Here.  It doesn't get any clearer than this.

... or does Sanford's Argentian hottie look like a younger version of his wife (with thicker eyebrows)?

Just a couple of weeks ago, late-night comic David Letterman continued the media’s incomprehensible hatefest on Sarah Palin. (Incomprehensible at least in part because her ticket lost; for a losing VP candidate, she has remarkable and unprecedented staying power.) Part of his schtick that night included calling her a “slutty flight attendant.”

Of all the pots and kettles I have ever seen, having a member of the media/entertainment establishment call anyone else a $lut is at the top of the list.

But Letterman, for whatever else you can say about him, is an entertainer and a comedian. He is not a news personality. (Nor does he pretend to be, unlike some comedians.)

ABC, however, does purport to be a purveyor of news. So it is incredibly unfunny and profoundly disturbing that the network will be broadcasting what will be little more than an elaborate all-day informercial for Obama’s plan to socialize the entire American health care system. In a story broken by the Drudge Report last week, it was revealed that ABC would be hosting a primetime special, “Prescription for America,” broadcast from the East Room of the White House this evening. Ok, fine. But Charlie Gibson will also be anchoring World News from the Blue Room in the White House. And this is in addition to an interview with the President on “Good Morning America,” and with Michelle Obama later in the day. (It is so bad that a number of commentators have rechristened ABC the “All Barack Channel.”)

Even for a media so slavishly adoring of Obama that their coverage of him seems more like a sex act, this is a new low.

Republicans were stunned at these blatantly partisan efforts by a news organization. Republican National Committee Chief of Staff Ken McKay sent a written request to ABC News, asking to participate, present opposing viewpoints and alternatives to “Obamacare.” ABC News refused. From that, you know all you need to. But the response of ABC News’ Senior Vice President Kerry Smith is just as revealing. He said:

"ABCNEWS alone will select those who will be in the audience asking questions of the president. Like any programs we broadcast, ABC News will have complete editorial control. To suggest otherwise is quite unfair to both our journalists and our audience."

Like, duhhhhh. I’m sorry, but isn’t that precisely the point? We know you’ll be controlling the content and handpicking the shills in the audience.

And so does Barack Obama, who is no doubt thrilled with ABC’s “complete editorial control.” At this week’s Radio and Television Correspondents’ Dinner, Obama got a big laugh when he joked, “A few nights ago, I was up tossing and turning trying to figure out exactly what to say. Finally, when I couldn't get back to sleep, I rolled over and asked Brian Williams what he thought.” If the President himself admits you’re in bed with him, it’s hard to argue the point. 

The more ABC scrambles to defend itself against accusations of bias and currying favor, the more obvious the travesty becomes. And a travesty it is, indeed. The press is the only non-governmental institution that is specifically mentioned in the United States Constitution. The drafters of the Constitution understood how vitally important it was for a free people to have a free press; one unfettered, uncensored, and uncontrolled by government. One utterly devoted to uncovering and exposing the truth. It is a mark of how spoiled, selfish and unforgivably ignorant our media have become that they have abandoned this sacred duty to the public, and cast all semblance of neutrality aside to give this President (or any political leader, for that matter) the kind of obsequious uncritical coverage that would give Ahmadinejad a tingle up his leg.

It is particularly heinous that this event comes even as we watch the trickle of information – that would be real news for those of you who have forgotten – seep out from Iran via Twitter and crude cellphone cameras, disseminated by an oppressed people who do not enjoy any of the freedoms we have – including a free press – and who are facing retaliation, imprisonment, injury, and death to keep the world informed about what is really going on there.

The bravery of these “amateur” reporters makes the cowardice and sycophancy of our Pravda press more than an embarrassment; it is a moral outrage.

On the other hand, there is some good news. Apparently, the ratings slide that the TV news shows have felt is continuing apace. So perhaps not that many people will watch after all. Or, perhaps – even better – they will, and that will seal the existing network news’ fates for good. 

Either way, we still won’t respect them in the morning.

this, then he is truly too dangerous to be President.  Just the latest in Victor Davis Hanson's excellent series of recent articles.

Obama is a bully, a coward and a weakling. He is a bully because he uses political power where he cannot use reason and persuasion.  (Poor Inspector General Walpin.)  He is a coward and a weakling because he will not take a position on the revolts in Iran.  He won't take a position, because he doesn't have a position.  No one expects him to sabre-rattle - or wants to go in to Iran.  It's not about threats, it's about standing up for the rights of the Iranian people.

Great article.  But if Obama stood up and said that Walpin dematerialized before his eyes, the press would slavishly report that as if it were truth.

Hans is deluding himself if he thinks the Pravda press will hold Obama accountable for anything.

Ugh.  Yeah, and Ahmedinejad has been a great dictator, too.  I voted for him (the better of two bad choices), but only McCain would say something so stupid as ,"Obama's successes in Congress have come with little or no Republican support."

Ya think?  Those of us who would like to support whatever shred of conservatism is still present in Congress do not want Republican "support" for Obama's legislative initiatives.

This kind of RINO nonsense is what has cost Republicans elections in 2006 and 2008.  Time for McCain to retire.  His presidential campaign proved it.  Or maybe he can just become a Democrat like Arlen Spector.

 On this annual holiday, we typically celebrate the men who gave us life, loved us, raised us, cared for us, instructed us. In that spirit, I wanted to honor the men whose vision, passion and courage gave us our country, and whose timeless wisdom should still be a beacon today. 

Much is written about Americans’ freedoms of speech, of association, of religion. But it is unpopular these days to extol the virtues of commerce. Our current President seems to regard businessmen and woman as the only criminals left in a system otherwise populated with the deprived, the discriminated against, or the simply misunderstood. Too few people today see the relationship between liberty, individual responsibility, and prosperity. But our first President, George Washington, understood it: “A people... who are possessed of the spirit of commerce, who see and who will pursue their advantages may achieve almost anything.”

It has always been amazing to me - and never more so than now - how many Americans mistrust business - which consists of people with money - yet repose total confidence in government - which is people with money and guns. No one has ever put a gun to someone’s head and forced them to buy a box of cereal. (Although you’d think they had, given the FDA’s recently announced War on Cheerios; that’s a subject for another column.) But governments have put guns to people's heads for as long as there have been guns.  (And before that, they used other methods.) 100 million people died in the 20^th century under Communism alone. Other forms of government (monarchy comes to mind) have killed millions more.

It is not that heads of corporations cannot be corrupt. Of course they can be. Or that you cannot find instances of abuse of power in business. Of course you can. But those who point to these abuses fail to draw the larger lessons from them. People who loathe, resent and mistrust business seem to conclude that the species of human ensconced in government is somehow different than that which drives business.

History refutes this illusion over and over again. Human beings, when given power over others, tend to oppress, enslave and/or kill them. The more power they have, the more murderously inclined they are.  Why? Because humans tend to assume that they are right, and that everyone should do what they dictate. Most of us cannot act on those assumptions – thank God. Those who can are always in a position threatening to the rest of us.

The drafters of our nation's foundational documents had studied history, and they understood the human tendency to oppress others when given power. (That would be all humans; not just those running multinational corporations.)   Alexander Hamilton said, “A fondness for power is implanted, in most men, and it is natural to abuse it, when acquired.” James Madison builds on this understanding, saying, “What is government itself but the greatest of all reflections on human nature?” And so our government was set up to be limited, so that we would not be dependent upon the whim, personality or individual ethics of the person - or people - in office. Madison writes in Federalist Paper #58: “An elective despotism was not the government we fought for; but one in which the powers of government should be so divided and balanced among the several bodies of magistracy as that no one could transcend their legal limits without being effectually checked and restrained by the others.”

The system the Founding Fathers created was one of restrained government and individual liberty. But liberty means the freedom to make mistakes. And it comes with a price - consequences. You smoke? You may get cancer. You sleep around? You’ll get STDs. You gamble? You lose money. You have children out of wedlock? You have a far greater chance of being poor. Freedom without personal responsibility is not liberty, but license, and is democracy’s downfall. John Adams wrote, “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

Pillaging business and attacking individual prosperity in the name of “protecting the less fortunate” are nothing new. Thomas Paine wrote in 1791, “[W]e still find the greedy hand of government thrusting itself into every corner and crevice of industry, and grasping the spoil of the multitude. Invention is continually exercised, to furnish new pretenses for revenues and taxation. It watches prosperity as its prey and permits none to escape without tribute.”

There is an obligation to help the less fortunate, including those whose sorrow and circumstances are the product of their own poor decisions. But it is a moral obligation, and cannot be made a legal one without consequences even more dire than leaving them to their fate.

The reason that government cannot protect everyone from the consequences of all their choices, or give people everything they want, is because it is impossible. And the pursuit of the impossible by those powerful enough to attempt it notwithstanding has always been a prescription for widespread misery. Among the most miserable are those who become dependent upon government. Thomas Jefferson understood that these poor souls are easy prey for the power-hungry, writing, “Dependence begets subservience and venality, suffocates the germ of virtue, and prepares fit tools for the designs of ambition.”

The pervasive lie that forcibly taking from the productive will benefit those who are not, not only destroys prosperity, it rewards sloth, irresponsibility, and even criminality. The Founding Fathers understood this. We have thought ourselves their betters, and are reaping the consequences of this deliberate ignorance today.

President Obama wrote a poignant essay for Father’s Day, in which he acknowledged the immeasurable loss of his own father, and bemoaned the time he has spent away from his daughters. He also said, wisely, “I came to understand that the hole a man leaves when he abandons his responsibility to his children is one that no government can fill.” Both Barack and Michelle Obama seem to be adoring, responsible and deeply committed parents – role models for all Americans, but particularly for the African-American community, which has seen its family structure decimated by government handouts. The sponsors and supporters of these programs had the best of intentions, but by separating irresponsible behavior from its consequences, they encouraged it, allowed it to spread, and helped cultivate a culture of irresponsibility, sexual promiscuity, and now multiple generations of fatherless children. Inspiring these children to behave differently from that which they have seen and known will be a monumental challenge. It is not insurmountable. But it is clear at this point that more of the same will not succeed.

As is so often the case with President Obama, his Father’s Day speech sounds wonderful, but the reality of what he proposes is far different. All the social programs in the world cannot substitute for individual responsibility. There is no amount of money that can compensate for its lack. All the prosperous citizens and all the thriving businesses cannot fund it. Any government program ignoring these realities will be doomed to fail, and any tax system set up to support it will be insatiable. It will doom the American system of prosperity with it.

Would that our current President heed the words of our Founding Fathers as he composes his own. As Benjamin Franklin said, “Here comes the orator! With his flood of words, and his drop of reason.”

(With special thanks to marksquotes.com.)

There are a lot of hardworking people trying to get news out to the American public.  But the real stories are being spiked, buried, killed.  So I am going to do my bit. 

Here is a recent story from a former ACORN insider - she was part of the story that the New York Times refused to cover.

It's somewhat difficult for those who continue to insist that Barack Obama produce his "long form" birth certificate, if no one (outside of Hawaii, anyway) has ever seen one.  What's the difference, if any, between the form Barack Obama had on his website during the campaign, and what those now called "birthers" want to see"

Well, here's the difference: PHOTO COMPARISON

To be honest with you, my reaction was to get kind of creeped out.  The long form birth certificate on this website looks authentic, with handwriting, signatures, etc.  The one Barack Obama keeps insisting is his "real" birth certificate looks even more sterile and inauthentic than before.

I think as these photos make their way around the blogsophere, it is now going to become increasingly difficult for Obama and his apologists to continue to insist that the certificate he has shown the world is all there is.  The difference between these two, coupled with the President's bizarre intransigence about this document (as well as all his other records), creates even more suspicions.

This, when placed in the context of his "ohmyGodwehavetodoeverythingNOW" attitude starts to feel like someone who knows he must cram as much through as possible before he is found out.

 How many Americans, enamored with über-Lefty Barack Obama’s promise of “hope” and “change” have stopped to consider what America will look like when made over in the liberal ideal? One need only look at GM and Chrysler to see what this presages for the rest of private enterprise in this country.

Liberals profess to “love” all kinds of things: whales, polar bears, snail darters, the planet. Strangely, few of them are human. Or anything that makes humans’ lives better. What seems to drive most liberals is hatred and a need for control. What they control, they destroy. And there are few things they hate as much as American business.

Michael Moore is a perfect example. He has peddled his “love” for the working man for at least two decades. But when the corporation that employed tens of thousands of blue collar workers and put millions of Americans into affordable vehicles goes belly up, what does he say? “The company's body is not yet cold, and I find myself filled with -- dare I say it -- joy.”

Oh, there is no question but that General Motors has made catastrophic mistakes in its history. Pundits have written about its ponderous decision-making processes, its intransigent leadership, and its dull designs. What few have remarked upon, however, is that General Motors’ business model was a liberal’s wet dream: for every person working for it, it was supporting ten more.

We should not be surprised that liberalism’s approaches to business are failures. Consider its 40-year reign over our social policies, and witness the legacy:

Liberals wanted to redefine marriage and remake the family. The result? A divorce rate that now hovers between 45 – 50%, a precipitous decline in the number of two-parent households (a primary indicator of poverty), a birthrate that barely replaces the population (with corresponding devastating consequences for Social Security) and an illegitimacy rate of close to 40% (among African-Americans it is over 70%). Need we mention welfare’s role in all of this?

Liberals wanted to revamp our public education system.   Now we perform at embarrassingly low levels, despite staggering per capita spending, even compared to some of the poorest nations in the world. As two experts have said, “The public schools lack focus; instead of concentrating on education, they dabble in social re-engineering.” And “Half our job is education, and the other half is social work." This is liberalism at its finest.

There is a lesson here for any well-meaning person intending to follow liberals down their well-trodden corridors (with apologies to Roger Waters). 

Liberals have hated the internal combustion engine, blaming it for pollution (later, “global warming,” and then, after numerous record-breaking winters, “climate change”), “urban sprawl,” the end of inner cities, the devastation of public schools, and on and on ad infinitum.

They hate farming. Oh, not penny ante, backyard, organic farming. They hate the kind of farming that takes hundreds of acres of land and feeds hundreds of thousands of people.

They hate pharmaceutical companies.

They hate power companies. Nuclear power poses too many risks. Coal and natural gas pollute. But what does that leave? Solar? Only good when the sun shines. Wind? Only good when the wind blows. And wood? Ah, ah, ah – can’t do that – that contributes to deforestation.

They hate the military. For that matter, they hate guns and ammunition generally. (Unless, of course, they remain in the arsenal of a left-wing dictatorship, in which case they’re just dandy.)

They hate the Judeo-Christian tradition.

For decades, liberalism has crept surreptitiously through our courts, our educational system and our media. Now, with the election of Barack Obama and a Democrat-controlled Congress, liberalism is in full glory and ascendant. All the things they have loathed in private, they can now assail in public. And American businesses are at the top of the list.

Having nearly destroyed the American housing market and the related financial sector, and crippled the American automotive industry, the Obama administration now turns its attention to tobacco. As an ex-smoker, I loathe smoking, and God only knows how much money is spent on illnesses attributable to it. That said, it is a legal activity for adults, destructive though it may be. Liberals have a stereotypically schizophrenic relationship with the tobacco industry; it is among their favorite whipping boys (I know, they have so many), and yet they need its tax revenues as a vampire needs blood.

The reaction of the tobacco executives – like that of the automotive executives, and the housing executives, and those in financial institutions – reflects a frequent and fatal error of judgment. They tell themselves that they can “work with” whatever administration is in power, and they flatter themselves that political contributions will assure their survival.

Fools. Karl Marx said, “The last capitalist we hang shall be the one who sold us the rope.” That adage needs to be modified a bit for today’s political reality: the last company to hang will have taken the rope from the Obama administration, tied to a millstone of cash.

After tobacco, it will be the turn of the energy companies. And then pharmaceuticals. Then hospitals. And doctors. Each time, Obama will have some distorted and horrific narrative about how these industries, and the people in them, have contributed to the sufferings of untold numbers of Americans, how he and he alone can fix things, and how it must be done now. Never mind the jobs these industries have produced, the workers and farmers, chemists and engineers, physicians and nurses they have employed, the vehicles they have manufactured, the life-saving drugs they have developed, the surgeries and other medical procedures they have performed, the heat and light and refrigeration they have provided – and all of this done for hundreds of millions of people in this country and around the world.

Obama will take them all over, one by one, and Obama will destroy them.

Obama himself, in his characteristically Humpty Dumptyesque fashion, told us as much, when he said this past week that, “[i]f we do not fix our health care system, America may go the way of GM; paying more, getting less, and going broke.” (Obamese translation: “If [you let me] fix our health care system, America [will] go the way of GM; paying more, getting less, and going broke.”)

(Side note: Obama’s “drug czar,” Gil Kerlikowske, said recently that legalizing marijuana is not part of Obama’s plan. Too bad. As a Libertarian I support eliminating the billions we spend on interdiction, freeing our prisons from the thousands of inmates there for marijuana-related offenses, and halting the corruption we foster in countries that produce the drugs for our insatiable demand. On the other hand, illegal drug sales may be the only business we have left. Plus, if the Obama administration were truly serious about addressing the illegal drug problem in this country, they would legalize them, and then put the government in charge of the entire industry. Nothing would kill it faster.)

Some commentators dismiss concerns about Obama’s interference in private enterprise, arguing that the only businesses affected are huge, multinational corporations already in peril. This is nonsense. When government and big business are in bed together, the one squeezed out is the entrepreneur. As author Clayton Christensen has observed, innovators ignore the market dominance of established firms. In a system with free competition, this results in new products, new services, new business models, and new successes – all to the benefit of the public. But when big business is propped up by big government, market dominance becomes imbued with the force of law. Anyone challenging that system – the innovator, the disruptor, the visionary, the entrepreneur - becomes a lawbreaker. Senior secured bondholders in General Motors are sadly aware of this.

Hailed as a god, Obama now seeks to “remake America” In His Own Liberal Image. How devastating this will be. He is a man who has created nothing, invented nothing, designed nothing, manufactured nothing, produced nothing. When he is finished, we will be left with nothing.

The last two weeks of any college semester - as well as the two weeks afterwards - are always the worst.  After untold numbers of papers and exams graded, I think I can finally resume something like my old life.  :)

So, I hear that Katherine Hancock Ragsdale, the new dean of the Episcopal Divinity School has pulled her "abortion is a blessing" sermon off her website.  And I'm sure it's only a matter of time before you can't find it anywhere.  But NARAL Pro-Choice Texas still proudly posts it.  So here it is in its entirety:

Remarks of the Rev. Katherine Hancock Ragsdale, Birmingham, AL

Posted: 08/17/2007

Well Operation Save America came, they saw, they harassed, and they annoyed; but they did not close the clinic. The clinic stayed open, no patients were turned away, and the doors never closed. We remain victorious. And that victory is a good thing – but, make no mistake, even though OSA has gone home; our work is not done.

If we were to leave this park and discover that clinic violence had become a thing of the past, never to plague us again, that would be a very good thing, indeed; but, still, our work would not be done.

If we were to find that, while we were here, Congress had acted to insure that abortion would always be legal, that would be a very good thing; but our work would not be done.

If we were suddenly to find a host of trained providers, insuring access in every city, town, village, and military base throughout the world, that would be a very good thing; but our work would not be done.

When every woman has everything she needs to make an informed, thoughtful choice, and to act upon it, we will be very close; but, still, our work will not be done.

As long as women, acting as responsible moral agents, taking responsibility for their own lives and for those who depend on them, have to contend with guilt and shame, have judgment and contempt heaped upon them, rather than the support and respect they deserve, our work is not done.

How will we know when our work is done? I suspect we’ll know it when we see it. But let me give you some sure indicators that it isn’t done yet:

- When doctors and pharmacists try to opt out of providing medical care, claiming it’s an act of conscience, our work is not done.

Let me say a bit more about that, because the religious community has long been an advocate of taking principled stands of conscience – even when such stands require civil disobedience. We’ve supported conscientious objectors, the Underground Railroad, freedom riders, sanctuary seekers, and anti-apartheid protestors. We support people who put their freedom and safety at risk for principles they believe in.

But let’s be clear, there’s a world of difference between those who engage in such civil disobedience, and pay the price, and doctors and pharmacists who insist that the rest of the world reorder itself to protect their consciences – that others pay the price for their principles.

This isn’t particularly complicated. If your conscience forbids you to carry arms, don’t join the military or become a police officer. If you have qualms about animal experimentation, think hard before choosing to go into medical research. And, if you’re not prepared to provide the full range of reproductive health care (or prescriptions) to any woman who needs it then don’t go into obstetrics and gynecology, or internal or emergency medicine, or pharmacology. Choose another field! We’ll respect your consciences when you begin to take responsibility for them.

- Here’s another sign. Did you notice the arguments that were being shouted at us in front of the clinic? They’ve been trying for years, and seem to be pushing especially hard now, to position themselves as feminists – supporters of women. You heard them – yelling that they understand that it’s all men’s fault. That men must do better at supporting women and children so that women, presumably, won’t feel the need to abort. They yelled that they understood that the women going into the clinic had been hurt by men and were reacting to that pain and betrayal. They pledged to help men be more responsible so that women wouldn’t want abortions.

Let me tell you something. Any argument that puts men alone at the center – for good or for bad -- any discussion of women’s reproductive health that ends up being all about men, is not feminism. Nor, for that matter, is it Christian, or reflective of any God I recognize. And as long as anyone can even imagine such an argument, our work is not done.

- And while we’re at it, as long as a Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States can argue, as Justice Kennedy recently did, that women are not capable of making our own informed moral decisions, that we need men to help us so that we won’t make mistakes that we later regret; as long as a Supreme Court Justice can deny the moral agency of women simply because we are women – and can do it without being laughed off the public stage forever – our work is not done. What has happened to us that he could even think he could get away with publishing such an opinion? Our work most certainly is not done.

- Finally, the last sign I want to identify relates to my fellow clergy. Too often even those who support us can be heard talking about abortion as a tragedy. Let’s be very clear about this:

When a woman finds herself pregnant due to violence and chooses an abortion, it is the violence that is the tragedy; the abortion is a blessing.

When a woman finds that the fetus she is carrying has anomalies incompatible with life, that it will not live and that she requires an abortion – often a late-term abortion – to protect her life, her health, or her fertility, it is the shattering of her hopes and dreams for that pregnancy that is the tragedy; the abortion is a blessing.

When a woman wants a child but can’t afford one because she hasn’t the education necessary for a sustainable job, or access to health care, or day care, or adequate food, it is the abysmal priorities of our nation, the lack of social supports, the absence of justice that are the tragedies; the abortion is a blessing.

And when a woman becomes pregnant within a loving, supportive, respectful relationship; has every option open to her; decides she does not wish to bear a child; and has access to a safe, affordable abortion – there is not a tragedy in sight -- only blessing. The ability to enjoy God’s good gift of sexuality without compromising one’s education, life’s work, or ability to put to use God’s gifts and call is simply blessing.

These are the two things I want you, please, to remember – abortion is a blessing and our work is not done. Let me hear you say it: abortion is a blessing and our work is not done. Abortion is a blessing and our work is not done. Abortion is a blessing and our work is not done.

I want to thank all of you who protect this blessing – who do this work every day: the health care providers, doctors, nurses, technicians, receptionists, who put your lives on the line to care for others (you are heroes -- in my eyes, you are saints); the escorts and the activists; the lobbyists and the clinic defenders; all of you. You’re engaged in holy work.

Thank you for allowing me to join you in that work for a few days here in Alabama. God bless you all.

Sick, Sick Sick.

Newsweek's recent cover story certainly is getting a lot of attention.  It's bad enough that they declare the end of Christianity.  But it's laughable for a bunch of arrogant little human specks with some stapled sheets of glossy paper to declare the end of God.  Because, of course, that's what they're really doing.  God isn't what He says He is anymore; He's what we say He is.  This week.  Or month.  Or however often they can publish anymore.  And, thus marginalized, He can be disregarded.  Won't politics be "calmer" when those bothersome Christians stop trying to bug us all with their morality?  Of course, we can still hold some warped notion of Christian morality over their heads and call it "social justice," but that's beside the point.

The Pravda press are doing with religion what they have done with politics for years: writing the story to CREATE the result they want.  The Left loves to demonize all believing Christians as barbarians.  (Unless, of course, they actually are barbarians, like this one, who calls for human sacrifice and characterizes it "a blessing."  She's cool.) 

Here's an idea: why don't all of us Christians just slink back into our churches and leave the Left to fight off the Radical Islamists when they arrive?  Then Meacham, Zakaria and their many compatriots in search of  "calmer" politics and a "more theologically serious religious life" can discover what religious zealots who are barbarians do when they "don't have answers to modern problem" or "a worldview that satisfies the aspirations of modern men and women"...

They simply take everyone back to the Stone Age.