The Right Slant

<body topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 marginheight=0 marginwidth=0> <table cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0 border=0><tr> <td valign="top" colspan=2 height=95 BGCOLOR="#000000" TEXT="#F7F7FF"> <div> the<I><B><U>right</U></B></I>slant.com<FONT SIZE="5" COLOR="#FFFFFF" FACE="Vrinda" >.......... </FONT><FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#FFFFFF" FACE="Vrinda" ><B>never afraid to be </B><I><B><U>right</U></B></I><B>!</B></FONT><FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#FFFFFF" FACE="Arial" > </FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#FFFFFF" FACE="Arial" >  </FONT><FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#FFFFFF" FACE="Arial" > </FONT><FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#009900" FACE="Arial" >|  </FONT><FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#009900" FACE="Arial" > </FONT><FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#009900" FACE="Arial" >  <A HREF="index.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="therightslant.com"><U>home</U></A></FONT></div> <div> <B>The Right Slant</B><B>   |   </B><A HREF="in_layman_s_terms.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="In Laymans Terms"><U>In Layman's Terms</U></A><B>   |   </B><A HREF="id21.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="4th Inches"><U>4th & Inches</U></A><B>   |   </B><A HREF="id25.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Favorite Quotes"><U>Favorite Quotes</U></A><B>   |   </B><A HREF="id170.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Published Credits"><U>Published Credits</U></A><B>   |   </B><A HREF="id186.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Archives 2007"><U>Archives 2007</U></A><B>   |   </B><A HREF="id26.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Contact Me"><U>Contact Me</U></A></div> <div> </div> </td> </tr><tr> <td valign="top" width=190 BGCOLOR="#000000" TEXT="#F7F7FF"> <div> Back to the home page...<A HREF="index.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="therightslant.com"><U>therightslant.com</U></A></div> <bR> <DIV ALIGN="LEFT"></DIV> <div> Comment by email:</div> <div> <A HREF="mailto:respond@therightslant.com" TARGET="_top" TITLE="mailto:respond@therightslant.com"><U>respond@therightslant.com</U></A></div> <bR> <div> <A HREF="id191.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dcffffff00.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">The Quick Slant</U></A></div> <bR> </td> <td valign="top" height=385 BGCOLOR="#FFFFFF" TEXT="#080000"> <div> <B><U>The Right Slant</U></B></div> <div> <A HREF="#an_iran_plan_that_ll_satisfy_everyone_" TITLE="The Right Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dc00000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">An Iran plan that'll satisfy everyone</U></A>: Dealing with Iran in a way that satisfies liberals, conservatives and moderates. (638)</div> <div> <A HREF="#a_few_questions_in_need_of_answering" TITLE="The Right Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dc00000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">A few questions in need of answering</U></A>: Can you help me address these mysteries? (638)</div> <div> <A HREF="#love_him_or_hate_him_you_knew_where" TITLE="The Right Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dc00000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Love him or hate him you knew where</U></A> Jesse Helms stood. Helms passing leaves a void. (642)</div> <div> <A HREF="#second_amendment_ruling_welcome_but" TITLE="The Right Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dc00000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Second Amendment ruling welcome, but</U></A> with an asterisk. Supreme Court ruling affirms a vital but fragile individual right. (646)</div> <div> <A HREF="#give_the__fourth_of_july__its_due" TITLE="The Right Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dc00000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Give the “Fourth of July” its due</U></A> respect: Independence Day is more than a date on the calendar. (650)</div> <div> <A HREF="#one_happy_ending_in_50_million" TITLE="The Right Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dc00000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">One happy ending in 50 million</U></A>: What might abortion on demand have cost America. (642)</div> <div> <A HREF="#leftist_pundits_apply_the_assumption_of" TITLE="The Right Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dc00000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Leftist pundits apply the assumption of</U></A> innocence selectively: Haditha reactions proves the Left's anti-American bias. (641)</div> <div> <A HREF="#politicians_can_t_save_us" TITLE="The Right Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dc00000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Politicians can't save us</U></A>: You, not government, make America function. (640)</div> <div> <A HREF="#n_c__senate_bill_is_reminiscent_of" TITLE="The Right Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dc00000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">N.C. Senate bill is reminiscent of</U></A> slavery: Only government benefits from forced volunteerism. (642)</div> <div> <A HREF="#to_the_graduating_class_of_2008" TITLE="The Right Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dc00000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">To the Graduating Class of 2008</U></A>: A message for your graduating Senior. (662)</div> <div> <A HREF="#the_old_definition_of_hero_still_works" TITLE="The Right Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dc00000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">The old definition of hero still works</U></A>: Which military hero do you prefer? (648)</div> <div> <A HREF="#is_obama_the_latest_democrat_appeaser_" TITLE="The Right Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dc00000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Is Obama the latest Democrat appeaser?</U></A> Appeaser label hits Barak Obama where he lives. (639)</div> <div> <A HREF="#burma_dictators_exemplify_government_s" TITLE="The Right Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dc00000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Burma dictators exemplify government's</U></A> natural course: Totalitarian regime's response to disaster aid shouldn't surprise us. (641)</div> <div> <A HREF="#high_prices_may_produce_an_unexpected" TITLE="The Right Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dc00000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">High prices may produce an unexpected</U></A> benefit: Price hikes may spur some needed reprioritization. (637)</div> <div> <A HREF="#shark_attacks_burma_cyclone_blamed_on" TITLE="The Right Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dc00000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Shark attacks Burma cyclone blamed on</U></A> a familiar scapegoat. Green science again uses bad news to promote a political cause. (632)</div> <div> <A HREF="#speaker_pelosi_s_biblical_faux_pas" TITLE="The Right Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dc00000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Speaker Pelosi's Biblical faux pas</U></A>: Nancy Pelosi fabricates the Bible for her convenience. (650)</div> <div> <A HREF="#big_gov_not_big_oil_is_playing_us_for" TITLE="The Right Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dc00000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Big Gov not Big Oil is playing us for</U></A> suckers: When will America get angry about government price-gouging? (629)</div> <div> <A HREF="#ted_turner_s_lunacy_highlights_climate" TITLE="The Right Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dc00000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Ted Turner's lunacy highlights climate</U></A> alarmism: Shedding a little light on the global warming debate. (636)</div> <div> <A HREF="#johnson_s_lack_of_foresight_can" TITLE="The Right Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dc00000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Johnson's lack of foresight can</U></A> galvanize Charlotte's charitable spirit: A billionaire NBA owner is losing money and it's your fault. Now you can help. (664)</div> <div> <A HREF="#jimmy_carter_needs_a_new_home" TITLE="The Right Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dc00000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Jimmy Carter needs a new home</U></A>: Like an humbled dog, Carter rolls belly-up to terrorists yet again. (624)</div> <div> <A HREF="#fonda___carter_mean_bad_news_for_obama" TITLE="The Right Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dc00000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Fonda & Carter mean bad news for Obama</U></A>: Fonda and Carter endorsements belie Obama's hope and change. (650)</div> <div> <A HREF="#conservatives_again_left_with_the_1" TITLE="The Right Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dc00000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Conservatives again left with the</U></A><A HREF="#conservatives_again_left_with_the_1" TITLE="The Right Slant"><U> </U></A>lesser of two evils: McCain is the latest in a long line of disappointing Republican presidential candidates. (635)</div> <div> <A HREF="#hillary_s_million_word_lie" TITLE="The Right Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dc00000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Hillary's million word lie</U></A>: Clinton's Bosnian fib spins a whopper of an excuse. (647)</div> <div> <A HREF="#how_and_why_did_we_become_a_democracy_" TITLE="The Right Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dc00000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">How and why did we become a democracy?</U></A> A Democracy is more dangerous than a republic. (641)</div> <div> <A HREF="#california_court_assaults_education" TITLE="The Right Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dc00000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">California court assaults education</U></A>, parental rights and freedom: Government schools become indoctrination centers when "loyalty to the state" is their prime purpose. (634)</div> <div> <A HREF="#chris_burke_beats_a_chapel_hill" TITLE="The Right Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dc00000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Chris Burke beats a Chapel Hill</U></A> professor any day: UNC's Albert Harris proves the human foot will fit in the human mouth. (641)</div> <div> <A HREF="#sleep_well_our_problems_have_been" TITLE="The Right Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dc00000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Sleep well our problems have been</U></A> solved: Congress has nothing better to deal with than Roger Clemens. (636)</div> <div> <A HREF="#northern_illinois_shooting_should_be_no" TITLE="The Right Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dc00000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Northern Illinois shooting should be no</U></A> surprise: We have no right to be outraged or surprised when life is treated cheaply. (637)</div> <div> <A HREF="#politicians_play_an_election_year_shell" TITLE="The Right Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dc00000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Politicians play an election year shell</U></A> game: Stimulus package merely gives back a portion of your property. (646)</div> <div> <A HREF="#in_defense_of_the_second_amendment" TITLE="The Right Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dc00000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">In defense of the Second Amendment</U></A>: What and whose right is protected, and why. (629)</div> <div> <A HREF="#change_is_an_ambiguous_and_fearful" TITLE="The Right Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dc00000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Change is an ambiguous and fearful</U></A> concept: Voters should be wary of undefined promises for change. (646)</div> <div> <A HREF="#primaries_mean_open_season_for_expert" TITLE="The Right Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dc00000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Primaries mean open season for expert</U></A> punditry: The primary season spinmeisters prove their prejudice, not their expertise. (641)</div> <div> <A HREF="#revisiting_america_s_black_monday" TITLE="The Right Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dc00000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Revisiting America's Black Monday</U></A>: A brief look at Roe v. Wade. (632)</div> <div> <A HREF="#hillary_s_emotion_is_disingenuousness" TITLE="The Right Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dc00000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Hillary's emotion is disingenuousness</U></A> at best, dangerous at worst: Emotional NH outburst indicative of her phoniness and her weakness. (641)</div> <div> <A HREF="#capital_punishment_is_about_justice" TITLE="The Right Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dc00000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Capital punishment is about justice</U></A>, not deterrence: Only one payment is appropriate for stealing a life. (644)</div> <div> <A HREF="#putin_means_stability__but_at_what" TITLE="The Right Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dc00000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Putin means stability. But at what</U></A> price?: Stability at the price of tyranny is a poor buy. (606)</div> <div> <A HREF="id17_m.htm" TITLE="The Right Slant"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <DIV ALIGN="LEFT"></DIV> <div>  <A NAME="an_iran_plan_that_ll_satisfy_everyone_"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>An Iran plan that'll satisfy everyone<FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" > </FONT></div> <div> July 15, 2008</div> <bR> <div> There's very little on which the left and right can agree. If they agreed, there be no left or right. Those in the middle--the oft-praised moderates--believe that both the left and right are both right and wrong. In short, they're noncommittal.</div> <div> Perhaps no other international issue highlights these divisions like Iran's nuclear program. The debate turned hotter still with Iran's announced missile test. Iranian TV broadcast the launch, which included a missile capable of reaching U.S. forces in Iraq and Bahrain as well as the hated, evil, Zionist dogs in Israel. Such a test is provocative without Iran's typical rhetoric. Then, right on cue, the rhetoric flowed, too.</div> <div> Iran has vowed reprisals should the U.S. or Israel attack their nuclear facilities. Iranian General Hossein Salami said, “Our hands are always on the trigger and our missiles are ready for launch.” Those are forceful words, General. But may I remind you that we have missiles, too? Furthermore, ours work. Maybe that knowledge can help our nations avoid conflict.</div> <div> It turns out that Iran's missile test contained more hot air than a desert wind. Despite the initial worldwide alarm, it appears that Iran launched no new missile capable of striking Israel or our Middle East bases. The video itself was doctored to conceal the failure of at least one missile, with even Al Jazeera reporting the fraud.</div> <div> What now? If Iran's grandstanding reflected a genuine capability it would fuel the argument for military action. But, since their eye-opening claims appear to be a snooze-inducing lie, is Iran no longer a threat? Hardly.</div> <div> The doctored images could've been a poorly executed bluff intended to make the world think Iran possesses advanced missile technology. It's also possible that Iran wanted the fakery exposed. What better smokescreen for a developing nuclear weapons program than public failure? But conspiracy theories aside, Iran's hostile intentions have long been clear.</div> <div> President Ahmadinejad has openly called for a world without Israel and the United States. What's more, he believes that goal is achievable. Last year Iran seized 15 British sailors in international waters. This year, Iranian boats threatened U.S. warships in the Persian Gulf. Their open antagonism dates to the Iran Hostage Crisis in 1979. Not a threat? How can we logically consider Iran otherwise?</div> <div> So, should we go to war? The timing couldn't be worse. Activists were so successful in demonizing the Iraq War that it's hard to envision support for attacking Iran. America's attention span simply won't focus on another war front. We're too concerned with gas prices, economic uncertainty, and “bad news” from Iraq. Any operation would be deemed a failure unless it revealed an Iranian countryside littered with nuclear missiles.</div> <div> However, there's good news afoot. I've developed a solution that will please everyone.</div> <div> For the leftist doves, we simply leave Iran's nuclear program alone and hold unilateral talks with their radical leaders. But, those private talks will adopt a hawkish attitude.</div> <div> We let Iran know that they are responsible for any electron, neutron, or proton that we find offensive. As little as one split atom for the glory of Allah will result in Iran's total, unrestrained and indiscriminate annihilation, no excuses accepted.</div> <div> The left is happy. Iran's been left to their own devices and we've established dialogue with an adversary. And if Iran or an affiliate nukes an American city, leftists can consider it just compensation for our past imperialist aggressions.</div> <div> The right is happy, too. If the predictable becomes reality, we fulfill our promise and we're rid of this backward nation of rug weavers. Even Iran is happy. With modern civilization obliterated the surviving Ayatollahs and Imams can blissfully live in the Seventh Century, which they seem to prefer.</div> <div> And what about the moderates? They'll just have to find contentment in their wavering.</div> <div> <A HREF="id17_m.htm" TITLE="The Right Slant"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <DIV ALIGN="LEFT"></DIV> <div>  <A NAME="a_few_questions_in_need_of_answering"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>A few questions in need of answering</div> <div> July 10, 2008</div> <bR> <div> A lot of time goes into writing these columns. Research is required, and each source commands documentation. A filing system is necessary for retrieving sources as needed. These things are imperative. Unless I can substantiate my positions they have lost whatever influence they may have.</div> <div> Research is certainly rewarding, and can be interesting. There's nothing quite like discovering a study or statistic that validates what common logic has long held to be true. Still, the constant review of websites, newspapers, wire services and media archives borders on the mundane. But piling through judicial decisions, with their cited precedents and legalese, is the worst of all. I'd just as soon cut my lawn with a pair of tweezers.</div> <div> However, perseverance being beneficial, the tedium of research has granted me a bit of knowledge and insight. Mostly, I've become more cognizant of my ignorance. As the lyrics from an old rock song state, “And if I claim to be a wise man, it surely means that I don't know.”</div> <div> Inevitably, I've asked questions to which I've found no answers. Some of them are serious; some are undeniably silly. Others may be funny, foolish, odd, or irrelevant. This is where you come in. Help me answer my questions. And don't fear being wrong; any answer you provide will beat what I've come up with. Here goes.</div> <div> Why do people who think that foreign spies and illegal aliens are innocent until proven guilty see no problem with the IRS considering native-born Americans guilty until proven innocent?</div> <div> Why does the phrase “state-run television” conjure images of gulags and propaganda ministers while “public broadcasting” sounds innocent, non-threatening and pure?</div> <div> Are people who celebrate diversity really celebrating diversity? Or, has the term become cover for people who obscure fact, logic, common sense, and tradition with vapid, emotional rhetoric?</div> <div> Why shouldn't I take the American Federation of Government Employees' endorsement of Barak Obama to indicate that Obama plans to grow government exponentially?</div> <div> How can anti-poverty activists justify the forced redistribution of wealth on the basis that we should do unto others as we would have them do unto us?</div> <div> How can government demand that private malfeasances (such as football's “spy gate” and baseball's steroids scandal) be investigated by outside sources, yet retain the right to investigate itself on all internal matters?</div> <div> If Democrat Hillary Clinton figures out a way to steal the Democratic presidential nomination from Democrat Barak Obama at the Democratic Convention in heavily Democratic Denver, how will it be President Bush's fault?</div> <div> Does anyone else think that <I>American Idol </I>is nothing more than the <I>Gong Show </I>on steroids?</div> <div> What article of the Constitution authorizes Congress to determine which Americans constitute “the rich” and what their “fair share” ought to be?</div> <div> If slavery is the engine that drove America's economic prosperity, why was the Confederacy poorer than the Union? Furthermore, why did wealth increase dramatically during the 20<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >th</FONT> Century, long after slavery was abolished?</div> <div> Why do people who distrust President Bush's government seem willing to trust that same government to manage their retirement, healthcare, medicine, food, housing, job, fuel, etc., if the administration has a “D” beside its name instead of an “R”?</div> <div> Why is it that a man who notices an attractive woman in the presence of his wife lands in hot water? But, if the wife comments on the pretty woman and the husband simply agrees, he's in the clear?</div> <div> Maybe you can shed light on a few of these dark areas. Maybe you're scratching your head, your confusion as profound as my own. But why not ponder these questions for a while? You could solve a riddle that has plagued mankind for years. And it's a better use of your time than watching <I>American Idol</I>, or the <I>Gong Show </I>for that matter.</div> <div> <A HREF="id17_m.htm" TITLE="The Right Slant"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <DIV ALIGN="LEFT"></DIV> <div>  <A NAME="love_him_or_hate_him_you_knew_where"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>Love him or hate him, you knew where Jesse Helms stood</div> <div> July 8, 2008</div> <bR> <div> With the news of Jesse Helms passing came the predictable, made-for-the-media commentaries. Political allies and adversaries spoke glowingly of the former Senator, even the ones who disliked both Helms and his conservative philosophy. It seemed odd to hear liberals publicly praising Helms' legacy, so I decided to look where liberals would air their views uncensored.</div> <div> Ever hear of Democratic Underground? It's a website dedicated to liberal discussion, liberal ideas, and liberal politicians. In fact, posting conservative content on the site can result in your account being suspended. How's that for the free exchange of ideas that we hear liberals crow about? As you may expect, members of Democratic Underground had some interesting takes on Sen. Helms and his death.</div> <div>  “Mad_Dem_X” wrote, “One should only speak good of the dead. He's dead. Good!” “Badgervan” chimed in, “Damn, I've hated this cretin for many decades. Hope he's enjoying face time with his boss, Lucifer.” “Dankira” posted, “Hopefully his death was slow and painful. . .  We are all much richer for having lost him.” These are but a few of the heartfelt eulogies marking Helms' passing at Democratic Underground.</div> <div> Publicly, Helms' most strident adversaries chose to speak politely of his passing. But considering his passion for frankness and straight answers he may have preferred the toxic reactions of his far left “mourners”. Especially if the stories are true that Helms faithfully collected virulent anti-Helms editorial cartoons and displayed them prominently on his office wall.</div> <div> That thick skin endeared Helms to his constituents. No matter your opinion of him or his politics, you knew he would stand firm for his beliefs. He never wavered and he didn't compromise his principles. If you didn't want to know what Jesse thought of an issue you were better off not asking.</div> <div> Jesse Helms was a consummate conservative, tirelessly fighting against high taxes, bureaucracy, and overbearing regulators. Although he was a part of the federal government for 30 years, he always maintained that people could better manage their affairs than could a Washington agency.</div> <div> Long before the “no fear” attitude came into vogue, Helms had embraced it with gusto. He didn't consider it his place to please the New York Times or the Washington Post. Making nice with Dan Rather wasn't high on his list either. Even when called a bigot, he abandoned neither his Christian beliefs nor his moral principles. And charges of racism didn't derail his opposition to affirmative action, which he rightly identified as the same government sanctioned discrimination aimed in a new direction.</div> <div> Both allies and opponents could deal with Senator Helms. They knew what he thought, and they knew he wouldn't be swayed by trendy policies or avant-garde notions. Therefore, he commanded respect if not agreement. He wasn't perfect; no one is. But he gave the Senate guts, transparency, and candidness, qualities that are rare in that chamber these days.</div> <div> “Just another conservative praising Helms,” you say. Not so fast. I agreed with Jesse Helms, and unashamedly so. But there are Democrats I respect too, for the same reasons I respect Helms. Daniel Patrick Moynihan is one. Joseph Lieberman is another. I don't agree with them. But, like Helms, I seldom had to guess about their positions.</div> <div> Whether you loved or hated Helms, you always received the genuine article. His views weren't poll-driven, media-indulging, or focus-grouped. And they weren't tossed aside the morning after Election Day.</div> <div> Jesse Helms was Jesse Helms 100-percent of the time. He tempered his forceful opinions with a genuine warmth and Southern politeness that is disappearing all too rapidly from our culture. Furthermore, you could always count on him giving you a clear choice on Election Day.</div> <div> Rest in peace Senator Helms. The Senate could use more men like you, on both sides of the aisle.</div> <div> <A HREF="id17_m.htm" TITLE="The Right Slant"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <DIV ALIGN="LEFT"></DIV> <div>  <A NAME="second_amendment_ruling_welcome_but"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>Second Amendment ruling welcome, but with an asterisk</div> <div> July 4, 2008</div> <bR> <div> The Supreme Court has confirmed what a majority of Americans already knew; the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess firearms. The decision recognizes, in part, the Founding Father's vision.</div> <div> “A well regulated militia” is the nail upon which gun control advocates hang their misguided agenda. But the Founder's considered the militia to include everyone, and everyone is an all-inclusive pronoun. George Mason defined the militia as “the whole people.” James Madison concurred. And Thomas Jefferson said, “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”</div> <div> To enjoy freedom we must have a way to protect it. Armies and navies can fill that job against external threats. However, any military force--including our own, for which I have great respect--can be unleashed against the internal population. What then?</div> <div> If we are to remain free there must exist some mechanism to resist enslavement and defend liberty. Hence the right of a free people to keep and bear arms in defense of self and freedom. Minus the means to forcibly resist tyranny, our liberty is--at best--an arbitrary privilege.</div> <div> In the District of Columbia vs. <I>Heller</I>, the Supreme Court upheld the individual right to bear arms apart from active militia service. Justice Scalia's opinion recognized the Founder's fear of government and that private arms are the ultimate check against government abuses. However, the fact that the ruling was 5-4 and not 9-0 underscores the contemporary necessity of the right to bear arms and the perpetual threat government poses to liberty.</div> <div> Justice Stevens wrote in dissent that the Second Amendment holds no interest in limiting government regulation of private arms. He added that the right to bear arms applies only to military service and the use of arms for military purposes. So, Justice Stevens would submit that a free people can possess arms to defend government against citizens but not citizens against government? Such an attitude is precisely why a free people must be armed.</div> <div> Unfortunately, he isn't alone in his disdain for individual liberty.</div> <div> Justice Breyer wrote that there's no constitutional right to keep and bear arms in your home, not even in “crime-ridden urban areas.” Therefore, Breyer would render you at the mercy of the violent predators that he and his judicial ilk routinely return to the streets. </div> <div> D.C. politicians, from the current mayor and police chief to the crack-smoking former mayor Marion Berry, vowed to circumvent the ruling. District Attorney Peter Nickles promised to continue the city's trigger lock requirement in direct disregard for page 64 of Scalia's majority opinion, which holds that rendering firearms inoperable for immediate self-defense is unconstitutional.</div> <div> FBI Director Robert Mueller said the ruling could turn colleges and towns into “potential incubators of terrorism.” Mr. Mueller, gun bans (including D.C.'s) have been in effect from the time of the Iran Hostage Crisis through 9/11 to today. How well, Mr. Mueller, have gun bans worked in preventing terrorism? Yet, if Americans retain their right to bear arms, they are the potential terrorists.</div> <div> Such are the arguments of tyrants and the accepted creed of slaves. From Justice Breyer to D.C.'s political “leaders” to Robert Mueller, they are tyrants one and all. If you accept their positions you can readily see the category into which you fall.</div> <div> <I>Heller</I> is a boon not just to the Second Amendment but to liberty itself. Yet its aftermath highlights the hostility toward freedom that exists throughout modern American culture, as well as the subservient nature common to many of our countrymen.</div> <div> The reaction of opponents to <I>Heller</I> should forever prove why the Second Amendment's individual interpretation is essential to personal liberty. However, that jubilation should be marked with an asterisk. The slim majority ruling and its political aftermath proves that the fight for liberty, which began 233 years ago at Lexington and Concord, is far from over.</div> <div> <A HREF="id17_m.htm" TITLE="The Right Slant"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <DIV ALIGN="LEFT"></DIV> <div>  <A NAME="give_the__fourth_of_july__its_due"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>Give the “Fourth of July” its due respect</div> <div> June 28, 2008</div> <bR> <div> Happy Birthday, America! Someone need convey that wish, for it seems fewer and fewer people can spare the time. Maybe we've become ignorant of the Fourth of July's significance. Perhaps we're complacent, or simply too busy to care.</div> <div> Most Americans will celebrate the Fourth of July in some way, be it a family cookout, a ballgame, or a vacation. But why bother celebrating the Fourth of July if you're only celebrating the Fourth of July?</div> <div> There's a July 4<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >th</FONT> in Canada. England too, although it's significantly less meaningful than it should be here. In fact, there is a July 4<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >th</FONT> in any culture that follows the Gregorian calendar. The date itself is insignificant without an associated event.</div> <div> Let's look at it this way. Do you give 25<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >th</FONT> of December presents to your family and friends? Do you gather at grandma's house for a turkey and dressing dinner in honor of November's fourth Thursday? Does our society--shaped by Christian history whether the ACLU likes it or not--celebrate the first Sunday following the first full moon of the vernal equinox?</div> <div> Most of us quickly realize that we celebrate Christmas, Thanksgiving, and Easter, not the dates on which they fall. Doesn't July 4<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >th</FONT> deserve honor for what it represents? It's not just a date on the calendar and it's far more than a day off from work or an excuse for grilling burgers. The Fourth of July is Independence Day and it should be recognized as such.</div> <div> It is the day when our Founding Fathers formally pledged to each other--and to a fledgling nation--their lives, fortunes and sacred honor. At the moment John Hancock applied his artistic signature to Thomas Jefferson's inspired Declaration of Independence the colonies became a sovereign nation, no longer subject to King George's crown.</div> <div> More than 10,500 Americans were killed or wounded to preserve that sovereignty. All told, over 2.6 million of our countrymen have been killed or wounded to preserve American autonomy. To their memory we recognize Independence Day as if it were only a date on the calendar?</div> <div> But perhaps there are reasons we no longer hold independence in the same esteem our forebears did. Daniel Webster once said that subsequent generations should celebrate Independence Day “with bonfires and illuminations.” That might also include celebratory gunfire.</div> <div> However, many purported lovers of liberty within our government would ban the private ownership of firearms given half a chance, recent Supreme Court rulings notwithstanding. And how many governments have decided that fireworks--a form of illumination--are too dangerous to be used safely? Our paternalistic government guardians must fear that we'll put out an eye.</div> <div> No doubt that unlimbering grandpa's old double-barreled shotgun or firing skyrockets in an urban environment isn't the best idea. But the point is that we've become far too complacent, subservient, and sheepish to celebrate our nation's birth for what it was and is--independence from outside rule.</div> <div> We aren't celebrating the Fourth of July. That date came and went before our Founding Fathers made it special. Why not return to the spirit of Daniel Webster's oration if not the absolute letter?</div> <div> Celebrate your sovereignty, America! Celebrate your republic. Celebrate your Independence Day. We are not bound to the United Nations or to a thus far unrealized North American Union. We are an emancipated people, fully capable of self-government. Let us not become Pavlov's dog, conditioned to quietly accept our destruction.</div> <div> The Fourth of July is far more than a date on a calendar and a day off from work. It is our Independence Day, the day on which our Founders told the greatest empire on the face of the earth to take a hike.</div> <div> If we cannot undertake to celebrate Independence Day for what it is, no wonder we're squeamish when called to defend the freedom and sovereignty it represents.</div> <div> <A HREF="id17_m.htm" TITLE="The Right Slant"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <DIV ALIGN="LEFT"></DIV> <div>  <A NAME="one_happy_ending_in_50_million"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>One happy ending in 50 million</div> <div> June 18, 2008</div> <bR> <div> Every now and then there's a happy ending. This one began when Jodie Percival decided to abort her pregnancy. She feared that her child would inherit a potentially fatal, hereditary kidney disorder, and her fears were grounded in reality. She had experienced the death of one son due to the condition. A second son is living, but with only one kidney.</div> <div> Why Jodie thought that ending the pregnancy was the compassionate option is anyone's guess. Either way the child would likely die. But a funny thing happened on the way to the bio-waste container. The abortion didn't take.</div> <div> Jodie's son, Finley, was born premature and with minor kidney damage. Otherwise he's fine and expected to live a normal life. Jodie is now thrilled with her son and grateful that the abortion failed. Finley can't yet offer his assessment of the situation. But you have to assume the outcome pleases him, too.</div> <div> The only people who are likely to be upset are Planned Parenthood staffers--and NARAL Pro-Choice America activists--who never seem to meet an abortion they don't think is necessary. Why should Jodie or Finley care what they think anyway?</div> <div> No one can predict what the future holds for Finley. His kidneys could yet fail and he could die young. He may take the wrong path and spend his life in prison. Or, he could live a long and productive life, possibly becoming a national hero. We just don't know.</div> <div> The point is that Finley will have those opportunities. He will get the chance to live, to make the decisions that will determine his worth. Far too many babies are deprived of that opportunity. They are deprived of the blessing of birth, all for the sake of their parent's convenience.</div> <div> “Doesn't a woman have a choice in pregnancy?” you ask. She sure does, and she makes that choice when she decides to lie with a man. If she doesn't want to accept the responsibility that comes with sexual activity--i.e.: becoming pregnant--she should abstain. The least she can do is take preventative measures. But it's the mother and father who bear responsibility if those measures fail, not the predictable result of their union. </div> <div> Please refrain from offering the tired, old “what about rape and incest” argument. If those crimes were the source behind every abortion performed legally in America there'd be about 10,000 abortions annually, not an estimated 1 million.</div> <div> We have surpassed the 50 million mark in legal abortions since 1973, a dubious milestone at best. Although abortions are declining, it's too late for the lives already discarded. Have you ever wondered what the unseen consequences of 35 years of abortion on demand might be?</div> <div> We bemoan the lack of cures for deadly cancers. What if the physician who would've found a remedy for one or more lethal cancers was aborted by his or her mother? What if the child who would've cured Lou Gehrig's Disease, AIDS, or the common cold was aborted?</div> <div> Perhaps the scientist who could've developed a cheap, clean, renewable fuel source and the industrialist who would've invented the replacement for the internal combustion engine were discarded at an abortion clinic.</div> <div> The leader who could've returned our nation to its constitutional roots may never have drawn a breath. He or she was just too inconvenient for the mother. The evangelist who was intended to lead the next Great Awakening may never have seen the light of day.</div> <div> Can I prove any of these scenarios? Of course not. But abortion activists can't disprove them either. In a control group of 50 million-plus aborted babies we've undoubtedly missed out on some potentially world-changing lives.</div> <div> Finley is fortunate. He received a second chance to be born, a second chance at life itself. I pray he makes the most of it.</div> <div> <A HREF="id17_m.htm" TITLE="The Right Slant"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <DIV ALIGN="LEFT"></DIV> <div>  <A NAME="leftist_pundits_apply_the_assumption_of"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>Leftist pundits apply the assumption of innocence selectively</div> <div> June 12, 2008</div> <bR> <div> One of the great protections Americans enjoy is the presumption of innocence. Our courts never declare a defendant “innocent” of an alleged crime. Being found “innocent” implies that guilt existed beforehand. Instead, an exonerated American is declared “not guilty”, a verdict which is consistent with innocence until guilt is proven.</div> <div> This basic right of a free and respectful people protects individuals from wrongful, politically-motivated convictions. While railroading and wrongful conviction remains possible, assumed innocence provides a vital check against miscarriages of justice. What a shame it is that politically-driven pundits apply that assumption selectively.</div> <div> In November, 2005, a roadside bomb killed Lance Corporal Miguel Terrazas, a Marine on patrol in Haditha, Iraq. The blast's aftermath left 24 Iraqis dead, most of the world wondering what had happened, and the American left criticizing the Marines like they were Nazi storm troopers.</div> <div> In a 2006 letter to the Los Angeles Times, one reader said the Haditha Massacre represented our soldier's actions throughout the Iraq War and that our Marines had exacted vengeance “on the nearest defenseless Iraqis.” Another wrote that we have blood on our hands for justifying murder.</div> <div> New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd used the incident to lament the lack of ethics, values and decency in our troops. Apparently, she fully believes that US Marines kill women and children for kicks, resurrecting the “baby-killer” label that was unfairly pinned on our Vietnam soldiers.</div> <div> Marjorie Cohn--writing for truthout.org in May, 2006--summarily dismissed the Marine Corps' account of the Haditha firefight. Conversely, she readily accepted the idea that American troops are cold-blooded murderers while referring to our enemies as “resistance fighters.” She drew her conclusions based on unidentified sources, locals who may have been in league with the enemy, and conspiracy theories.</div> <div> Each and every accusation was lodged before the investigation was complete or a trial had begun. It's a good thing the military courts have more respect for presumptive innocence. Had these “compassionate” leftists had their way, our Marines would've been convicted and punished two years ago, without benefit of trial.</div> <div> Lt. Andrew Grayson was recently found not guilty on all charges related to Haditha. He is unique in being the first Marine tried in the case, but the sixth to be exonerated. How's that possible? It seems there was insufficient evidence to bring charges against the first five defendants.</div> <div> Only squad leader Frank Wuterich awaits trial for direct involvement in the incident, and he's charged with manslaughter, not murder. He doesn't deny that civilians died at Haditha. In fact, no one has denied that civilians died at Haditha. But he maintains that his actions and orders were based on the situation as it existed. I'll bet he's exonerated, too.</div> <div> Most of us will never experience those circumstances--thank God--and can't imagine what Sgt. Wuterich faced. That includes the agenda-driven media pundits who were so eager to pronounce our Marines guilty.</div> <div> Military victories can be glamorous and heroic. But war itself is dirty and ugly at best. It's not unusual for civilians as well as soldiers to die. In fact, it is rather common. I'm confident that our Marines were fired upon in Haditha. I also realize that they could've erred and raided the wrong house, with catastrophic results. But left-wing pundits and activists couldn't get past their unfounded biases long enough to consider such possibilities.</div> <div> From Maureen Dowd to Marjorie Cohn to the readers of the L.A. Times, leftists were unable to hide their disdain for our military. They rushed to condemn our troops without the benefit of trial, all the while defending the rights of captured terrorists. Along the way they trampled a basic tenet of American justice.</div> <div> Wouldn't it be refreshing if leftist pundits would grant our soldiers the same presumption of innocence that they so readily bestow upon Islamic radicals?</div> <div> <A HREF="id17_m.htm" TITLE="The Right Slant"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <DIV ALIGN="LEFT"></DIV> <div>  <A NAME="politicians_can_t_save_us"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>Politicians can't save us</div> <div> June 12, 2008</div> <bR> <div> Maybe it doesn't matter much now. The North Carolina primary is over. Hillary Clinton lost and has since dropped her presidential ambitions, at least for 2008. However, I was amazed when Gov. Mike Easley endorsed her candidacy.</div> <div> Oh, I wasn't surprised that he endorsed a Democrat. Easley himself is a Democrat, a big government Democrat. And both Hillary and Obama are big government Democrats, as alike as two peas in a pod. So it's wasn't at all surprising that he endorsed one of the two. What was surprising, and a bit unnerving, was the reaction of the audience when he made the announcement.</div> <div> They shouted. They screamed. They acted as if their favorite team had just won the Super Bowl, or like they were attending a Jeremiah Wright sermon at the Trinity Divided Church of Christ. They did everything but cut flips. It's sad to think that anyone's mind is so vapid, and their existence so inconsequential, that a rather predictable announcement can propel them into a frenzy.</div> <div> As the prophet Hosea wrote, “But even if we had a king, what could he do for us? They make many promises, take false oaths and make agreements; . . .” Why trust your happiness to such hands?</div> <div> My friend, no politician can make your life better through government programs. It doesn't matter if it's Barak Obama with his ambiguous hope and change, Hillary Clinton with her clearly defined class envy and socialism, or John McCain's maverick moderation. It can be Fred Thompson, or Mitt Romney, or Ron Paul, or Mike Gravel, or whoever. No one person can make your life better by sitting in the Oval Office.</div> <div> The greatest president in this nation's history could occupy the White House for the next four years. That president could restore this republic to its constitutional principles. He or she, white or black, could rein in the bloated federal bureaucracy, cut every wasteful government program and eliminate each department or agency that is beyond Washington's constitutional authority. That president can open the floodgates of capitalism, creating an economy that grows exponentially. Yet, if you refuse to participate it will do you no good whatsoever.</div> <div> One person, however, can harm your life from the Oval Office. If a president implements policies that drain the economy, increase government regulation, expand the scope of government and stoke the federal bureaucracy's insatiable appetite for taxation, that person can thwart your hard work. They can leave you in worse shape than before.</div> <div> Isn't it time to realize that it's each individual American who makes this country work? It's not representatives in statehouses. It's not governors. It's not district representatives or Senators in Congress, nor is it the President. It's not bureaucrats implementing volume upon dusty volume of burdensome regulations that even they don't understand. It is not government!</div> <div> You should realize that your efforts make this country thrive. Whether your collar is white or blue, professional or trade, you make America work. You make it wealthy. You drive America's gross domestic product and you need not feel threatened or intimidated by anyone who claims otherwise. And you're the one with the God-given ability to ensure constitutional government and unbridled prosperity for this nation.</div> <div> You're not beholden to politicians. They are beholden to you, the voter. For without you they have no power; they have no authority. Therefore, to see emancipated Americans stand and shout at a political endorsement as if that candidate can single-handedly make their lives better is depressing.</div> <div> If such attitudes represent the thought process that will determine the course of government we are diving headlong into an empty pool. There remains but one conclusion. No matter who wins the White House this November, no matter their party affiliation or who controls Congress, we will get exactly what we deserve.</div> <div> <A HREF="id17_m.htm" TITLE="The Right Slant"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <DIV ALIGN="LEFT"></DIV> <div>  <A NAME="n_c__senate_bill_is_reminiscent_of"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>N.C. Senate bill is reminiscent of slavery</div> <div> June 4, 2008</div> <bR> <div> A bad government program is one thing. We've seen enough bad government programs so that they've become old hat. But when a bad government program is sold on the basis of social betterment it should send up a red flag. Therefore, Sen. Tony Rand's S-2079--filed May 28<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >th</FONT> in the North Carolina Senate--should have North Carolinians waving red flags from Johnsonville to Knotts Island.</div> <div> Rest assured that this immoral bill is filled with lofty platitudes and pretentious goals. Sen. Rand claims that his sanctimoniously-titled Eve Carson/Abhijit Mahato Community Service Program will grow the economy, lower crime, ease racial tensions and alleviate gang activity. This will all be accomplished when college students mentor at-risk teenagers for at least 20-hours per semester.</div> <div> “What's wrong with that?” you ask. Plenty! In fact, there's so much wrong with it that it cannot be adequately addressed in this limited space. Even long-standing champions of social engineering--who think Sen. Rand's sentiment is laudable--questioned his approach to the problem. I say both the approach and sentiment are dubious.</div> <div> Sen. Rand has displayed a total contempt for freedom, a lack of respect for people and a colossal ignorance of volunteerism. Worse yet, he acts under the assumption that you and I are too stupid to see his bill for what it is.</div> <div> The proposal's text refers repeatedly to volunteerism. However, a volunteer gives freely. A volunteer may donate time, money, or property. But a voluntary act cannot be made under duress. Students will have no choice if Sen. Rand gets his way.</div> <div> Section 1 of S-2079 reads, “Participation in this program shall be a requirement for any baccalaureate degree awarded after January 1, 2012.” If this bill becomes law no college student can receive their bachelor's degree without having passed through Rand's “community service program”. This is student volunteerism? A more apt definition is that they're being conscripted or shanghaied.</div> <div> Sen. Rand considers college students--your sons and daughters--to be state property. He will force them to serve other people's needs regardless of their desire or qualifications to do so. And he'll withhold the degree they've earned, and that you or they have paid for, if they don't do his bidding. Worse yet, Sen. Rand doesn't even have the cover of war to legitimize his version of the draft.</div> <div> Maybe it's time to remind Sen. Rand that the 13<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >th</FONT> Amendment to the U.S. Constitution abolished “involuntary servitude” within the United States. And make no mistake; this bill is the 21<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >st</FONT> Century descendant of 19<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >th</FONT> Century slavery.</div> <div> Even the name is offensive. You remember Eve Carson and Abhijit Mahato as the UNC and Duke students who were murdered earlier this year. Their murders were perpetrated by the very demographic Sen. Rand would've forced them to serve. That's not to say that all “at-risk” teens are capable of killing their mentors. But it does prove that Sen. Rand has no qualms with forcing your kids to enter into a possibly dangerous situation against their will.</div> <div> This legislation has no redeeming qualifications whatsoever. It assumes the false notion of compulsory volunteerism. A segment of society--college students--is deemed state property. It capitalizes on the emotional connection to the Carson and Mahato murders to create support. Worst of all, it grants government the authority to force one human being to serve another, against their will. If that is not slavery, and it meets the definition pretty well, it is at least tyranny.</div> <div> The Eve Carson/Abhijit Mahato Community Service Program, while unlikely to become law, should never have seen the light of day to begin with. What's more, the bill's text indicates a legislator, Senator Tony Rand, who is so hostile toward freedom and self-government that he should be removed from office.</div> <div> Then again, in how many ways is government already forcing us to serve our neighbor's needs?</div> <div> <A HREF="id17_m.htm" TITLE="The Right Slant"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <DIV ALIGN="LEFT"></DIV> <div>  <A NAME="to_the_graduating_class_of_2008"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>To the Graduating Class of 2008</div> <div> May 30, 2008</div> <bR> <div> Life can be summarized as the continual pursuit of milestones. Some milestones lead toward greater accomplishment. Others are reached and soon forgotten. Without regard to their overall importance, milestones open new doors.</div> <div> Your first accomplishments, or milestones, were walking and talking. These were reached at a young age and aren't likely remembered. You can, however, remember your first day of school. It was your first milestone moment, and it opened the door to more accomplishments in later years.</div> <div> Sometime following your first day of school you brought home an “A” on your report card. You scored your first run, touchdown, or goal. You completed elementary school and became a teenager. Not long after came the first boy or girl who made you sweat more than an oral book report.</div> <div> At some point during your childhood you began to anticipate your 16<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >th</FONT> birthday. Since birthdays are somewhat a milestone themselves, what made that one special? I'm betting that it wasn't high school algebra. When you turned 16 you were able to drive, and it was a time you'll never forget.</div> <div> However, like every important moment since the first day of school, driving was more a rite of passage than a milestone. Nearly anyone can get a driver's license, and if you don't believe it just try driving in rush hour traffic. You took driver's education, passed your test, and you were on your way. There are far more important achievements.</div> <div> For you, Graduate, a true milestone is at hand. The culmination of 12 years of classes, homework, book reports, club meetings and ball practices are here. Thousands of you will receive your high school diploma. This is more than a rite of passage. It is a monumental event that opens a new chapter in your life, drawing you to higher accomplishments.</div> <div> It's true that your diploma doesn't guarantee your success. However, it does mark a significant transformation. As Paul wrote to the Corinthians, “When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man (or woman), I put childish ways behind me.” You're now an adult, and it's time to act like one.</div> <div> Prayers and advice will accompany the cards, gifts and letters from family and friends. Many of them will encourage you to hold fast to your dreams. They mean well; they really do. But their advice is inadequate. Far better for you to establish goals, then pursue them doggedly.</div> <div> No effort is required to dream. Anyone can dream, for dreams demand neither plan nor action. Dreamers too often become wishers, hoping for an outcome they haven't pursued. It is a recipe for frustration and failure.</div> <div> I don't suggest that you hold onto dreams. Instead I urge you to change dreams into goals, becoming more than a dreamer. Goals compel you to act, for they won't attain themselves. Define your goals, aiming higher than you think you can reach. Then, even if you fall short, you will have accomplished more than otherwise possible. And when you reach a goal, set a new one. To be content is to be thankful; to be satisfied is to be stagnant.</div> <div> Pursue all ends with honor and integrity. And despite the best efforts of political correctness, the Ten Commandments are both valid and viable. Discover God's purpose for you and ground your life on that knowledge. When you're knocked down-and you will be, more than once-get up. Self-pity produces nothing. And never, ever, listen to people who say you can't.</div> <div> The door is opening and it's time to step through. Transform those little boy and girl dreams into mature man and woman goals. If you rely on dreams you will someday look back and wonder why you've accomplished nothing. Establish goals and you'll look back with amazement at how far you've come.</div> <div> Congratulations, Class of 2008. God Bless each of you.</div> <div> <A HREF="id17_m.htm" TITLE="The Right Slant"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <DIV ALIGN="LEFT"></DIV> <div>  <A NAME="the_old_definition_of_hero_still_works"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>The old definition of hero still works</div> <div> May 27, 2008</div> <bR> <div> Memorial Day just passed. Between cookouts and ballgames I hope you found a moment to recall the millions of Americans who've died in wars or who passed away sometime after their military service. Now I hope you'll consider the new definition of “hero”.</div> <div> Matthew Chiroux is the new face of military heroism to a vocal segment of America's population. He served six years in the Army, some of that time in Afghanistan. But when Chiroux's unit received deployment orders to Iraq, he decided he wouldn't go. Sgt. Chiroux said, “"My decision is based on my desire to no longer continue violating my core values to support an illegal and unconstitutional occupation…”</div> <div> The legality and constitutionality of the Iraq War has been questioned ad nauseam. Yet there've been few explanations for the charge. Has Sgt. Chiroux acted heroically by refusing an illegal order? Let's look at it.</div> <div> In 2002 Congress passed the Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq. That resolution outlined Congress' reasons for authorizing military force and granted power to the President to use force as he deemed appropriate. The result of that action is a close as the nearest news outlet.</div> <div> If you've read my previous thoughts on Iraq you know that I support the effort. My reasons go back farther than 9/11 and extend beyond terrorism and WMDs. I also recognized some good arguments against the invasion. However, legal and constitutional matters weren't among them.</div> <div> The aforementioned resolutions may not have “declared war” in so many words. But Congress did empower the commander-in-chief to use force in Iraq at his discretion. Therefore, it's hard to declare the Iraq War illegal or unconstitutional regardless of a person's current view of the war or its progress.</div> <div> “But Bush manipulated evidence and misled Congress,” you say. If so, you must also indict the prior administration as well as Members of Congress from both parties, for those parties accepted the intelligence reports about Iraq's activities even before 9/11. You can argue Iraq's successes and failures. You can argue tactics and plans. You can even argue Scott McClellan. But Congress authorized Bush to take military action against Iraq.</div> <div> No soldier is obligated to follow blatantly illegal orders. The “just following orders” defense went out with the Nuremburg Trials. Even so, Sgt. Chiroux has no defense based on his deployment being unconstitutional and, therefore, an illegal order.</div> <div> Still, Chiroux has become a hero to people who consider the current administration illegitimate and the Iraq War unconstitutional and illegal. If the traditional image of a military hero fit the Matthew Chiroux mold, I doubt that our nation would be here today.</div> <div> While Sgt. Chiroux was making his “heroic” declaration at a Capitol Hill press conference, Spc. Ross McGinnis' family was preparing for a ceremony in which their late son will be awarded the Medal of Honor. It is our nation's highest military decoration, and all too often presented to the surviving family of a soldier who sacrificed their life to save others.</div> <div> Then Pfc. Ross McGinnis was on patrol when an Iraqi insurgent tossed a grenade into his Humvee. He was in the gunner's hatch, a position from which he could've escape with his life. Instead he ducked into the vehicle and dove on the grenade, sacrificing his life so his friends could live. It sounds like a scene from <I>Saving Private Ryan</I>. But it was very real to Ross McGinnis. It will be forever real to his family.</div> <div> We now have contrasting images of a military hero. Sgt. Matthew Chiroux, who will likely face desertion charges, represents the contemporary version. The traditional role is played to perfection by Medal of Honor recipient, Spc. Ross McGinnis, God rest his soul. You must decide which man better fits the definition of “hero”. For my money, the traditional way works pretty well.</div> <div> <A HREF="id17_m.htm" TITLE="The Right Slant"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <DIV ALIGN="LEFT"></DIV> <div>  <A NAME="is_obama_the_latest_democrat_appeaser_"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>Is Obama the latest Democrat appeaser?</div> <div> May 26, 2008</div> <bR> <div> President Bush is a lame duck. Very little that he says or does over the next seven months is likely to cause a stir. But he sure got the Democrat's attention when he referred to them as the party of appeasers.</div> <div> There exists the idea that America should reach out to hostile leaders. It's as if good intentions and diplomatic dialogue will alter a tyrant's lust for power and conquest. Bush contradicted that position saying, “We have an obligation to call this what it is--the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."</div> <div> Sen. Barak Obama and Democratic Party leaders were quick to take offense. However, since President Bush never mentioned Obama by name, the question becomes whether or not his assessment is accurate.</div> <div> During the 1970s the United States pursued a philosophy of détente with the Soviet Union. It began with a Republican administration and escalated greatly under a Democratic one. The idea was based on both superpowers being morally equivalent. But that basis was flawed, for Soviet communism had respect for neither humanity nor freedom. By 1980 we had fallen behind the USSR in terms of nuclear weapons and military preparedness. We had bartered away our areas of superiority, such as the B-1 bomber and decreased trajectory missiles.</div> <div> Appeasement, or détente, was so successful that Leonid Brezhnev once said, “Come 1985, we will be able to extend our will wherever we need to.”</div> <div> When North Korea's nuclear ambitions became known in 1993, a Democrat met with Kim Jong Il. The parties struck a deal in which North Korea would shut down plutonium producing reactors in exchange for economic and energy concessions. The world praised the agreement with a collective sigh of relief. But the North had violated the pact before the ink had dried.</div> <div> By 2002 North Korea had expelled nuclear inspectors and withdrawn from the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. While Kim Jong Il's nuclear capability remained questionable, it was plain that he had double-crossed his negotiating partner and appeasement had failed.</div> <div> Hezbollah guerillas entered Israel in the summer of 2006. They kidnapped Israeli soldiers and rocketed Israeli towns, then scurried back to their holes in Lebanon do hide among the civilian population. When Israel retaliated, Democrats blamed the Jewish state for the rising civilian death toll.</div> <div> There was nary a peep about Hezbollah launching raids and rockets from Lebanese towns and using residents as human shields. Today, Hezbollah is on the verge of taking Lebanon outright, creating an unquestionable puppet state for Syria and Iran. Democrats see no problem and appeasement has failed yet again.</div> <div> We dealt with Saddam Hussein via diplomacy and negotiation for ten years. In return, Iraqi forces fired on US planes in the no-fly zone, thwarted weapons inspectors, violated arms control agreements, and established a lucrative money laundering scheme otherwise known as the U.N.'s Oil-for-Food program. We've offered similar olive branches to Syria, Iran and Hamas. And Obama himself has promised unconditional negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program. Remember the North Korea agreement?</div> <div> I'm not advocating war against every country or entity with which we disagree. However, I don't advocate legitimizing thuggish regimes by groveling at their feet, either. Ask Czechoslovakians how well appeasing a dictator worked in 1938. Chamberlain legitimized Hitler's ambitions, which resulted in 55 million deaths, untold human suffering, and Czechoslovakians living under communism for 45 years.</div> <div> President Bush accused Democrats of practicing appeasement. And in recent history, Democrats have led the charge in snuggling brutish regimes and organizations. But Bush mentioned no one by name, including Senator Obama. Yet Obama was quick to claim offense. Doesn't that seem odd?</div> <div> Perhaps Bush's comment struck a bit too close to Obama's heart. There's an old saying in the rural South, “a hit dog barks.”</div> <div> <A HREF="id17_m.htm" TITLE="The Right Slant"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <DIV ALIGN="LEFT"></DIV> <div>  <A NAME="burma_dictators_exemplify_government_s"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>Burma dictators exemplify government's natural course</div> <div> May 10, 2008</div> <bR> <div> “The hungry he leaves empty and from the thirsty he withholds water. The scoundrel's methods are wicked, he makes up evil schemes to destroy the poor with lies, even when the plea of the needy is just.” Isaiah 32:6, 7.</div> <div> Isaiah's words are prophetic indeed. Keep them in mind as you consider the Burmese government's response to cyclone relief efforts. What little bit of food and aid Burma's dictatorial leaders have allowed into the storm-ravaged nation has been immediately impounded by government officials. Their callous attitude has prompted shock and outrage around the world. But we shouldn't be surprised at all.</div> <div> All government--yes, even legitimate government--exists to control their populations to a certain degree. It isn't government's natural tendency to ensure the protection of human rights or to ease human suffering. It is government's natural tendency to protect itself. No wonder Thomas Paine referred to government as, at best, “a necessary evil.”</div> <div> The Burmese government has faced unrest within its population and will take no chance that its authority will be challenged. Therefore, it shouldn't surprise us that all humanitarian assistance entering Burma would be subject to government confiscation and inspection. Burma's dictators won't take the risk, however slim, that weapons could be smuggled into the country along with the aid packages, weapons that could prompt an oppressed and desperate population to armed rebellion.</div> <div> The Burmese military junta would rather see millions of its own people starve to death than risk the slightest threat to its totalitarian control. Does that sound harsh and incomprehensible? You bet it does. But it is the natural progression of government. We've seen it too often not to believe it. Governments starved, killed, executed and enslaved their citizens by the millions throughout the 20<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >th</FONT> Century.</div> <div> The Soviet Union persecuted people at the drop of a hat, even to the point of a contrived famine in Ukraine. Josef Stalin imposed grain quotas on collective farms that couldn't be achieved. Since the government received the first fruits of all collective farm production, there was little left for the collective farmers themselves, who went hungry. People who refused to relinquish the grain were often shot. Stalin's forced famine, which killed between six and seven million Ukrainians, was proclaimed a great success.</div> <div> When Cambodians welcomed communist forces at the end of the Vietnam War, their acquiescence was rewarded with death and hardship. People were forced from their urban homes, marched for days on end with little food and water, and forced to build new towns in jungle wastelands while communist party leaders and soldiers lived in their former cities. People who couldn't keep pace with the forced marches were shot or left to die by the side of the road.</div> <div> Hitler used his brown-shirted thugs to establish Nazism in Germany, and then killed them when they were no longer useful. Nazis burned and looted Jewish homes and stores. Nazis dragged Jews to concentration camps where they were overworked, beaten, starved and gassed. Anyone found disloyal to Der Fuehrer earned a trip to the grave.</div> <div> The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) used peasants to overthrow landlords, “workers” to overthrow capitalism, and brute force to control each oppressive action. The CCP stifled religion, using violence and oppression to establish communism as the only true faith, and executing people who didn't renounce their religious beliefs. The Great Leap Forward, a policy based on unrealistic promises and outright lies, produced a famine that killed millions. And the Cultural Revolution, orchestrated primarily by the “benevolent” Chairman Mao, resulted in at least seven million “unnatural deaths” in the late 1960s.</div> <div> There are other examples: North Korea, Cuba, Iran, Sudan, Somalia, and any government where collectivism or centralization is or was considered superior to individual liberty. With so many examples, you'd think we'd have learned this lesson by now.</div> <div> <A HREF="id17_m.htm" TITLE="The Right Slant"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <DIV ALIGN="LEFT"></DIV> <div>  <A NAME="high_prices_may_produce_an_unexpected"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>High prices may produce an unexpected benefit</div> <div> May 8, 2008</div> <bR> <div> Looking beyond the storm clouds to find a silver lining or a single ray of sunshine can be a daunting task. According to a Gallup poll, 86-percent of Americans are having a tough time finding a ray of sun in the current economic storm. Fuel prices are rising. Food prices are rising. Fact is, nearly all prices are rising. That stands to reason, since nearly all commodities travel via some form of motorized conveyance.</div> <div> Alternative fuels have been billed as the savior of all things green. However, the quasi-worship of bio-fuels has contributed to a very real food shortage in much of the world. Here in America we are still the land of plenty. But we may not remain so if we continue to turn our efficient foods into inefficient fuels.</div> <div> Ethanol, which is a corn derivative, is all the rage in environmental circles. But if ethanol didn't receive government subsidies it would cost more per gallon than gasoline. It also produces less power than gasoline, meaning more ethanol is required to propel your car the same distance at the same speed. And some European scientists now claim that bio-fuels pose a more detrimental long-term environmental affect than current fuels.</div> <div> Ethanol can't travel via pipeline due to contamination concerns. Therefore it must travel by truck or rail, increasing expense. In short, ethanol couldn't survive in a free market. Its main benefit thus far is helping drive the aforementioned food shortages that have led to riots in third world countries. Trendy though it may be, ethanol isn't a ray of sunshine.</div> <div> Yes, the economic clouds are thick, and the doomsayers claim that the sky is falling, America's declining, and civilization is ending. With all the gloom that exists, perhaps we should take another look for that sunbeam. It's possible that economic uncertainty will produce some much needed financial reprioritization. Maybe we'll realize that certain “must have” items aren't so indispensable after all.</div> <div> Cell phones are a business and personal convenience, and an absolute blessing when your car breaks down. But are cell phones that play games, access the Internet, snap photos and record movies a necessity or a luxury? And do teenagers really need unlimited text messaging so they can keep in contact with friends they see throughout the day? Satellite and cable television are enjoyable. I like to watch certain programs and events as much as anyone. But are 250-plus channels a need or a pleasure?</div> <div> Don't think I'm down on consumerism per se. I'm all for people buying items and services that they believe will make life easier or more satisfying, as long as they can afford them. But if rising prices make us focus on essentials first and frills second, they may be the ray of sunshine we're seeking.</div> <div> Americans don't mind spending money. The problem is that many Americans want to spend their money only on fun, convenience, status, or trends. We'll shoulder repressive debt for an unaffordable home, a fancy car, a boat, a motorcycle, or an RV. We'll shell out thousands to be the first to own the latest video gaming system, or a cell phone that will call the International Space Station.</div> <div> We'll exhaust our credit limits so our kids can wear $150 shoes and $80 jeans. Then we'll bark and whine about the cost of things we really need, such as gasoline, food, and routine medical care. We assume that these things should be cheap, or free, so we can spend our earnings on fun and entertainment.</div> <div> Our spending philosophy has come to mirror that of the federal government, which has taught people that it's perfectly fine to live at their neighbor's expense. If higher prices cause us to reassess our responsibilities and priorities, we've found our ray of sunshine.</div> <div> <A HREF="id17_m.htm" TITLE="The Right Slant"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <DIV ALIGN="LEFT"></DIV> <div>  <A NAME="shark_attacks_burma_cyclone_blamed_on"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>Shark attacks, Burma cyclone blamed on a familiar scapegoat</div> <div> May 6, 2008</div> <bR> <div> Two shark attacks near California and Mexico have left two swimmers dead. Other swimmers have been injured in shark attacks off Florida's coast. This year alone, four people worldwide have died from shark attacks, compared to only one in all of 2007. While four fatalities is a relatively small number, it causes you to wonder why attacks have risen.</div> <div> According to Dr. George Burgess of Florida University, human activity has much to do with the increase. That's sensible. The earth's population is growing in both number and affluence; therefore more people are visiting beaches. Increased interaction between sharks and humans means more attacks are likely. Other reasons include an abundance of seals near populated areas and a disruption of the food chain due to overfishing. But there's another explanation, and it is agenda driven.</div> <div> Now, what is the cause du jour for every calamity that befalls mankind? If you said global warming or its ugly sister climate change, take a gold star. Yes, man-made global warming is responsible for the increase in fatal shark attacks, just as it is blamed for every catastrophe we experience. In theory global warming is driving sea temperatures up, which in turn drives sharks into areas they wouldn't otherwise be found.</div> <div> However, a Great White shark attacked the swimmer off California's coast, and a Tiger shark was blamed for the attack in Mexican waters. Blacktip, Tiger and Bull sharks are responsible for most Florida attacks. These predators, while not natural man-eaters, are common to the waters in which the attacks occurred and known to bite people either from curiosity or mistaken identity.</div> <div> Finding this information is not advanced science. You don't need a doctorate in marine biology to learn that the shark species blamed for these attacks were in their native waters. All you need is access to the National Geographic and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration websites. Yet, that doesn't stop alarmists from blaming global warming for the presence of sharks in their natural habitat.</div> <div> Shamelessly, shark attacks aren't the only catastrophe that climate change prophets are using to spread their hysteria. It didn't take long for Al Gore to blame global warming for the devastating cyclone that struck Burma. The death toll is at least 20,000 with another 40,000 missing. Some analysts say those numbers could rise above 100,000. That's unimaginable. But what's even more unimaginable is that Al Gore would use this disaster to promote his environmental agenda.</div> <div> Gore claimed that Cyclone Nargis, a similar storm in Bangladesh last autumn, and Typhoon Saomia--China's strongest cyclone since 1949--are all the result of global warming. But man-made global warming wasn't an issue 50 years ago. So, what caused the storm that Gore used for a comparison? And if it wasn't caused by man's assault on the environment, why can't the latest storm be attributed to natural phenomena as well?</div> <div> Following Hurricane Katrina, global warming activists claimed such storms would increase in frequency and violence. Forecasters boldly predicted massive hurricane seasons in 2006 and 2007, with several major storms hitting America's eastern shores. However, there were few major storms and none of them made landfall in the United States. And yet we're supposed to believe that forecasters can accurately predict the global temperature in 2100.</div> <div> As far as scientific consensus goes, consensus isn't necessarily synonymous with reality. Scientific consensus once held that the world was flat and that the sun orbited the Earth. When incontrovertible evidence was uncovered to the contrary, those unanimities were proven false.</div> <div> Shark attacks catch the public's attention, and natural calamities elicit our sympathies. Yet for Al Gore and the prophets of doom to use such misery and death to further an unproven hypothesis deserves neither sympathy nor attention, only condemnation.</div> <div> <A HREF="id17_m.htm" TITLE="The Right Slant"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <DIV ALIGN="LEFT"></DIV> <div>  <A NAME="speaker_pelosi_s_biblical_faux_pas"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>Speaker Pelosi's Biblical faux pas</div> <div> April 29, 2008</div> <bR> <div> It's not uncommon to hear people quote the Bible to prove a point. Thus it's not altogether surprising for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) to quote the Old Testament in an Earth Day press release. Pelosi's statement read, “To minister to the needs of God's creation is an act of worship. To ignore those needs is to dishonor the God who made us.”</div> <div> How refreshing it is to hear a leftist like Rep. Pelosi quote the Bible and acknowledge our Supreme Creator. However, I'm somewhat familiar with the Holy Scriptures and I've never read or heard anything similar to Pelosi's passage. So, with the help of the Internet I searched for it in five popular Bible translations. Guess what? I couldn't find that passage, or anything resembling it.</div> <div> The only verse I could find that is remotely similar is Romans 1:25, which teaches us that we err when we worship the created more than the Creator. That seems to directly contradict Rep. Pelosi's application. But, then, I'm not a theological authority.</div> <div> Fortunately, a little further digging revealed several authentic Biblical scholars. John Collins of Yale Divinity School is one. Claude Mariottini of Northern Baptist Theological Seminary is another. Rev. Andreas Hock of Denver's St. John Vianney Seminary is a third. Not one of these men is familiar with Pelosi's passage. Mariottini called it “fictional”. Unfortunately for Pelosi, she can't claim to have misspoken. She has used this “verse” to promote her political ideologies on at least five separate occasions.</div> <div> Even when Ms. Pelosi quotes the Bible accurately she misses the point just as certainly as if she'd made it up. In an apparent attempt to lend Biblical legitimacy to social welfare programs, Pelosi once quoted Jesus from Matthew 25:35, “For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, . . .”</div> <div> Surely we are to be generous with our blessings. But Christ meant for us to give of our blessings voluntarily, not to give of our neighbor's blessings via governmental force. Also, in Matthew 25:8-9 Jesus clearly teaches that the foolish and the unprepared will suffer consequences. And Paul wrote in II Thessalonians 3:10, “that if any would not work, neither should he eat.” So it would appear that Pelosi can utilize neither genuine nor counterfeit passages with clarity.</div> <div> I'm sure you'll find me misinterpreting and misapplying Scripture from time to time, and failing to live up to its teachings most of the time. But you'll not find me deliberately misusing God's words, and definitely not pulling them from thin air. Pelosi has no qualms with either practice and enthusiastically opposes valid Scriptural teachings, which makes her Earth Day “quote” all the more egregious.</div> <div> Rep. Pelosi is staunchly pro-abortion, receiving a 100-percent voting record from NARAL Pro-Choice America. In a press release opposing a ban on partial-birth abortion Pelosi stated that “politicians should not be making medical decisions.” If only she'd apply that thought to the socialized medicine schemes she actively supports. And if only she'd apply actual Biblical text--such as Psalms 139:16, Isaiah 44:24, or Jeremiah 1:5--to abortion as readily as she applies fabricated passages to environmentalism.</div> <div> Pelosi's also a solid supporter of gay rights dogma. Again she ignores actual Biblical passages that contradict her position, such as Romans 1:26-27, I Corinthians 6:9 and Leviticus 18:22. Therefore, to say that Nancy Pelosi's use of the Bible is self-serving and selective is as obvious as declaring Hitler a scourge upon Europe.</div> <div> There's one last verse with which Pelosi should become acquainted, Revelation 22:18. It reads, “If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book.” Perhaps that warning applies only to the Book of Revelation. But considering Madame Speaker's flippant and fabricated use of God's Word, it could mean that she is quite literally playing with fire.</div> <div> <A HREF="id17_m.htm" TITLE="The Right Slant"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <DIV ALIGN="LEFT"></DIV> <div>  <A NAME="big_gov_not_big_oil_is_playing_us_for"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>Big Gov, not Big Oil, is playing us for suckers</div> <div> April 24, 2008</div> <bR> <div> Congress has again used rising gasoline prices and Big Oil profits to grandstand for the voters. This time our alleged representatives assembled the CEOs of ExxonMobil, BP, Shell, Chevron and ConocoPhillips for their self-serving witch hunt.</div> <div> “On April Fool's Day, the biggest joke of all is being played on American families by Big Oil,” quipped Rep. Edward Markey (D-MA). The obvious intent is to depict oil companies as evil, faceless, inhuman entities under the rule of greedy, corrupt robber-barons bent on sticking it to the American people. When a Big Oil representative pointed out that oil companies must maximize their profits during up cycles to remain viable during down cycles, Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO) opined that the current up cycle has gone on too long.</div> <div> In reality, both Rep. Markey and Rep. Cleaver are correct. The American people are being played for fools and the up cycle has gone on too long. Only it's not Big Oil that is the greedy culprit. It's Big Gov. Government has been on an up cycle since Roosevelt instituted the Raw Deal. That growth accelerated exponentially during Johnson's Not-So-Great Society. As of now, 2008, the era of big government has raged on for 75 years with no end or deceleration in sight. It's Big Gov that's playing “the biggest joke of all” on the American people, and it's not a bit funny.</div> <div> I know gasoline is a necessity and that its high price hurts. But we do have some options. We can buy different brands from different stores, seeking the best price available. We can combine trips to maximize our fuel efficiency. We can drive less. We can carpool. We can trade our large vehicles for smaller ones. All of these options and others are available in the marketplace. Those choices may not be preferable to $1.50 a gallon gasoline, but at least we have alternatives of some sort.</div> <div> When dealing with government we have no options. When the price of government becomes too high we can't seek government services from another outlet. We can't combine government services, nor can we use less of them. Well, perhaps we can use fewer government services, but you can bet the farm we'll still pay full price. We can't trade in our lumbering, inefficient government services for smaller, more economical ones. In short, we're stuck.</div> <div> No one is happy about $3.50 per gallon gasoline. But there are factors in the escalating fuel prices that are beyond the control of Big Oil. A barrel of crude has nearly doubled since last May. Refineries are operating at less than capacity due in part to the formulation of government-mandated summer blends.</div> <div> What's more, domestic refineries must bid against international competition for the supply of crude. When more bidders are chasing an existing supply, the product's price will increase. Yet, failing to attain crude now will mean future shortages that will drive gasoline prices higher still.</div> <div> Government doesn't respect such market forces in regard to its services. When a government service is underused it merely receives an influx of taxpayer provided subsidies and goes on its merry way. Furthermore, if we refuse to buy from Exxon or Shell they're out of luck. Big Oil cannot force us to purchase its product. Just try that with Big Gov. Refuse to pay the portion of our taxes that funds a service we neither want nor use and we could wind up on the wrong end of a gun barrel.</div> <div> For politicians to moan about gasoline prices while they preside over an ever-expanding, unresponsive, and overpriced government machine that dwarf's Big Oil in terms of excess takes gall beyond measure. Maybe voters should demand hearings on Big Gov's “price-gouging” practices.</div> <div> <A HREF="id17_m.htm" TITLE="The Right Slant"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <DIV ALIGN="LEFT"></DIV> <div>  <A NAME="ted_turner_s_lunacy_highlights_climate"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>Ted Turner's lunacy highlights climate change alarmism</div> <div> April 22, 2008</div> <bR> <div> Have you noticed that the more “mainstream” the global warming theory becomes the more outrageous the claims made by its proponents? Ted Turner is the latest to up the ante on climate change hysteria, and he upped that ante exponentially.</div> <div> Turner offered his views on climate change during an interview with PBS's Charlie Rose. According to Turner the global temperature will increase 8-degrees in as little as 30 years. Crops will cease to grow and most people will die. Civilization will crumble and the few remaining people will be cannibals.</div> <div> To what evil does Turner credit our planet's impending doom? Why will the climate change so drastically in so short a time? Turner says we're overpopulated, that there are too many people doing too much stuff. But, mankind can be saved if people will limit their reproduction to a maximum of two children. There's only one hitch in Turner's hypothesis; it isn't true.</div> <div> Earth isn't overpopulated. The world's population density, not counting the land mass of uninhabitable Antarctica, is 115 people per square mile. Each square mile contains 640 acres, meaning there is one person living on each 5.57 acres of land. Not only are we not overpopulated but we have a good bit of elbow room. Furthermore, we're producing more food than ever. Unfortunately, we're turning more and more of that efficient food into inefficient fuels, all because of climate change.</div> <div> Turner acknowledged his propensity for outlandish comments. But, he added that it's been a long time since anyone caught him saying something stupid. Ted should have taken the Fifth and kept that record intact. He is wholly misinformed on overpopulation and his comments on climate change are, at best, exaggerated.</div> <div> The roughly 1-degree increase in temperature over the last century may be heading in the other direction. Jennifer Marohasy of Australia's Institute for Public Affairs says temperatures have cooled over the last ten years. She also points out that carbon dioxide emissions, the scapegoat in man-caused global warming, have increased over that period. If carbon dioxide indeed caused the previous warming period, why hasn't the warming continued over the last decade, wonders Marohasy? What's more, she says NASA's Aqua satellite is compiling data that contradicts the doom-saying climate change models. In deference to objectivity, she's only partially correct.</div> <div> According to NASA official Claire Parkinson, the conflicting data is actually from NASA's Terra satellite project. And although it's premature to form an absolute conclusion on climate change computer models, those models are undoubtedly imperfect. Ms. Parkinson added that current knowledge is too limited to affirm or deny climate change, especially considering that the earth has experienced periods far warmer and cooler than today.</div> <div> If global warming science seems tough to defend in warm climates like Australia, it should be impossible to uphold in colder areas. Take Minnesota, where up to 32 inches of snow fell over the April 6<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >th</FONT> weekend with more expected. And in 2007 snowstorms struck western North Dakota and Alberta, Canada as late as Memorial Day. Canada's storm broke a 96-year-old snowfall record for May 28th.</div> <div> Not even the global warming community can come to a consensus. Bio-fuels, such as ethanol, are all the rage these days. But even environmentalists say these fuels may be worse for the environment than oil due to the deforestation necessary to grow sufficient quantities of the base products. While some scientists are predicting a cataclysmic and consuming climatic event in less than a hundred years, other scientists are contemplating the effect the sun's impending explosion will have on Earth and its inhabitants five billion years from now.</div> <div> There are many such events that question man's role in altering the climate; these are but a few. No wonder John Coleman, founder of the Weather Channel, calls man-made climate change “the greatest scam in history.”</div> <div> <A HREF="id17_m.htm" TITLE="The Right Slant"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <DIV ALIGN="LEFT"></DIV> <div>  <A NAME="johnson_s_lack_of_foresight_can"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>Johnson's lack of foresight can galvanize Charlotte's charitable spirit</div> <div> April 19, 2008</div> <bR> <div> Charlotte Bobcats owner and billionaire Bob Johnson has issued a compelling appeal to the area fan base and business community. He blames you for his team's economic woes. Now it's time for you to do something about it.</div> <div> Mr. Johnson said Charlotte businesses haven't invested enough money in the team to ensure its success. You aren't buying enough tax-deductible tickets. You aren't buying enough tax-deductible luxury suites. You fans aren't coming to the games in sufficient numbers to insure the Bobcat's profitability either. Shame on you all!</div> <div> Although Mr. Johnson isn't a member of the Forbes 400, he is a billionaire. He is a successful businessman and founder of Black Entertainment Television (BET). As such, you would expect him to know that a little market research is in order before making an investment decision. For example, a little research might reveal that choosing Harlem as the site for the Museum of Confederate History is a bad idea. You have to wonder if Mr. Johnson researched the area's NBA market before bringing a franchise to Charlotte.</div> <div> The former Charlotte Hornets were once the toast of the town. But that image soured like aging cabbage until the franchise moved to New Orleans following the 2002 season. Owner George Shinn alienated the fans. He and cohort Ray Wooldridge demanded a new coliseum on the premise that the Hornets couldn't compete in a facility that was barely 15-years-old. Then he was involved in “presidential politics” with a girl young enough to be his daughter, or even his granddaughter. Shinn was acquitted of the sexual assault charges. But it was obvious that some shenanigans had taken place.</div> <div> If it's possible to stay away in droves, Hornets fans did so. The fans who attended voiced their displeasure with Shinn and Wooldridge and the Hornets eventually bolted for New Orleans.</div> <div> Despite the fact that Charlotte voters soundly rejected a referendum to construct a new coliseum in 2001, a new arena was built uptown. The city's mood was soured against the NBA and with good reason. Most businessmen would've seen the situation for the potential financial disaster it has turned out to be. Why didn't Bob Johnson notice? And who is he to blame fans and area businesses for his lack of foresight?</div> <div> However, in the spirit of community and reconciliation, I have an idea to help Mr. Johnson. A local radio station has launched “Bob Aid” to help this ailing billionaire recoup his lost revenue. It has succeeded beyond the wildest of imaginations, collecting over $55 thus far. I suggest that the station expand upon another of its charitable ventures, the Ride for the Kids, to further help this struggling billionaire. We can call it the Ride for the Bob.</div> <div> Concerned citizens can solicit pledges from their friends and neighbors based on the distance they plan to ride. Perhaps a penny per mile is a good starting point. Then, on the day of the event (NBA Draft Day might be appropriate), all participants will gather at the Bobcats Arena in uptown Charlotte to peddle tricycles around the building. There can be no more fitting way to honor Mr. Johnson's respect for Charlotte's taxpayers and businesses. Maybe we can even set up jars so attendees can contribute to Mayor McCrory's gubernatorial campaign.</div> <div> We won't forget our participants either. Everyone who straddles a tricycle will receive a free sports bottle courtesy of Gerber Products, filled with your favorite flavor of Enfamil. The Bobcats logo will be proudly emblazoned on the bottle along with the slogan, “I rode for the Bob.”</div> <div> If the team starts winning this franchise/community animosity may become a moot point. In the meantime, Charlotte, show your community spirit. Make the Ride for the Bob a reality. Band together to save Mr. Johnson from the losses he's incurred--through no fault of his own mind you--before his fortune dwindles to a paltry $900 million. It's the least you can do.</div> <div> <A HREF="id17_m.htm" TITLE="The Right Slant"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <DIV ALIGN="LEFT"></DIV> <div>  <A NAME="jimmy_carter_needs_a_new_home"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>Jimmy Carter needs a new home</div> <div> April 18, 2008</div> <bR> <div> I wonder what Americans would've thought if Herbert Hoover, the only former president still alive during World War II, had traveled to the Eagle's Nest to meet with Adolf Hitler? What if he had insisted that a lasting European peace must include Nazi Germany? I also wonder what the reaction would've been if Harry Truman had traveled to Hanoi in 1966 to snuggle and coo with Ho Chi Minh.</div> <div> Although the Vietnam War would soon become unpopular, most people would've considered Truman's conciliatory visit with the Vietcong pathetic or treacherous, if not traitorous. During World War II Hoover most certainly would've been charged with treason and more than a few Americans would have called for his head.</div> <div> Even if the folks at home were willing to give Hoover and Truman a pass, their actions would've had a demoralizing affect on our combat troops. How could it not? Our soldiers were half a world away killing and being killed on foreign soil to preserve our Constitution while men once sworn to uphold that document were cuddling their enemy. Of course, both Hoover and Truman were loyal to their country, respectful of their successors and possessed basic common sense. If only Jimmy Carter were likewise.</div> <div> Our 39<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >th</FONT> president has done exactly what Hoover and Truman would never have considered. Not only has he met with a radical Islamic terrorist organization--Hamas--but he's apparently proud of it. Carter said, “I feel quite at ease doing this.” He added that the only way to establish a lasting peace in the Middle East is to include Hamas in the process. This is typical Jimmy Carter. Yet again his idea of peace is to surrender to a ruthless and bloodthirsty enemy.</div> <div> Yes, peace is a precious and desirable commodity. But true peace transcends the mere absence of war. We could have “peace” with militants like Hamas in a matter of days. All we have to do is annihilate Israel, install Sharia law in America and live in a state of dhimmitude. There would then be no more war with Islamic fanatics. Whether you could equate this state of servitude with peace is another matter entirely. And there's the near certainly that Muslims would soon begin fighting amongst themselves.</div> <div> Hamas is not an organization devoted to even the slightest peace. It has been, is now, and will continue to be a militant, despotic organization. This group has claimed responsibility for, or has been linked to, at least 90 terror attacks against Israel since the 1993 Oslo Accords brought “peace” to Israel and Palestine. And that number doesn't account for attacks in which Hamas claimed no responsibility or was never identified, nor does it account for the rocket fire routinely directed toward Israeli civilians from Gaza.</div> <div> There is no reason for Hamas to talk peace unless they receive everything they demand and more. Hamas isn't interested in gentlemanly agreements. Hamas isn't interested in playing by the rules. Their members aren't brave. Their organization isn't revolutionary. The entire group is evil personified, and it has earned no seat at a civilized table. Therefore, Jimmy Carter's meeting with Hamas is wholly unjustifiable. And the thought that Hamas is the key to a sustainable peace would be laughable if it weren't so dangerous.</div> <div> Mr. Carter isn't stupid nor is he ignorant. But his incessant offering of olive branches to violent enemies displays a lack of wisdom that is beyond belief. Jimmy Carter isn't a man of peace; he's a man of capitulation and he's infinitely embarrassing. If he is more at ease discussing policy with radical thugs in terror-sponsoring states than with his own country, then maybe it's time he packed his bags and moved.</div> <div> <A HREF="id17_m.htm" TITLE="The Right Slant"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <DIV ALIGN="LEFT"></DIV> <div>  <A NAME="fonda___carter_mean_bad_news_for_obama"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>Fonda & Carter mean bad news for Obama</div> <div> April 3, 2008</div> <bR> <div> Barak Obama has two new endorsements. If he goes on record as appreciating either one it should cause even his most ardent supporters to question both his judgment and intelligence, perhaps even his sanity.</div> <div> The first endorsement is from Jane Fonda. Yes, old Hanoi Jane herself; an actress who is famous more for being Henry Fonda's daughter than any actual on-screen performance. Oh wait, I forgot. She's famous for something else, too. She's famous--infamous is a better term--for manning a North Vietnamese anti-aircraft gun in 1972. That was during the Vietnam War by the way. Sure, you remember now, that time when our nation was at war with the North Vietnamese.</div> <div> Just to put this in further perspective, Fonda's actions are akin to a Hollywood actress manning a position along the Nazi's famed Atlantic Wall on June 5, 1944. Furthermore, she propagandized on behalf of the communist North Vietnamese government, branding our soldiers as war criminals and accusing them of torturing NVA prisoners. She called American POW's claims of torture “laughable”, referring to our soldiers as hypocrites, liars and professional killers.</div> <div> While our POWs basked in the glory of their five-star accommodations awaiting further luxury from their benevolent NVA jailers, Jane Fonda jetted back to the states to strip naked for soft-porn sex scenes in B-grade movies. Sure, she offered a quasi-apology a few years back. But she remains the poster child for Lenin's useful idiots.</div> <div> The second endorsement isn't as straightforward as Jane's, but telling nonetheless. It comes in the figure of former President Jimmy Carter; absolutely the worst president of the 20<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >th</FONT> Century, perhaps in our country's history. If you're dismayed by today's economic conditions you should recall the Carter administration.</div> <div> Interest rates were over 20-percent and inflation topped out near 15-percent. The Soviet Union was stockpiling weapons and breaking treaties while we employed détente, a suicidal foreign policy. Rhodesia fell to Robert Mugabe's dictatorship and Iran to Ayatollah Khomeini's. Things were so bad that America's mood was measured not by consumer confidence but a misery index.</div> <div> Supporters like Fonda and Carter are the last thing Barak Obama needs. He has done a masterful job of concealing his true positions thus far. However, upon inspection his campaign for hope and change reveals a propensity for more of the hopeless same. An association with Fonda and Carter will only mean that his beliefs will be further scrutinized.</div> <div> Obama openly supports socialized medicine, tax increases and wealth redistribution. And his ascension to the pinnacle of liberalism has followed a steady path. The National Journal rated Obama the Senate's 16<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >th</FONT> most liberal member in 2005. By 2007 he was ranked number one.</div> <div> Furthermore, according to research conducted by the Club for Growth, Obama supports wasteful government pork and a $50 billion fund for “clean technology”, whatever that might be. He supports the minimum wage and price controls on prescription drugs even though such measures are counterproductive and purely symbolic. In good liberal fashion he opposes any Social Security reform that includes you deciding how to manage your money and the prospect of domestic oil exploration.</div> <div> Obama's record belies his association with hope or change. In fact, his proposals seek to perpetuate the status quo. Considering his tired policy positions, his racist ex-pastor and his inability to drive the Wicked Witch of Chappaqua-that being Hillary Clinton-from the race, the last thing he needed was another distraction. Now he has two.</div> <div> He has won the endorsement of America's most notorious traitor since Benedict Arnold and that of a former president whose work made the Millard Fillmore administration seem wildly successful. If Obama is scratching his head wondering what he did to deserve such attention from Fonda and Carter, it could be that he makes eloquent speeches without uttering a meaningful word or revealing a discernable truth. Liberals adore that sort of thing.</div> <div> <A HREF="id17_m.htm" TITLE="The Right Slant"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <DIV ALIGN="LEFT"></DIV> <div>  <A NAME="conservatives_again_left_with_the_1"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A><FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >Conservatives again left with the lesser of two evils</FONT></div> <div> March 31, 2008</div> <bR> <div> Conservatives from the nationally known to the corner barber shop are upset with Republican nominee John McCain. The $64 question is why that angst exists? The primary reasons are numerous and well-documented.</div> <div> Let's start the ball rolling with the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform act, which is a blatant affront to free speech. Then there's the McCain-Lieberman effort to impose a domestic version of the Kyoto Accords. McCain also opposed tax cuts in 2001 and 2003. Of course, he now supports tax cuts and dismisses the mere suggestion of tax hikes as out of the question. And who's forgotten McCain's effort to grant amnesty to millions of illegal aliens under the guise of immigration reform.</div> <div> If that isn't enough to explain why conservatives are dissatisfied with the McCain nomination consider that he nearly bolted to the Democratic Party in 2001 and toyed with the idea of joining John Kerry presidential ticket. But these drawbacks are only part of the problem, barely scratching the surface of conservative disillusionment. Basically, conservatives are sick of the GOP fielding candidates that are nothing more than the lesser of two evils. Isn't it time Republicans had a candidate that elicited genuine passion?</div> <div> I was of voting age in 1984 and I enthusiastically supported President Reagan. I haven't been so energized about my party's nominee since. Each election I have voted not to lose more so than to win and it's becoming tiresome. Don't misunderstand, I'm not expecting a perfect candidate, and there was only one Reagan. But the Republican Party has largely abandoned his message, paying lip service to limited government and fiscal responsibility. The result has been a 20-year run of candidates with just enough conservative credentials to make conservatives say, “Well, he's better than the alternative.”</div> <div> In 1992 conservatives such as I overlooked President George H.W. Bush's “read my lips” debacle. We forgave him for squandering his Gulf War approval ratings and supported him against Bill Clinton. We did the same in 1996, pulling the lever for “the great compromiser” Bob Dole. To make matters worse our party tossed Newt Gingrich--the architect of the first Republican congressional majority in my lifetime--under the bus at the first opportunity.</div> <div> When 2000 rolled around we were treated to a candidate preaching a new brand of “compassionate” conservatism. The very term is degrading to conservatives, for conservatism is the essence of compassion and respect when practiced properly. Once again we sucked it up and played for the tie, unwilling to sacrifice the nation to Al “Captain Planet” Gore. It was the same old song in 2004.</div> <div> That's not to say that President Bush has no worthwhile accomplishments. The Supreme Court is heading in the right direction and we haven't run and hid from Islamic fanatics. But even those achievements are tainted. Harriet Myers comes to mind, and the initial “shock and awe” we were promised in Iraq never really materialized. Now our party has nominated John McCain, for whom even President Bush's watered-down conservatism is too far right.</div> <div> The GOP was once the party of deregulation, lower taxation, smaller government, and fiscal sanity. But the elected Republican leadership has instead expanded the federal government, increased spending and eliminated no significant federal agencies, having at best only slowed the regulatory burden. The looming insolvencies in Social Security and Medicare received only lip service. We have methodically plodded toward socialism, the governmental form that Democrats have been running toward full tilt for at least 40 years.</div> <div> John McCain now has two options. First, he can revert to the more conservative positions he once held. Second, he can continue on the regressive path he's followed the last ten years, hoping that we conservatives will continue to hold our collective noses in the voting booth.</div> <div> <A HREF="id17_m.htm" TITLE="The Right Slant"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <DIV ALIGN="LEFT"></DIV> <div>  <A NAME="hillary_s_million_word_lie"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>Hillary's million word lie</div> <div> March 26, 2008</div> <bR> <div> Hillary Clinton is quite a woman. Not only did she serve eight years as First Lady and co-president with husband Bill, but she became a hero during the Bosnian War, facing situations that were too dangerous for the elected president.</div> <div> Hillary's 1996 trip to Tuzla, Bosnia must've been a harrowing experience. Her plane had to take evasive actions to avoid sniper fire during the landing. Once on the tarmac, the First Lady was whisked away from enemy fire. It was a heroic act and worthy of great respect and admiration. Well, it would've been if it were true. Unfortunately for Mrs. Clinton, she's the only one who remembered the visit that way.</div> <div> When cornered on the issue earlier this month, New York's junior Senator explained that she'd simply misspoke. That's a possible and plausible excuse, once. But how can she explain having said the same thing in Waco, Texas in late February and in Dubuque, Iowa in late December?</div> <div> Further testimony to her dishonesty is found in her explanation. Sen. Clinton says she speaks millions of words each day and messed up only this once. Since millions is plural Mrs. Clinton must speak a monumental two million words or more per day. No doubt her daily utterances dwarf those of the average American, with most of them coming from both sides of her mouth. But millions? Let's do the math.</div> <div> We can all agree that there are 24 hours in a day, not accounting for the small daily deviation that produces Leap Year. Therefore, simple multiplication proves there are 1,440 minutes and 86,440 seconds in a 24-hour period. For Mrs. Clinton to speak the minimum of two million words a day she would have to say 23.15 words each and every second. However, let's be fair to Mrs. Clinton and assume that she simply misspoke yet again.</div> <div> Suppose Mrs. Clinton meant to say she utters only a million words per day. Granted the campaign trail proceeds at a hectic pace and she maintains a full schedule. Even so, there must be time for sleep--say, five hours daily--leaving Mrs. Clinton with 19 hours to campaign. Under these circumstances she would have to speak 14.62 words per second to reach one million per day.</div> <div> The average person can speak 125 words each minute, just over two per second. But Mrs. Clinton isn't average, is she? The world record holder can speak just over 10 words per second. Thus, Hillary Rodham Clinton exceeds the world record by 4.5 words each second for 19 hours of every day. Isn't she amazing? Not only is she the world's smartest woman, but she's the world's fastest talker to boot. Or course, the latter has been evident for quite some time.</div> <div> Mrs. Clinton would do well to learn a simple lesson from this self-created setback. When people speak the truth they will always have the truth on their side. When people speak an informed opinion they could be proven wrong. Yet they can still claim to have made an honest effort. There'll be no need to hang their head. The errant person need only realize their fault and learn from it. But a lie, that's another matter altogether.</div> <div> When people lie they must invariably cover it with another lie. Sooner or later the truth is no longer familiar and the lie becomes the mind's reality. Hillary Clinton told the Bosnia lie so often that it became the truth in her own mind. Then, when facts cornered her, she attempted to play everything off with the outrageous claim that she misspoke only once among the “millions” of words she speaks daily.</div> <div> Sen. Hillary Clinton's pathological infatuation with lying is pathetic, almost sad. But it's hard to sympathize when such an arrogant and condescending politician becomes entangled in the webs of deceit that she herself has spun.</div> <div> <A HREF="id17_m.htm" TITLE="The Right Slant"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <DIV ALIGN="LEFT"></DIV> <div>  <A NAME="how_and_why_did_we_become_a_democracy_"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A><FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >How and why did we become a democracy?</FONT></div> <div> March 18, 2008</div> <bR> <div> Modern America has come to praise democracy as if it were a messiah, nailed to a cross to save our eternal souls. We protect and defend democracy like a female bear does her cubs. We gauge the value of each political speech and every legislative proposal according to how it could affect democracy's future. Even President Bush--who is supposedly a Republican--champions democracy. But, is democracy as advantageous as we've been led to believe?</div> <div> There are several versions of democracy. In some ways, the current perceptions of a democracy resemble historical republics. But there are key differences. Even in a representative democracy the people can use the power of the political majority to relieve their neighbor of the basic, Divine rights of man. Neither the people nor their elected representatives are bound by a set standard that clearly defines government's authority. A representative democracy can be used to the same ends as a direct democracy, but under the legitimizing cover of representation. Mob rule applies in principal and practicality, which isn't conducive to a civil society or personal liberty. Let's explore democracy in action and see where we land.</div> <div> There are more low and mid level achievers than there are high level achievers. Thus there are more votes in the low and middle income brackets than in the higher income brackets. How then can a high achiever defend self and property in a democracy? Lesser achieving groups can band together to take wealth or property from high achievers either through democratically enacted legislation or direct vote.</div> <div> “But no one would use their vote to take another person's property,” you argue. Oh really? Then why does class envy play so well during elections years? Why are politicians who pledge to make “the rich” pay their “fair share” routinely elected and reelected? Let's examine a more outrageous scenario.</div> <div> America's 2006 population was 73.9-percent white and 12.4-percent black according to US Census Bureau estimates. Suppose that 50-percent plus one of whites voted to strip blacks of the right to vote, to own property, or to peacefully assemble? Suppose that same number voted to return to government enforced segregation, Jim Crow, or to exterminate the black race altogether? Would this be acceptable, simply because a majority had voted in favor? Why not? The matter was decided through the purest democratic form.</div> <div> Now, doesn't that sound ridiculous? I certainly hope so. However, it's also ridiculous to praise a government form that could benefit from class envy. It's ludicrous to hail a government form that could resurrect past injustices via the whim of a popular vote. For these reasons, among others, a truly free nation must reject the mob rule, democratic form.</div> <div> In the Federalist Papers, republic is mentioned 6.5 times more than is democracy, and invariably in the superlative sense. James Madison wrote in Federalist 10 that a democracy holds “nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker individual or an obnoxious person,” and, “have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property.” Democracy is not mentioned once in the Constitution, but republic is. Article 4, section 4 reads, “The United States shall guarantee to every state in this Union a Republican Form of Government . . .”</div> <div> Economist Walter E. Williams touched on this subject in a brilliant column in January, 2005. According to Prof. Williams, the law in a democracy is what the government claims it to be, relying not on reason but on power. Restraint is upon the individual, not government, and rights are but privileges of which government is the sole arbiter.</div> <div> Under the terms outlined by Prof. Williams, and verified by history, America has too often operated as a democracy. But that doesn't mean it's a preferable government form or compatible with our Founders' original intent.</div> <div> <A HREF="id17_m.htm" TITLE="The Right Slant"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <DIV ALIGN="LEFT"></DIV> <div>  <A NAME="california_court_assaults_education"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>California court assaults education, parental rights and freedom</div> <div> March 11, 2008</div> <bR> <div> If you were to conduct a street corner survey asking parents who cares the most about their children's future, the overwhelming response should be, “I do!” Some parents care so much that they forego careers and material goodies to homeschool their kids. Such self-sacrificing parents could soon become outlaws in California.</div> <div> A California appeals court has ruled that homeschool parents who lack teaching credentials are neglecting their children's education. The kids--166,000 of them--are possibly truants and the parents can be prosecuted, subjected to heavy fines and possibly lose their children.</div> <div> If the old adage “as goes California so goes the country” holds true, there's an ominous storm brewing for homeschoolers. But why? Is a home education inferior to a government education? Is the education of homeschool students sub-par, leaving them unprepared for life? According to Dr. Brian Ray's studies that isn't the case at all.</div> <div> Dr. Ray found that homeschoolers average 30 percentile points higher than public school students on standardized achievement tests and that the achievement disparities that exist between races in pubic schools weren't prevalent among homeschoolers. The Fraser Institute also discovered that homeschooling is more cost efficient, averaging less than $4000 per homeschool household annually while government schools spend $9644 per child. So, a lack of funds isn't the key issue in government education's lower scores, although a thorough audit may be in order.</div> <div> If that isn't enough, consider that homeschooled kids learn to interact with adults as well as with adolescent friends, receive more individual attention and mature quicker. Government school children often adapt to the disruptive and disrespectful habits of their peers, for which Ritalin is the preferred prescription.</div> <div> Who could possibly be pleased with a judicial ruling that undercuts the apparently successful homeschool movement? Lloyd Proctor, a director with the California Teacher's Association (CAT), for one. Proctor thinks all students--whether homeschooled or in government or private schools--should be taught by credentialed teachers. And why not? A credentialed teacher in California means a dues-paying unionist 87-percent of the time. You decide whose interests CAT has made its top priority.</div> <div> In fairness, this ruling doesn't ban homeschooling outright. However, it does mean that all students must be taught by credentialed teachers regardless of the class setting, which is a de facto injunction against homeschoolers. But even more fearful are the words of ruling Justice Walter Croskey who wrote, “A primary purpose of the educational system is to train school children in good citizenship, patriotism and loyalty to the state. . . .”</div> <div> Loyalty to “the state”? Not loyalty to our founding principles, our Constitution, our liberty, or our republic, but loyalty to “the state”. Friends, “the state” is impersonal and inconsistent at best, and not always praiseworthy. Soviet schoolchildren were also taught loyalty to “the state”. Now, where is the ACLU? Why aren't they concerned that a judge has openly declared the government school system's function to be indoctrination?</div> <div> Foolish me! I thought schools existed to teach reading, writing, math, history, and other such quaint notions. Most teachers that I know personally--public, private, or homeschool, credentialed or not--share that thought. My kids have attended both private and public schools and have had both good and poor teachers. Thus, I'm not questioning the teaching profession's overall credibility, nor am I endorsing homeschooling as the end-all solution. However, the educational bureaucracy, teacher's unions, and the motives of both are highly questionable. </div> <div> California has determined that the interests of government schools rank higher than the interests of the students they allegedly serve. This ruling, whether based in law or activism, grants the government-student relationship dominion over the parent-child relationship. It emphasizes loyalty to government bureaucracy above the principles of representative governance. Those attitudes, neighbors, are more than an injustice; they're downright chilling.</div> <div> <A HREF="id17_m.htm" TITLE="The Right Slant"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <DIV ALIGN="LEFT"></DIV> <div>  <A NAME="chris_burke_beats_a_chapel_hill"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>Chris Burke beats a Chapel Hill professor any day</div> <div> March 5, 2008</div> <bR> <div> Chris Burke is quite a story. He was born with Down Syndrome in 1965. The doctors said that Chris was unlikely to read, write, walk, or talk and suggested that his parents place him in an institution. Throughout his life Chris Burke has proved the experts wrong, a fact that warms my heart considerably.</div> <div> Not only did Burke learn to walk and talk, he starred in the television series <I>Life Goes On</I> and made guest appearances on several other shows. He now does appearances for the National Down Syndrome Society. Not only did Burke learn to read and write, but he's authored a book and become a musician in a band that has released four CDs. Chris Burke is heroic. He should inspire everyone. Except, perhaps, UNC-Chapel Hill professor Albert Harris, who doesn't think people like Burke should be born.</div> <div> Prof. Harris instructs his biology students that the moral thing for pregnant women to do is check their babies for Down Syndrome and abort children that test positive. In Prof. Harris' version of human compassion, Chris Burke wouldn't be an actor, an author, or a musician. Chris Burke wouldn't be alive. And Harris didn't misspeak; he's made the statement before.</div> <div> “I know somebody who had a child like this, and it ruined their life,” Harris told the Raleigh News and Observer. That statement is the entire abortion argument in a nutshell. It's purely a matter of personal convenience.</div> <div> An Allan Guttmacher Institute survey from 2004 found that the overwhelming majority of abortions were performed to avoid the lifestyle, financial, or relationship changes pregnancies can produce. Aborting a Down Syndrome child would certainly fit all three categories. If we accept Prof. Harris' position, where will it end?</div> <div> Would Prof. Harris spare pregnancies that could produce a deaf child, but not a blind one? Is the greater morality found in aborting a baby with a physical defect, like deformed arms or legs, or a single kidney? Opening Prof. Harris' version of Pandora's Box would lead us into areas better left alone.</div> <div> In defending his position Prof. Harris claimed that his intent was to indicate that aborting Down Syndrome children is a matter of personal opinion. In reality, nothing could be farther from the truth. No one has the right to end an innocent life simply because its existence interferes with their personal desires. Any contrary viewpoint is in error.</div> <div> I doubt Prof. Harris would praise the genocidal actions of Stalin, Hitler, or Pol Pot. But, each of those murderous tyrants killed people not because they had committed treason, murder, or insurrection, but because they were deemed inconvenient and unworthy. That is exactly what Prof. Harris has proposed.</div> <div> Sadly, Prof. Harris' attitude reflects a greater societal deficiency, one that is self-indulgent and unwilling to face adversity. Anything that interferes with us, or causes inconvenience, must be pushed aside. Yet the most frightening aspect of Harris' opinion goes far beyond his words.</div> <div> If we were discussing the ideas of an unread fool it could be dismissed as pure idiocy. But a person doesn't become a professor of embryology at a major university by wearing the dunce cap. Professor Harris isn't stupid; he's just plain wrong. But his credentials can legitimize his mad scientist attitude in the young minds under his tutelage.</div> <div> Biology is based on fact. Malleable minds could accept Prof. Harris' personal views as settled fact, cementing the fallacious notion that personal convenience settles the matter of aborting Down Syndrome pregnancies. That prospect--meaning the widespread devaluation of human life--is far more worrisome than the misguided sanctimony of one college professor.</div> <div> It might surprise Chris Burke to learn that his productive and inspiring life hasn't been worth living. The fact is that his life is worthwhile. I'm not so sure about Prof. Harris'.</div> <div> <A HREF="id17_m.htm" TITLE="The Right Slant"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <DIV ALIGN="LEFT"></DIV> <div>  <A NAME="sleep_well_our_problems_have_been"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>Sleep well, our problems have been solved</div> <div> February 28, 2008</div> <bR> <div> It's my pleasure to