you aren’t I can try to decipher your exact meanings and write a post myself, but I think you would do a better job with it.

      • Thank you for the compliment USW, don’t know if I have the time.

        I have pondered the issue for some time. Seems to me that there is a point in Western civilization, including our own when we more or less gave up on God and Churches. Prior to that we were a pretty God fearing bunch and acted accordingly.

        It seems to be a twentieth century phenomena. I can track two roots. The first is education, it is more or less universal and has led us to believe that we can know and understand everything. This may be hubris on our part. I do not think that a belief in science has to exclude a belief in Giod but a lot of others do.

        The second root, which may be related to the first is WW 1. That damned butcher shop killed off an entire generation. Those left became the very cynical lost generation. If you study the difference between WW1 and WW2 US soldiers it is like night and day. The Joyce Kilmer, fighting 69th Rah, Rah enthusiasm is completely missing in the cynical WW2 Willie and Joe These guys knew their dads were hoodwinked in fighting the war to end all wars. France and England also eager participants in WW1 were not so enthusiastic twenty years later.

        The only exception to the rule was our friends the Nazi’s. They seemed to be out front in, for want of a better word, de-christianization. As I alluded to before, man seems to need something to look up to, a higher authority or a greater thing. For Germany in the 1920’s it was the Nazi party. The guys who put it together were brilliant. It had all the trappings of a religion, rituals, vestments, symbols. Just the ticket to capture the peoples imagination. Their God, the party, demanded war, demanded the pagan bloodlust and they willingly walked into it. Sieg Heiling all the way.

        If you have never seen “Triumph of the Will” you have to invest ten minutes at least in it. I am fairly resistant to “hero” worship and don’t speak a word of German yet that damn documentary can make you want to pull on your jackboots, slip on the armband and go out and invade Poland or at least beat somebody up.

        Liberals, conservatives or libertarians all seem willing to chuck religion from the Public Square. Exactly when did that happen? You counter them by pointing out the Constitution does not rule out religion, merely the government’s support of a particular religion and you draw the equivilent of a blank stare. The Propaganda machine has managed to blur a very real and obvious difference. Over the weekend I was reading a little book called “The Irish in New York”. Back in the mid 1800’s, The Protestants ran Public Schools, Hospitals and orphanages in NYC. They even had something called “orphan trains” where young children were sent west to be raised by farm families. The Catholic Church took exception to these good works since they were designed to convert catholics to protestantism as much as help the poor and indigent. Bishop Hughes of NY City countered the protestant programs by launching catholic schools, hospitals and orphanages. So, 150 years ago, market forces were at work countering religious excesses within government. Now, this seems to me to be ideal, let the free market decide. That’s how I come to support vouchers. we are going to spend the money anyway, why not let people take it and use it as they want.

        Getting back to your point, I do believe that all the movements, abortion, environment, anti-smoking, anti-religion are interrelated. There are exceptions. But, by and large, if you did a poll, 90% or more would be in synch on all these issues. Let me add on “citizen of the world” and opposition to any border control. It is always “impossible” or “impractical”. The one thing that has been missing is a leader, a fuhrer who can bring these groups together. I think, based on the first 90 days, we have found one. I mean, when Chris Matthews can actually say on the air that he gets a “tingle up his leg”. You know we are in deep shit land.

        • SK, you offer some great points here. I’ve wondered at the complete adulation of so many and have thought, “what is missing in their lives to make them act this way towards a mere human, a politician no less”? I know it would take some time, but I’d encourage you to take up USW’s suggestion of a guest appearance. I’d like to hear more on this.

  10. STAND UP AND CHEER!!!! APPLAUSE! Ms Wortham does an excellant job. There are still people here in America that make race an issue (white & black) but not me. My reasons for not voting for Obama had nothing to do with color…..I hated his politics and from what he had written and the people he associated with I believed him to be counter to what I believed, regardless of how he and others portrayed him (especially the media). She is a very refreshing voice of reason….I too may hunt up her book when it comes out.

    • esomhillgazette says:

      Amazed, I too, voted against him because he was the exact opposite of everything I believed in. First, I was right. And Second, I am still right. But contrary to what anyone else thinks, I did not consider race. In fact I believe the exact opposite. Had he had my beliefs, his skin color would not have been an issue at all. It is what’s inside a person that is important, not his outside appearance.

  11. Did some research. (shock)

    Found out that Anne Wortham is an “Anti-Theist” . . . ?

    Among other things, that “title” would alienate her from most of her colleagues in the intellectual world of the bastions of higher education that she is associated with. Do a google search of her name and you will see what I mean. I found it quite interesting.

    Like USW, once I read the “letter” I immediately became very suspicious as to its authenticity. Quite a few sites on the Internet that deal with myths and urban legends are somewhat biased politically, so I Googled her name and found one that said I could e-mail her. So I did. I hope USW did as well. I am waiting for an answer, and as soon as I get it I will post it here.

    • Rowe, How would being what is in effect an uber atheist alienate you from the Darwinian types at the top of most major universities? I’m not seeing the connection in the slightest.

      • Alan,

        I know that this may sound uneducated, but . . .

        What is an “uber atheist”? I have never encountered that description before, to be honest with you.

        I know that those who are “Darwinian” in their beliefs cannot decide exactly how life came about, and a theist believes that life came about through the actions of a superior deity or entity. At least that is how it was explained to me some time ago.

        Her alienation would be on the political, not the religious, since most of those(please correct me if I am wrong) who are intellectual types of the major universities tend to be Marxist in their political beliefs – which is exactly what Obama is.

    • Here is the e-mail that I received from Ann Wortham today along with the one that I sent requesting confirmation of the authenticity of the letter published here. Not that I do not believe that USW would publish anything that was false, but that since I have received an e-mail chain letter previously and could not confirm it. KUDOS to this lady for stating her beliefs and sticking to them. That is what needs to be done by many folks in this country now. – GAR –

      Dear G. A. Rowe,
      This is to confirm that I did write the letter which was originally published on Many thanks for your interest.
      Anne Wortham

      At 03:40 PM 4/19/2009, you wrote:

      Dear Ms Wortham,

      I have recieved numerous emails with this letter included and stating that you did write it. Considering that a lot of things sent around the email circuit are just plain false, naturally I became suspicious as to the authenticity of this letter.

      Keeping that in mind, I am inquiring for confirmation from you since I have found this website that purports to have an email address that would reach you.

      I thank you in advance for your indulgence in this matter.

      G. A. Rowe

  12. Responding to the abortion debate above, here is how I view the issue in a manner consistent with my own moral beliefs (which amounts to simply do whatever you want as long as you don’t affect someone else’s ability to do the same).

    It’s pretty simple. The mother has the right to expel the child from her body at any time. If the child cannot survive outside the mother’s body, that’s its problem. If it can, then every effort should be made to keep it alive.

    And to whomever was arguing that it is always the woman’s choice to get pregnant via having sex, that’s obviously not true in rape cases, and unless you believe that it’s ok to kill rape babies but not other ones then that entire line of reasoning is invalid.

  13. Mr. US Weapon, I have recently found your site so I am very far behind. I would like to express my graditude for contributing such an excellent letter. I don’t know how many are white or black or whatever that are here ( I am white ), but I do know I am very proud of that lady. She left race out of the picture and thought only of her country. That is a true patriot. Only if all american’s could do the same. I have to wonder if our country will ever be OK with just a two party system. White black green or red, we have to put the people in the oval office that are for the people. We have to somehow take this country back for our children.

%d bloggers like this: