John Carpenter’s American Vision

By John W. Whitehead

“I’m disgusted by what we’ve become in America. I truly believe there is brain death in this country. Everything we see is designed to sell us something. The only thing they want to do is take our money.”—John Carpenter

There are only a handful of directors whose films can be identified as “theirs.” John Carpenter is one of those.

In style, in composition, in technique, in sound and even in mood and texture, Carpenter rarely strays from his personal ethnos. Known primarily for their horror themes, Carpenter’s films inevitably feature pulse-pounding soundtracks, slow-moving camera work and hair-raising jolts to the nervous system as evil pops into the foreground with unexpected intensity.

Often missed by those seeking a good scare, Carpenter’s films are infused with a strong anti-authoritarian, laconic bent. Carpenter, as author John Muir writes in The Films of John Carpenter, sees the government working against its own citizens. Carpenter is a skeptic and critic. But “a close view of Carpenter’s work reveals a romantic streak beneath the skepticism,” writes Muir, “a belief down deep—far below the anti-establishment hatred—that a single committed and idealistic person can make a difference, even if society does not recognize that person as valuable or good.”

In fact, Carpenter’s central characters are always out of step with their times. Underneath their machismo, they “still believe in America” and the ideals of liberty and equal opportunity. Their beliefs place them in constant opposition with the law and the establishment, but they are nonetheless true patriots. When, for example, John Nada destroys the alien hyno-transmitter in They Live, he restores hope by delivering America a wake-up call for freedom.

This is the theme that runs throughout Carpenter’s films—the belief in American ideals and in people. “He believes that man can do better,” writes Muir, “and his heroes consistently prove that worthy goals (such as saving the Earth from malevolent shape-shifters) can be accomplished, but only through individuality.”

The following are ten of my favorite Carpenter films.

1. Assault on Precinct 13 (1976): This is a remake of Howard Hawks’ 1959 classic western Rio Bravo—much beloved by Carpenter. A street gang and assorted criminals surround and assault a police station. Paranoia abounds as the police are attacked from all sides and can see no way out.

2. Halloween (1978): This low-budget horror masterpiece launched Carpenter’s career. Acclaimed as the most successful independent motion picture of all time, the story centers on a deranged youth who returns to his hometown to conduct a murderous rampage after fifteen years in an asylum. This film is the beginning of the modern slasher film and has been remade many times, but none come close to the original.

3. The Fog (1980): This is a disturbing ghost story made in the mode of Alfred Hitchcock’s The Birds (1963). Here the menace besieging a small town is not a pack of winged pests but rather a deadly fog bank that cloaks vengeful, faceless, evil spirits.

4. Escape from New York (1981): This is the ultimate urban nightmare. A ruined Manhattan of the future is an anarchic prison for America’s worst criminals. When the U.S. president is captured as a hostage, the government sends a disgraced, rebellious war hero into Manhattan in what seems to be an impossible rescue mission.

5. The Thing (1982): Considered by many as Carpenter’s best film, this is a remake of the 1951 sci-fi classic of the same name. A team of scientists in a remote Antarctic outpost discover a buried spaceship with a ravenous, mutating alien that eventually creates a claustrophic, paranoid environment within their compound. The social commentary is obvious as the horrible creature literally erupts and bursts out of human flesh throughout the film. Are we all aliens?

6. Christine (1983): This film adaptation of Stephen King’s novel finds a young man with a classic automobile that is demonically possessed. The car, representing technology with a will of its own, goes on a murderous rampage.

7. Starman (1984): An alien from an advanced civilization takes on the guise of a young widow’s recently deceased husband. The couple then takes off on a long drive to rendezvous with the alien spacecraft so he can return home. A beautiful science fiction romance that earned Jeff Bridges an Academy Award nomination for best actor.

8. Big Trouble in Little China (1986): A trucker, who walks and talks like John Wayne, finds himself in an underworld battle in San Francisco’s Chinatown with an army of spirits. This is Carpenter’s parody of the action film and one of his favorite genres, the kung fu movie.

9. They Live (1988): A drifter discovers that an alien conspiracy has taken over America. This film suggests that the Reagan Revolution and yuppie movement of the 1980s were actually the result of an invasion by greedy, skeletal aliens. A great commentary on the use of subliminal advertising to control the populace.

10. In the Mouth of Madness (1995): A successful horror novelist’s fans become so engrossed in his stories that they slip into dementia and carry out the grisly acts depicted in his books. When this film was being conceived, conservative politicians were criticizing horror movies for promoting violence. This film parodied that argument. As Carpenter said, “This ludicrous argument that television/video violence is the cause of society’s ills. When I was growing up it was horror comics that said, ‘Religion seeks discipline through fear.’ That’s what this current moral crusade is all about. Government under God, and you only have to look at Iran to see where this avenue of thought ends up.”

Thus, in Carpenter’s view, the real enemies of freedom—the real aliens—are us. As one of Carpenter’s characters concludes in They Live: “Maybe they’ve always been with us…those things out there. Maybe they love seeing us hate each other; watching us kill each other off; feeding on our own cold…hearts.”

Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. He can be contacted at johnw@rutherford.org. Information about The Rutherford Institute is available at www.rutherford.org.

John W. Whitehead: Would You Risk It All for Freedom?

By John W. Whitehead

“Dissent is the greatest form of patriotism.”—Thomas Jefferson

Let me tell you a story about 56 men who risked everything—their fortunes and their lives—to take a stand for truth.

These men laid everything on the line, pledged it all— “our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor”—because they believed in a radical idea: that all people are created to be free. They believed that the rights we possess are, in their words, given to us by the Creator. At the heart of these rights is freedom. The freedom to speak, to think and to stand up for ideas—even when it’s not popular to do so, even when it’s dangerous to do so.

Labeled traitors, these men were charged with treason, a crime punishable by death. For some, their acts of rebellion would cost them their homes and their fortunes. For others, it would be the ultimate price—their lives. Yet even knowing the heavy price they might have to pay, these men dared to speak up when silence could not be tolerated.

Their signatures, famously scribbled on a piece of parchment, expressed their unfettered willingness to speak out against the most powerful empire in the world. These 56 men were the signers of the Declaration of Independence.

Some we remember for their later accomplishments—such as Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, both of whom went on to serve as American presidents. But there were others—such as Lewis Morris, Carter Braxton, Thomas Nelson and Richard Stockton—who do not often get mentioned, who sought not glory but rather a cause. They knew that sacrifice was necessary to secure freedom, and they were willing to make the sacrifice.

Lewis Morris lost his entire estate. The British ravaged and destroyed it, sending his family fleeing in desperation with nowhere to go.

Carter Braxton’s entire career and way of life were decimated. Losing his ships to the British Navy, his shipping company was forever lost and he was never able to revive it.

Thomas Nelson’s price for liberty was to the tune of $2 million—and that was in 1776. He ran up the $2 million credit debt for the “Patriots’ Cause.” In the end, repaying the debt cost him his entire estate. He died bankrupt and was buried in an unmarked grave.

Richard Stockton paid dearly also. Once a prominent judge, he gave up his cherished seat on the bench to fight for liberty. For his decision, he was dragged from his bed and tortured by British soldiers.

All in all, of those 56 signers, 9 died during the Revolution, 5 were captured by British soldiers, 18 had their homes looted and burned by the Red Coats, 2 were wounded in battle and 2 lost their sons during the war. Remarkably, these men—who were community leaders, business owners, judges, lawyers and inventors—sacrificed their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor so that you and I could live freely in a nation where we have the right to stand up and speak out.

There are many more stories of heroic patriots throughout American history who have risked it all to preserve the freedoms we possess. Most of them have come from radically different walks of life—different upbringings, different educations, different ideas. But the one thing that unites them is their love of and commitment to freedom and their willingness to stand up and speak out, no matter the cost. Although many of them lost everything, they were willing to make the sacrifice to raise their voices in truth. They put freedom before their own interests. Because of their bravery in speaking truth to power and their commitment to unwavering principles, history has judged them to be extraordinary.

Thus, it is only right that we should still honor them today. Yet how do we do so? We go through the motions every Fourth of July, spouting patriotic sentiments and putting on displays of national pomp and circumstance that at the end of the day mean nothing. Sadly, as a nation, we have become jaded and apathetic, content to celebrate our independence with cookouts and fireworks but little else.

What we need is a fresh outlook and a renewed commitment to not let the American dream of freedom die. And we need to remember that “citizenship,” as actor Sam Waterston reminded a group of newly minted citizens last year on the Fourth of July, “isn’t just a great privilege and opportunity, though it is all that, it’s also a job.”

Gathered at Monticello, the home of Thomas Jefferson, those new citizens, having migrated to the U.S. from all over the world, took an oath of allegiance to the United States, solemnly swearing to “support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”

I’ve always thought it a shame that Americans born in this country aren’t asked to make a similar pledge of allegiance to our Constitution. Still, pledge or not, we owe it to those who have put their lives on the line for our freedoms to make our citizenship count for something. We need to get educated about our rights. We need to take responsibility for what’s going on around us. And we need to stand up and support those who refuse to remain silent when they see an injustice and who, like those 56 brave men, dare to put it all on the line in order to speak truth to power.

As Waterston pointed out, “We all need to exercise our lungs in the discussion. This is not a job just for the talking heads on TV and the politicians. Nor for moneyed interests, nor for single-issue movements. As the WWI recruiting poster said, ‘Uncle Sam needs you’, needs us.”

Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. He can be contacted at johnw@rutherford.org. Information about The Rutherford Institute is available at www.rutherford.org.

Orwell Cinema: Living in the Land of the Blind

By John W. Whitehead

“If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face.”-—George Orwell

It has been 60 years since George Orwell published his novel 1984. Described as political satire, it is, in reality, a political prophecy.

1984 portrays a global society of total control in which people are not allowed to have thoughts that in any way disagree with the corporate state. There is no personal freedom. Snitches and surveillance cameras are everywhere. And people are subject to the Thought Police, who deal with anyone guilty of such thought crimes. The government, or “Party,” is headed by Big Brother who appears on posters everywhere with the words: “Big Brother is watching you.”

Orwell’s story revolves around Winston Smith, a member of the Outer Party. When Winston meets and falls in love with Julia, they begin seeing each other secretly, thus embarking on an illegal relationship. They are eventually arrested by the Thought Police and placed into reprogramming.

Much of what Orwell envisioned in his futuristic society has now come to pass. Surveillance cameras are everywhere. The government, as we have learned, listens in on our telephone calls and reads our emails. Political correctness—a philosophy that discourages diversity—has become a guiding principle of modern society. Hate crime legislation punishes thoughts. We are increasingly ruled by multi-corporations wedded to the state. And much of the population is either hooked on illegal drugs or ones prescribed by doctors.

All of this has come about with little more than a whimper from a clueless American populace largely comprised of nonreaders and television somnambulists. But we have been warned about this in novels and movies for years. In fact, film may be the best representation of what we now face as a society on the verge of fulfilling Orwell’s prophecy.

The following are ten of my favorite films on the topic.

Fahrenheit 451 (1966). Adapted from Ray Bradbury’s novel and directed by François Truffaut, this film depicts a futuristic society in which books are banned, and firemen ironically are called on to burn contraband books—451° Fahrenheit being the temperature at which books burn. This film is an adept metaphor for our obsessively politically correct society where everyone now pre-censors speech. Here a brainwashed people addicted to television and drugs do little to resist governmental oppressors.

THX 1138 (1970). George Lucas’ directorial debut, this is a somber view of a dehumanized society totally controlled by the state. The people are force-fed drugs to keep them passive, and they no longer have names but only letter/number combinations such as THX 1138. Any citizen who steps out of line is quickly brought into compliance by police equipped with “pain prods”—electro-shock batons. Sound like tasers?

A Clockwork Orange (1971). This masterpiece from director Stanley Kubrick presents a future ruled by sadistic punk gangs and a chaotic government that cracks down on its citizens sporadically. Alex is a violent punk who finds himself in the grinding, crushing wheels of injustice. This film may accurately portray the future of western society that grinds to a halt as oil supplies diminish, environmental crises increase, traditional morality is destroyed and the only thing left is brute force.

Soylent Green (1973). The year is 2022 in an overpopulated New York City. A policeman investigating a murder discovers the grisly truth about what soylent green—the principal food for people—is really made of. The theme is chaos where the world is ruled by ruthless corporations whose only goal is profit.

Blade Runner (1982). In a 21st century Los Angeles, a world-weary cop tracks down a handful of renegade “replicants” (synthetically produced human slaves). Life is now dominated by mega-corporations, and people sleepwalk along rain-drenched streets. This is a world where human life is cheap, where anyone can be exterminated at will. This film questions what it means to be human in an inhuman world.

Nineteen Eighty-Four (1984). The best adaptation of Orwell’s dark tale, this film visualizes the total loss of freedom in a world dominated by technology and its misuse and the crushing inhumanity of an omniscient state.

Brazil (1985). Sharing a similar vision of the near future as 1984 and Franz Kafka’s novel The Trial, this is arguably director Terry Gilliam’s best work, one replete with a merging of the fantastic and stark reality. Here a mother-dominated, hapless clerk takes refuge in flights of fantasy to escape the ordinary drabness of life. The longing for more innocent, free times lies behind the vicious surface of this film.

V for Vendetta (2006). Society is ruled by a corrupt and totalitarian government where everything is run by an abusive secret police. A vigilante named V dons a mask and leads a rebellion against the state.

Children of Men (2006). It is 2027, and the world is without hope since humankind has lost its ability to procreate. Civilization has descended into chaos and is held together by a military state and a government that attempts to keep its totalitarian stronghold on the population. But hope for a new day comes when a woman becomes inexplicably pregnant.

Land of the Blind (2006). This dark political satire is based on several historical incidents in which tyrannical rulers were overthrown by new leaders who proved just as evil. A demented fascist ruler of a troubled land named Everycountry has two main interests: tormenting his underlings and running his country’s movie industry. Citizens who are perceived as questioning the state are sent to “re-education camps” where the state’s concept of reality is drummed into their heads.

Likewise, as Orwell’s novel concludes, Winston and Julia are taken to the Ministry of Love as part of the reprogramming process. Since Winston fears rats, he is tortured with rats until his feelings for Julia are destroyed. As confirmation that he sees the new reality of the state, Winston writes that 2+2=5. The reprogramming is successful. He is cured. As the final sentence of Orwell’s book concludes, “He loved Big Brother.”

Let us hope this is not an epitaph for our times.

Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. He can be contacted at johnw@rutherford.org. Information about The Rutherford Institute is available at www.rutherford.org.

Politicians, Pigs and the Media

By John W. Whitehead

Bill O’Reilly: This is the most fun interview you’ve ever done, I know it is. I can just tell.

Hillary Clinton: I was going to say it’s the most fun interview you’ve ever done.

O’Reilly: It is. Well, I don’t know about that.

Clinton: Come on. Get on the record.

O’Reilly: No, I interviewed Cher one time, and that was just a blast.

Clinton: That must have been really fun.

O’Reilly: That was great.

Clinton: Yes.

O’Reilly: Senator, thanks for taking the time. We really appreciate it.

Clinton: Thanks a lot, Bill.

The last sentence in George Orwell’s novel Animal Farm aptly sums up the state of politics today. As Orwell observed, “No question, now, what had happened to the faces of the pigs. The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.”

This almost surreal merging of two different organisms is epitomized in many ways, but nowhere is it more clearly seen than in the strange political marriage of late between Fox News, known for its right-leaning viewpoint, and the Democrats. They have become, as journalist Brian Stelter writes, “strange bedfellows.” Indeed, Terry McAuliffe, chairman of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s campaign, recently praised Fox as being “fair and balanced.”

For those befuddled by the odd pairing, the New York Times explains: “Fox News and the Democrats abruptly find each other useful.” For Fox, it’s partially about the ratings, while for the Democrats, it’s about reaching out to Fox’s viewing audience, which is largely white, conservative and undecided.

This alliance, while it may seem strange to some, has actually been a long time coming. Just two years ago, in July 2006, conservative media owner Rupert Murdoch, who owns Fox News, hosted a fundraiser for Hillary Clinton at Fox News headquarters in New York City. No cameras were present, and as the New York Daily News reported, Murdoch “tried to keep their political get-together as secret as possible.” Indeed, when it was over, Clinton slipped out a side door.

Considering that Murdoch is known for his financial support of Republican agendas and right-wing causes, this fundraiser caused many on both sides of the political aisle to scratch their heads in bewilderment. One commentator characterized political analysts’ responses as “punditocracy in a tailspin.”

Now Bill O’Reilly has added himself to the cozy mix, with his recent four-part interview with Hillary Clinton that scored high ratings and set a year-to-date viewership record for Fox’s O’Reilly Factor. Yet as the Clinton-O’Reilly interview illustrates, it no longer matters what side of the aisle these politicians claim to hail from because this presidential election has turned into one big game.

But where does that leave the American people?

Most Americans want to believe that the voting process works and that when we elect a president, we’re getting someone who takes the job of representing us seriously—someone who truly cares about finding solutions to our problems and is more interested in representing “we the people” than playing partisan politics.

We also want the media to be square with us and give us the news without some hidden agenda. Unfortunately, the lines have been so blurred between so-called “news items” and entertainment coverage that it’s nearly impossible to get at the truth anymore, let alone stay abreast of what’s really happening in our government.

Above all, most Americans desperately want someone or something to place our faith in, who can offer us even a glimmer of hope that things will get better. That’s why so many people fervently back political candidates or seek guidance from talk show hosts. But as any student of history will tell you, there is little hope to be found there.

For instance, take a close look at the front runners for the White House, and you’ll see that there is really very little difference between them. None of the candidates present any real solutions to the myriad of problems that average Americans must grapple with every day—such as an economic recession, the mortgage crisis, near-crippling gas prices, inflation, soaring food prices, the unbelievably large deficit, never-ending wars, immigrants rushing across the border, ad infinitum.

Furthermore, none of the candidates have made any discernible impact on the nation while in office. Nor do they really represent “the people.” What’s more, these candidates are all members of one of the most corrupt institutions in the history of the United States—the present U.S. Congress. What does it say about Congress that a cross-section of its members are under investigation, criminal or otherwise? Or that many of them routinely work less than a hundred days a year and earn a salary much greater than the average American earns? Or that many of them are multimillionaires with virtually nothing in common with average Americans like you and me?

Little surprise, then, that Americans find themselves dissatisfied with our nation’s leadership and the direction in which they’re moving our country. This country is going to hell in a hand basket, and when all is said and done, the last thing this country needs in the White House is another politician. But that’s unlikely to change this time around. No matter who wins this year’s election, it will still be politics as usual. Thus, if hope is to be found, we’ll have to look elsewhere.

Perhaps the solution for leadership in America lies outside Washington, DC, in the business sector. Certainly, we could use someone in office who understands the importance of running our government efficiently, economically and responsibly.

Bottom line, it’s time for a reality check. Otherwise, we’ll soon find ourselves on the road to nowhere.


Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. He can be contacted at johnw@rutherford.org. Information about The Rutherford Institute is available at www.rutherford.org.

The End of Freedom in America?

By John W. Whitehead

According to the New Jersey ACLU legal director, Marcus Borden has fostered a “destructive environment” for students. What did Borden, a high school football coach in East Brunswick, N.J., and a recipient of the national Caring Coach of the Year award, do to create such a “destructive” environment?

He bowed his head—silently. Sometimes he knelt down on one knee—silently. Coach Borden wasn’t attempting to pray with his football players, nor was he leading them in prayer. He was showing silent respect for their longstanding pre-game tradition by bowing his head.

But the forces of political correctness have gotten so absurd that even the most obscure, non-verbal expressions are targeted for censorship if religion is even remotely involved.

Yet as a student athletic trainer who worked with Borden during his first year as a coach at East Brunswick remarked, “The tradition of student-initiated prayer goes back many, many years. I think with all that is wrong in our schools today, gun violence, bullying, promiscuity, etc., that the energy being spent on Marcus Borden bowing his head and taking a knee is a waste. Here is a man trying to support the youth in his care and be a positive role model and all these administrative yahoos can worry about is his presence in a room with his players while they pray. It is time people stopped obsessing over the positive messages a coach is trying to send and start worrying about the real problems in school today.” Indeed, Borden has been recognized for his efforts to positively impact young people with the Power of Influence Award, given only to deserving high school football coaches for positively impacting their players, schools and communities.

Our schools are in a deplorable state, and our young people are surrounded by dangers on all sides—from premarital sex, school shootings and drug and alcohol abuse to low literacy standards and a lack of understanding about the difference between right and wrong. In light of this, you’d think the schools would be grateful for a teacher who serves as a positive, moral role model for young people. But when religion is involved, even heroes like Borden find themselves under fire.

Pre-game, student-led prayer has been a regular part of football for many years. In fact, East Brunswick High’s practice of player-initiated, pre-game prayer has been in effect for over 25 years, with more than 2,000 former East Brunswick football players opting to voluntarily pray before taking the field on game days. The prayers are a simple, solemn request for safety and honor on the field: “Dear Lord, please guide us today in our quest in our game. Please let us represent our families and our communities well. Lastly, please guide our players and opponents so that they can come out of this game unscathed, no one is hurt.”

But after some parents reportedly complained about a prayer that was offered at a pre-game pasta dinner, the practice became a target for official school censure. Quick to jump on the “thou-shalt-not-offend” bandwagon, school officials passed a policy in October 2005 prohibiting representatives of the school district from participating in student-initiated prayer.

But school officials went so far as to order Borden, who also teaches Spanish, to stand still rather than bending a knee and silently bowing his head while his players recited pre-game prayers. The penalty for disobeying was disciplinary action, including the loss of his job as a coach and tenured teacher. School officials justified their actions by insisting that while student athletes have the constitutionally protected right to pray, that privilege does not extend to coaches, who are public employees and whose participation would violate the so-called “separation of church and state.”

Borden responded by offering his resignation in protest. But after thinking further about the matter, he changed his mind and rescinded his resignation so he could continue coaching. At the same time, believing that he was taking “a stand for every high school football coach in America,” Borden also filed a lawsuit asking the courts to review the school’s prayer policy.

Although school officials in this instance were lacking in common sense, the federal district court was not. In siding with Coach Borden, Judge Dennis Cavanaugh ruled that the school district had violated Borden’s constitutional rights to free speech, freedom of association and academic freedom when they prohibited him from silently bowing his head and “taking a knee” with his players while they engaged in student-initiated, student-led, nonsectarian pre-game prayers.

But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently overturned Cavanaugh’s decision and ruled that a football coach may not silently bow his head or “take a knee” with his team as a gesture of respect for student-led prayers prior to a game.

Borden’s case is being closely watched by athletic directors across the country who were instructed to cease praying with their players. According to Grant Teaff, executive director of the American Football Coaches Association, more than 50 percent of high school football coaches nationwide have engaged in team prayer. Furthermore, if this ruling is allowed to stand, it could very well mean that high school teachers across the United States will have no free speech or academic freedom rights.

We have become a politically correct society—one that stands for uniformity, not diversity. If someone might be offended, freedom of speech is erased.

But if all freedoms hang together, then they will fall together, too. And if America continues on its present course, it will mean the end of freedom.


Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. He can be contacted at johnw@rutherford.org. Information about The Rutherford Institute is available at www.rutherford.org.

Where the Dream Lives: The National Civil Rights Museum

By John W. Whitehead

“I may not get there with you, but I know tonight that we as a people will get to the promised land.”—Martin Luther King, Jr., Macon Temple, April 3, 1968

For a brief moment in 1968, the attention of the nation focused on the tiny Lorraine Motel in Memphis, Tenn. It was April 4th, and Martin Luther King, Jr. had come to Memphis in support of striking sanitation workers. There was much turmoil surrounding his appearance in Memphis, but King knew what to expect. In a somewhat prophetic tone the night before, he had proclaimed to a capacity audience at Memphis’ Macon Temple that his time may indeed have been at an end.

Less than 24 hours later, King was dead. An assassin’s bullet had ripped a three-inch hole through his head.

When King was martyred, America lost its most effective prophet, and oppressed people, both at home and abroad, lost their most articulate spokesman. King possessed a willingness, almost a compulsion, to take moral stands, such as his stand against the Vietnam War, and to speak up for the downtrodden. He did so even in the face of great opposition and threats on his life. His prophetic voice challenged a 20th century America that had become a global power but also one that had sacrificed some of its most treasured values on the altar of institutionalized racism, economic injustice and war.

The after-shock of King’s assassination would plunge the Lorraine Motel, a minority-owned business in the south end of downtown Memphis, into a long, steep decline. By 1982, the motel was a foreclosed property. Fortunately, a group of Memphis citizens grew concerned that the historic Lorraine Motel would be destroyed through continued neglect and indifference. They joined together and formed the Martin Luther King Memorial Foundation to save the Lorraine. The outcome was the opening of the National Civil Rights Museum in 1991, which now adjoins the Lorraine Motel.

Several years ago I toured this fascinating museum. Filled with artifacts and replicas, the museum brings to life the African-American struggle for freedom and should be a required visit for school-aged children and a must-see for anyone with even a passing interest in our nation’s history.

The museum is no small venture. The exhibits cover the struggle for civil rights from 1619 to the present day. Here you can learn about abolitionists William Lloyd Garrison and Frederick Douglass and other early beacons for freedom. The Jim Crow or Black Code laws that limited the freedom of black Americans are highlighted. The legendary 1954 U.S. Supreme Court case, Brown v. Board of Education, leads into the struggle that focused on Central High School in Little Rock. Black students simply wanted to attend the same school as whites but were prohibited.

Growing up in the 1950s and ‘60s, I remember watching on television the beatings and other brutalities that were heaped on black Americans who dared to seek equal treatment. Walking through the museum was a reminder of the ugliness of those years. It was also a reminder of the stark courage of those who dared to stand up for their rights.

There is the Montgomery bus boycott, where Rosa Parks entered history by having the audacity to refuse to sit at the back of the bus. This set off the first of many demonstrations and introduced the nation to the leadership of 26-year-old Martin Luther King, Jr.

You learn about James Meredith, who in 1961 sought and was denied admission to the University of Mississippi. That same year, seven African-Americans and six whites joined forces on freedom rides to expose the continuing segregation on buses and trains. They vowed to ride a Greyhound bus from Washington, DC, to New Orleans. Although they were beaten and jailed, and thus never made it to their destination, they became a symbol for the continuing struggle for equal rights.

These stories and much more can be found at the National Civil Rights Museum (some of which is available on the museum’s website, www.civilrightsmuseum.org), which is currently sponsoring several events to commemorate the 40th anniversary of King’s assassination. However, the most chilling and disturbing part of the museum is preserved across the street from the Lorraine, where the story of King’s assassin is told. You can peer out the window to the second story of the Lorraine and see Room 306, where King stayed. From there, you actually have the same vantage point as the murderer. A wreath now hangs on the balcony of the Lorraine Motel.

Often, there is little one can do to re-live history. The National Civil Rights Museum, however, changes all that. There the dream still lives. As Dr. King proclaimed on the night before he was murdered, “We’ve got to give ourselves to this struggle until the end. Nothing would be more tragic than to stop at this point in Memphis. We’ve got to see it through.”

No truer words were ever spoken.


Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. He can be contacted at johnw@rutherford.org. Information about The Rutherford Institute is available at www.rutherford.org.

Money Takes the Gold at the Beijing Olympics

By John W. Whitehead

“If freedom-loving people throughout the world do not speak out against Chinese oppression and China and Tibet, we have lost all moral authority to speak on behalf of human rights anywhere in the world.”— Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)

There was a time when the Olympic Games embodied all that was noble and worthy about sports competition: the sense of fair play, the good-natured competition, the idea that hard work and determination paid off in the end, the triumph over adversity.

Who could forget African American track and field runner Jesse Owens flying in the face of Hitler’s claim of Aryan supremacy to win four gold medals at the Berlin Olympics? Or Wilma Rudolph overcoming a lifetime of childhood diseases, including polio, to win three gold medals at the 1960 Olympics? Or Abebe Bikila of Ethiopia running the fastest marathon ever, all the while wearing no shoes? Or Nadia Comaneci’s perfect 10 in gymnastics?

These triumphs and what they stand for have been largely overshadowed in recent years by the rampant greed that has turned the Olympic Games into a money-making enterprise. The upcoming Games in China are no different. Corporations have already spent millions of consumer dollars to be named sponsors of the Beijing Olympics. They include some of the best-known brands in the world: Adidas, Anheuser-Busch, Coca-Cola, General Electric (parent of NBC), Johnson & Johnson, Kodak, McDonald’s, Microsoft, Panasonic, Samsung, Staples, Swatch, UPS, Visa and Volkswagen, to name just a few.

What’s become even more troubling for many human rights activists, however, is the extent to which corporations and governments, loath to rile China and upset the proverbial moneycart, have turned a blind eye to the rising superpower’s human rights abuses and its support of the genocidal regime in Sudan.

The latest tensions between China and protesters in Tibet only underscore the concerns that were first voiced when Beijing was selected as the host for the 2008 Olympics. Yet as David Wallechinsky, the vice president for the International Society of Olympic Historians, remarked, “The International Olympic Committee asked for trouble when they put the Olympics in a country run by a dictatorship. Now it’s come back to haunt them.”

During the Olympic bids, Chinese officials pledged that they would improve human rights conditions by the Games’ commencement on August 8, 2008. However, no such progress has been made. In fact, the staging of the Olympic Games has exacerbated human rights violations and widespread crackdowns on political dissidence.

Despite China’s best efforts to block information about the political unrest in Tibet through telephone taps, Internet filtering and travel restrictions, enough news of its totalitarian tactics have filtered through to cause what the Wall Street Journal termed “growing concern among corporate sponsors that the rising tide of protests over Tibet and China’s support of the Sudanese government will detract from the Games’ commercial success.”

And this is where the whole thing turns into a farce. In rejecting calls for a boycott, the Olympic Committee and sponsor corporations have attempted to spin their refusal to sanction China as part of their commitment to not politicize the Games and penalize “innocent athletes.” But that’s not the issue.

We’re talking about a totalitarian regime notorious for its human rights violations. Within the past year alone, Chinese authorities have gone to great lengths to silence dissidence and discontent through any means possible, from the unjust imprisonment and, in some cases, disappearance of human rights defenders and activists to the extensive censorship of the media and Internet.

Li Heping, a Beijing-based lawyer known for his involvement in human rights cases, was abducted by government officials and beaten with electro-shock batons. Gao Zhisheng, a human rights defender who wrote a letter to the U.S. Congress opposing the Beijing Games in light of China’s human rights violations, “was last seen in the presence of municipal Public Security Officers at his Beijing home on September 22, 2007 and has not been seen or heard of since.” Yang Chunlin, a farmer who signed a petition entitled “We Want Human Rights, not the Olympics,” was detained in July 2007 and “had his arms and legs stretched and chained to the four corners of an iron bed on numerous occasions. He has then been left to eat, drink, and defecate in that position.”

In addition, Amnesty International reports that China “has the largest recorded number of imprisoned journalists and cyber-dissidents in the world. As of July 2006, at least 54 Chinese Internet users are believed to be imprisoned for such acts as signing petitions, calling for an end to corruption, disseminating health information, or planning to establish pro-democracy groups.” This heightened degree of censorship stems from the fact that all Internet connections and communications must pass through government-controlled routers that allow officials to monitor Internet activity. American Internet companies such as Yahoo and Google, which have aided and abetted China in its censorship, are partially to blame.

Clearly, China has done little to clean up its human rights record. We can fool ourselves into believing that we’re helping to spread democracy by allowing Beijing to host the Summer Olympics, but all we’re really doing is standing by as silent witnesses while the schoolyard bully bloodies noses. In this way, we’re just as much to blame. Perhaps we’re even more to blame, since our consumer spending is giving them the muscle to fund their huge terror machine.

Understanding that money talks, the activist organization Dream for Darfur (dreamfordarfur.org) is urging Americans to voice their discontent over China’s ongoing human rights abuses to the Olympic sponsors who stand to profit from the upcoming Games.

The bottom line is that something needs to be done. If the Olympic torch is to stand for more than economic self-interest, then we need to stop trading on people’s freedoms and start doing the right thing for a change.


Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. He can be contacted at johnw@rutherford.org. Information about The Rutherford Institute is available at www.rutherford.org.

Kids Today Don’t Stand a Chance

By John W. Whitehead

On March 11, 2008, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) released the results of a study which found that nearly 26% (1 in 4) of American teenage girls ages 14-19 have at least one sexually transmitted disease. This report and its ramifications, however, were quickly shelved so that the media could provide us with non-stop coverage of the New York governor’s sexcapades with a prostitute.

As titillating as the Spitzer scandal might seem, its impact is fleeting when compared to the fact that approximately 3.2 million young women in the United States are estimated to be infected with a wide range of sexually transmitted diseases. Of the 838 teen girls surveyed, approximately 50% admitted to being sexually active. Of this 50%, an overwhelming 40% tested positive for a sexually transmitted disease.

In addition, the study found that 48% of African-American teenagers were infected with a sexually transmitted disease and that 15% of the teenage girls who had an infection had more than one. The CDC also claims that the prevalence among teenage girls may actually be higher than their report indicates, as the study fails to include sexually transmitted diseases such as gonorrhea, HIV and syphilis.

These statistics should have sent shockwaves across the nation. Instead, they were greeted with a lack of surprise by groups like Planned Parenthood. And although few people had much to say about why the numbers are so high, Dr. Dorothy Ferguson, medical director at Planned Parenthood Mar Monte, attributes the rise in sexually transmitted diseases to the fact that we’re not teaching our young people enough about sex, specifically safe sex practices.

Yet I would suggest the very opposite: Not only are we teaching our young people too much about sex, we’re teaching them all the wrong things.

When I was growing up, corporate America didn’t sell sex the way it does today. But for corporate America today, the only bottom line is money. Today’s world is one in which sex sells—where images regarding sexuality are continuously discussed and propagated through print and television media, as well as the Internet.

Advertisements bombard our young people’s minds with messages that either overtly or indirectly strive to sell merchandise through the promotion of sexuality. For example, the clothing company Abercrombie & Fitch has been under constant fire for its catalogs and advertisements which depict scantily clad individuals engaging in what critics have labeled “group sex.” Even advertisements for more innocuous products such as toothpaste and acne medication imply that their products will help the guy “get the girl” and be more successful sexually.

Furthermore, our movies, music, celebrities and pop culture all portray sex as glamorous and lacking real-life consequences, such as disease and pregnancy. A study conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that “more than half of all television programs, excluding news, sporting events, and children’s programming, contained sexual content, incorporating an average of more than three scenes per hour. Less than 10% of the programs with sexuality themes incorporated any reference to the consequences of sexual activity.”

There can be no mistaking the fact that our children are modeling their behavior after our own. Accustomed to living in and for the moment, we fail to consider the consequences. We have adopted the motto, “if it feels good, do it.” We have become a nation of people without limits—a people with no moral compass.

Yet it was not always this way. Religion and moral values were once the glue that held our communities and families together. They taught us that there must be internal limits in each of us—lines that must not be crossed. Throughout our history, churches, synagogues, families and schools worked together to teach children right and wrong. And for the most part, we lived within those limits.

Today, our children are stuck in a moral vacuum of our own making. Our religious institutions have lost the moral high ground and, thus, no longer speak with authority. And teachers refuse to mention the word “morality” in the classroom out of fear of a lawsuit. Worst of all, the traditional family is in a shambles. The picture of the American family shows a broken home, shattered by divorce, infidelity and distrust. America’s divorce rate hovers around 50%, and not even religious leaders are immune. According to a survey, one in five adults in a monogamous relationship has cheated on his/her partner. The rate is even higher among married men. Perhaps most disturbing, surveys have found that “married folks with kids—including women with very young children—are nearly as likely to commit adultery as childless couples.”

As a consequence of our rash behavior, our children have learned that they can have sex whenever and with whomever they want. After all, they can just take a pill to prevent pregnancy. And if they do get pregnant, all they have to do is head down to the local abortion clinic for a quick fix. According to the Guttmacher Institute, a leading tracker of abortion statistics, 24% of all pregnancies end in abortion. In 2002 alone, 1.29 million abortions occurred. And now we’re looking to vaccines and other prevention strategies to “fix” the high incidence of sexually transmitted diseases among young people.

However, handing out condoms and IUDs to kids will not alleviate the problem because the real issue goes to the very heart of our system of values and the way we view one another. When we reduce sex to nothing more than a biological act, of course we’re going to find ourselves riddled with diseases, unwanted pregnancies and failed relationships.

If we really care about our children, we had better take a good look in the mirror. Our kids don’t stand a chance unless we can shore up the family structure, restore a sense of community and teach them morality, values and respect.


Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. He can be contacted at johnw@rutherford.org. Information about The Rutherford Institute is available at www.rutherford.org.

Gods Made in Our Image: Politicians As Entertainers

By John W. Whitehead

We’ve got to face it. Politics have entered a new stage, the television stage. Instead of long-winded public debates, the people want capsule slogans—“Time for a change”—“The mess in Washington”—“More bang for a buck”—punch lines and glamour.— A Face in the Crowd (1957)

We have entered a new age of political discourse in which Americans are content to think in sound bites and elect a president based on who can deliver the best campaign slogans and punch lines. But the campaign rhetoric of the leading presidential contenders tells us absolutely nothing about what the candidates can actually deliver: “Believe,” “Can Do,” “Ready to Lead on Day One.”

The candidates may very well hold substantive positions on critical issues of the day. Yet what we hear are 30-second platitudes, and all we see are airbrushed images and smiling faces. Between the incessant campaign commercials and televised debates, America is being treated to a tightly crafted entertainment spectacle that gives credence to Ronald Reagan’s assertion that “Politics is just like show business.” And the politicians have become the entertainers.

We are, of course, accustomed to being entertained, amused and distracted. Television, after all, is our national pastime. On average, American households watch more than eight hours of television per day, which includes nearly three hours of commercials. “An American who has reached the age of forty will have seen well over one million television commercials in his or her lifetime, and has another million to go before the first Social Security check arrives,” writes professor Neil Postman in his book Amusing Ourselves to Death.

The candidates understand this. That’s why television, and television advertising in particular, has become such a favored medium for politicians. Television has altered the nature of political power, the means of political discourse and the way in which Americans think about and relate to their government. And television in general is driven by commercials.

The effect of TV ads upon the viewing public has been so successful and pervasive that it is impossible for a politician to wage a successful election campaign without the use of television advertising. Recognizing how powerful and manipulative a tool this can be, certain countries such as France, Germany and the UK actually forbid paid political advertisements on television.

People, it must be remembered, make their gods in their own image. Television politics has added a new wrinkle. “Those who would be gods refashion themselves into images the viewers would have them to be,” notes Postman. Like television commercials, image politics is so much more about charm, good looks, celebrity and personal disclosure than it is about truth.

Yet very little happens in front of the camera that is not pre-planned, strategized and intended to manipulate the viewer’s response. Much like toothpaste, politicians have become products for consumption. Driven by market research, political ads are designed to sell you what you desire, as opposed to actually giving any in-depth information about the candidates themselves. This is an invaluable tool for politicians who can gear their message toward what the voter wants, rather than what the nation needs. In this way, television politics does not attempt to convey who might be best at being president but rather who has the best slogans and can get the best ratings.

There is no such thing as a 60-second solution to the world’s problems. And there’s no way to decide on the best candidate for the White House by watching a heavily scripted debate. Unfortunately, television advertising and our entertainment culture have adapted us to commercial-style content. As a result, Americans are fast losing the ability to think for themselves, let alone think analytically or contextually.

When I was coming of age in the 1960s, Americans had more than a rudimentary understanding of their government and its philosophical underpinnings. The Constitution meant something, as did the freedoms enshrined in it. The Constitution was composed at a time when most free people had access to their communities through leaflets, newspapers or the spoken word. They were literate and eager to share their political ideas with each other in forms and content over which they, as citizens, had control.

Our information environment today is completely different from what it was in 1787. We may have less to fear from government restraints than from television glut. In fact, we have no way of protecting ourselves from information disseminated by corporate America. One reason is that Americans have become nonreaders, due in large part to the fact that television has replaced books.

This does not mean that those who control television limit our access to information. They widen it. Everything possible is done to encourage us to watch continuously. “But what we watch is a medium which presents information in a form that renders it simplistic, nonsubstantive, nonhistorical and noncontextual,” writes Postman.

Some of us worry that our freedoms are being constantly eroded and undermined by a government that amasses more power with every passing day. And yet too often we overlook our own culpability, not just in failing to defend our freedoms but in allowing ourselves to be so distracted by our entertainment culture that we cease to be aware of or even care much about what happens in the world beyond the TV screen.

Two of the greatest prophetic thinkers of the twentieth century were George Orwell and Aldous Huxley. Contrary to common belief, Huxley and Orwell did not prophesy the same thing.

Orwell warned in his novel 1984 of an authoritarian government run by Big Brother that would oppress the people. In Huxley’s vision of the future, no Big Brother would be required to rule the people. People in Huxley’s vision would come to love their oppression and to adore the very technologies that were destroying them. While Orwell feared that books would be banned, Huxley feared, as Postman recognizes, “that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one.” While Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information, Huxley feared those who would give us so much information that we would be reduced to “passivity and egoism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance.”

Huxley remarks in Brave New World Revisited that civil libertarians, who oppose tyranny, “failed to take into account man’s almost infinite appetite for distractions.” While the government in 1984 controlled people by inflicting pain, in Brave New World, they are controlled by inflicting pleasure. “In short,” as Postman notes, “Orwell feared that what we hate will ruin us. Huxley feared that what we love will ruin us.”


Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. He can be contacted at johnw@rutherford.org. Information about The Rutherford Institute is available at www.rutherford.org.

A Crisis in Democracy: Are We Going Bankrupt?

By John W. Whitehead

“Our country is insolvent, and bankruptcy will come.”
—Congressman Ron Paul (R-Tex.)

I’ve never seen our country in worse shape—culturally, constitutionally or financially. Marriages and families are falling apart, our liberties are being eroded and the U.S. economy is in serious trouble. We are, as author Robert B. Reich noted in a recent New York Times editorial, “totally spent.” All we’re managing to do now is keep our creditors at bay.

The U.S. trade deficit has reached record highs in recent years. Gas prices, which have largely contributed to trade deficit woes, have led to higher prices in transportation and other goods. The bursting of the home price bubble has triggered a crisis in U.S. housing finance. This has led to a sharp spike in foreclosures, as well as heavy losses at major banks, a pull-back in the market for securitized debt and a credit crunch worldwide.

With the value of the dollar plummeting worldwide, America is, in effect, now on sale at discount prices to foreign countries. For example, a record $414 billion was invested by foreigners in the U.S. economy in 2007, with much of it coming from sovereign wealth funds, vast pools of money controlled by anti-democratic governments from China to the Middle East.

The fact that our nation is nearing bankruptcy has become what David Walker, comptroller general of the United States, calls “the dirty little secret everyone in Washington knows.” Most politicians, says Walker, are aware of the impending financial crisis but reluctant to do anything about it. After all, it is not politically expedient to increase taxes or trim spending, but this is exactly what needs to be done.

Walker also argues that health care, a political promise rolling off every candidate’s tongue, is by and large the most prominent issue, five times bigger than Social Security. And Walker calls the 2003 measures that included Medicare prescription drugs “probably the most fiscally irresponsible piece of legislation since the 1960s.” This bill, Walker says, was “eight trillions dollars added to what was already a 15 to $20 trillion under-funding.”

Walker, who recently resigned after serving as the government’s chief internal watchdog for a decade, concludes that the nation’s “current standard of living is unsustainable unless some drastic action is taken.” But, as usual, when we leave the problem-solving to the politicians, what we end up with is bigger government, more bureaucracy and a larger federal deficit, which is projected to total $410 billion for 2008. (The national debt, which is the total amount of money owed by the government, is currently estimated to be over $9.2 trillion.)

We are living in a house of cards that’s on the verge of crashing around us, and yet most Americans remain oblivious and continue to spend beyond their means. But, as Reich notes, “That era is now coming to an end. Consumers have run out of ways to keep the spending binge going.”

Hoping to continue the spending a little longer, Congress passed a $168 billion stimulus plan made up of personal tax rebates and business tax cuts. While some Democrats criticized the plan, fiscal conservatives expressed grave doubts that the measure is too little and will reach consumers and businesses too late. Former congressman Jack Kemp asserts that “rebates haven’t worked in the past…and won’t work in the future,” as they reward past production. Other critics have voiced the concern that such a costly measure merely serves to increase the already burgeoning national deficit.

While the nation’s financial woes are grave, a recession will impact more than Americans’ pocketbooks—it will impact our very freedoms. After all, economic security and freedom go hand in hand.

In his book, A Free Nation Deep in Debt, James MacDonald, an investment banker, discusses the relationship between democracy and economic development: “Democracy (even in its most partial and imperfect form), is a system in which the citizens control the state. As long as democratic states borrow from their own citizens, their good credit is simply a reflection of the virtual identity of borrower and lender.”

Unfortunately, as economist James Galbraith explains, “The American citizenry has lost its pride of place as creditor of the American state. Today, financial intermediaries hold about 37 percent of U.S. public debt; Japan and China, along with other countries, now hold about 30 percent. The proportion of U.S. debt owned directly by Americans has fallen to below 10 percent; in 1945 (when the debt was more than twice as large in relation to GDP as now) citizen-creditors just about held it all.” But that is no longer true, and “for all practical purposes, the venerable marriage between public credit and democratic government, so vital a factor in the history of the world, has been dissolved.”

Galbraith concludes: “If MacDonald’s thesis is right, the disappearance of the citizen-creditor forces a question. Can democracy survive when its financial roots have been cut? The scale of public debt is not the issue, but its ownership is. Can a country—whether the United States or any other—be truly democratic if it is in hock to banks and foreigners? ...To put it bluntly, are we still a democracy? And, if not, what would it take to bring democracy back?”

We know what must be done.

First, we need to elect fiscally responsible representatives with the backbone to resist political pressure to spend what is not there. We also need to stop putting ourselves in hock to foreign banks and nations. And we need to put a stop to the financial hemorrhaging related to the Bush Administration’s war on terror. For example, over the past six years, the U.S. has disbursed to the corrupt government of Pakistan about $80 million monthly, or roughly $1 billion a year. Yet according to the Washington Post, few receipts are provided to account for how the money is used or where it ends up. That’s just the tip of the iceberg when one considers that we spend at least $1 billion a week in Iraq on military operations alone. Just imagine how those dollars could be put to use in our own ailing economy.

Second, we need to show some personal discipline. This will mean reining in our binge spending, nationally and individually. It will also mean getting back to work. We need to bring the manufacturing jobs back to the United States and re-inject ourselves into the economy, even if it means Americans taking on jobs that are usually done by illegal immigrants.

Finally, we need to do a better job of protecting our freedoms. This means resisting the government’s attempt to amass greater authority and centralize power in the executive branch. It also means electing representatives who will abide by their oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution.

If we value our freedoms at all, we have to sober up—and fast—or we will certainly find ourselves facing an even more dangerous crisis in democracy. Yet beware: this will not be a sudden coup but a gradual transformation into a more authoritarian regime. As former presidential advisor Bertram Gross points out in his book, Friendly Fascism: “Anyone looking for black shirts, mass parties, or men on horseback will miss the telltale clues of creeping fascism. In America, it would be supermodern and multi-ethnic—as American as Madison Avenue, executive luncheons, credit cards, and apple pie. It would be fascism with a smile.”


Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. He can be contacted at johnw@rutherford.org. Information about The Rutherford Institute is available at www.rutherford.org.

You Can’t Kill the Truth: Remembering Martin Luther King

By John W. Whitehead

“We’ve got to give ourselves to this struggle to the end. Nothing would be more tragic than to stop at this point. We’ve got to see it through. Be concerned about your brother. Either we go up together, or we go down together.” —Martin Luther King, Jr., April 3, 1968

As 1968 dawned, the vision of peace and hope that had seemed so promising the year before during the so-called “Summer of Love” was splintering.

On January 30, 1968, the Viet Cong launched what is now known as the “Tet Offensive.” The powerful North Vietnamese forces attacked more than 30 South Vietnamese cities, including Saigon. The American military, which had earlier reported that most of Vietnam was secure and an end to the divisive war was in sight, was stunned. (Full Article)

The Devil's Bargain: Sweatshops and the American Scheme

By John W. Whitehead

“They hit you…They hit you in the head…To make you work faster.” —Nicaraguan Factory Worker

The so-called season of giving is officially behind us. Even in these sluggish economic times, Americans still managed to spend more than $50 billion in gift-giving. Now that all the gifts have been opened, all that is left is for us to enjoy them.

Yet I can’t help but wonder whether our pleasure would be dimmed were we to truly understand what is involved in bringing these gifts—at the bargain prices Americans love—to our homes? (Full Article)

Our Schools are Graveyards for Freedom

By John W. Whitehead

“The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.”—Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis

My granddaughter is seven months old. Intent on discovering as much as she can about the world around her, she is blissfully unaware of the fact that she is under constant surveillance. Between her doting parents, her equally doting grandparents and a baby monitor that is always turned on and tuned in, there is little this child can do that goes undetected.
(Full Article)

A Thanksgiving Appeal for Our Wounded Veterans

By John W. Whitehead

“Appeal for Wounded Men,” proclaimed the New York Times headline. “An appeal to citizens to open their homes on Thanksgiving Day to the 15,000 wounded soldiers in the city was sent out yesterday…. ‘Many of the disabled men feel the people have forgotten them.’”

That article appeared on Nov. 14, 1920. Four score and seven years later, our veterans are faring no better. In fact, except for the fleeting ripple of awareness among the news media and the American public around Veterans Day, the men and women who put their lives on the line to preserve our freedoms are all but forgotten.
(Full Article)

Are Televangelists Fleecing the Flock?

By John W. Whitehead

“What good is it for a man to gain the whole world, yet forfeit his soul?”—Jesus

Acting on complaints from the public, Senator Charles Grassley, the top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, has launched an investigation into alleged financial wrongdoing involving six high-profile televangelists, all of whom run “non-profit” organizations. The allegations involve governing boards that are not independent and which allow exorbitant salaries, housing allowances and luxuries such as private jets and Rolls Royces. (Full Article)

Child Porn is Not Free Speech

By John W. Whitehead

In 2004, federal agents caught Michael Williams in the act of attempting to exchange pornographic images of children online. In an Internet chat room, Williams boasted that he had “hard core” pictures of himself engaged in sex acts with his four-year-old daughter. He also told an undercover federal agent that he was willing to trade the photos for pictures depicting other children in provocative poses. (Full Article)

Intellectual Book Burning in a Totalitarian Democracy

By John W. Whitehead

“There is more than one way to burn a book. And the world is full of people running about with lit matches. Every minority, be it Baptist/Unitarian, Irish/Italian/Octogenarian/Zen Buddhist, Zionist/ Seventh-day Adventist, Women’s Lib/Republican, Mattachine/FourSquareGospel feel it has the will, the right, the duty to douse the kerosene, light the fuse. Every dimwit editor who sees himself as the source of all dreary blanc-mange plain porridge unleavened literature, licks his guillotine and eyes the neck of any author who dares to speak above a whisper or write above a nursery rhyme.” —Ray Bradbury

In Ray Bradbury’s futuristic novel Fahrenheit 451, the state burned all books in order to hide the truth from the people. In the coda to a 1979 edition of the book, Bradbury wrote: “Fire-Captain Beatty, in my novel Fahrenheit 451, described how the books were burned first by minorities, each ripping a page or a paragraph from this book, until the day came when the books were empty and the minds shut and the libraries closed forever.” (Full Article)

Blade Runner: What Does It Mean to Be Human?

By John W. Whitehead

In our strange and potentially very dangerous world where science fiction and Charles Darwin often collide, a handful of scientists are racing to be the first to create life. According to a flood of recent reports, this artificial life could be as close as six months away. In fact, Pat Mooney, executive director for the science watchdog organization the ETC Group, states: “For the first time, God has competition.” (Full Article)

It's a Constitutional Republic, But Can We Keep It?

By John W. Whitehead

Throughout the month of September, the National Archives will be commemorating the 220th anniversary of the signing of the United States Constitution with a series of panel discussions, appearances by actors dressed up as the Founders and a birthday cake. Federal law also mandates that on Constitution Day, September 17, all high schools, colleges and universities across the country that receive federal funds host educational events about the Constitution. (Full Article)

Elvis and the Train to Nowhere

By John W. Whitehead

“Before Elvis, there was nothing.”—John Lennon

The year was 1955, and I had just heard Chuck Berry on the radio singing “Maybelline.” I was electrified. By the time Berry appeared on television, duckwalking across the stage and playing his guitar, there was no turning back. America had its first black rock’n’roll hero, and rock’n’roll had fused with my soul. (Full Article)