What was it like on the outskirts of Bethlehem?: Can we truly relate to what the shepherds witnessed the night of Jesus' birth? (708)

Will the blame game debut alongside PS3?: Behavior surrounding video game debut highlights some of society's missing virtues. (720)

A Merry Christmas to all… with no apologies.: We shouldn't apologize for the recognition or traditions of Christmas. (656)

“Lactivists” expose more than their breasts: Staged public breastfeeding protests abound with self-absorbed activism. (732)

Confidence performs while arrogance b oasts: Confidence and arrogance represent opposing ideologies. One works, the other doesn't. (754)

The basics of ignorance stupidity and liberalism: Here is an easy way to understand the difference between the ignorant, the stupid and the liberal mind. (647)

Kerry suffers recurrence of an old malady: Senator's military comment is only the latest example of foot-in-mouth disease.

Democrats manipulate poverty for electoral gains: Despite Dean Smith, Democrats have done nothing to suggest they are serious about alleviating poverty. (630)

What Happened to Sexual Harassment?: Instances of, and attitudes toward, sexual harassment changed dramatically in late 1997. Why? (689)

(This piece is a trial article for the Rhinoceros Times, a conservative weekly in Charlotte, NC. It is based on a Mecklenburg County Commissioners Meeting.)

The Nonaligned Movement is aligned against freedom: This collection of Third World countries are aligned in promoting authoritarianism, genocidal government, and communism. (559)

Refuting the Lies of the Pro-Abortion Advocates: Abortion supporters twist the facts on the Child Custody Protection Act. (552)

An Ounce of Prevention or a Pound of Cure: Evaluating abortion, gay marraige, in vitro ferilization, and contraception. (749)

Absence of Victory Creates a Void: The Korean War influences the current nuclear confrontation. What are our options? (821)

Congress is not Above the Law: The Speech & Debate Clause of the Constitution does not excuse congressional arrogance. (520)

What Happened to Reverent Memorials?: Monument to Flight 93 should honor those who stormed the cockpit, not the members of the planning commission. (534)

The Case for the Court System: Rape allegations at Duke indicate why we try the accused in criminal court, instead of the court of public opinion. (740)

It Must be a Black Liberal Thing: Rep. Cynthia McKinney's confrontation indicative of her elitist liberal attitude. (817)

Dying for an Abortion: Deaths related to the abortion pill expose hypocrisy among the "pro-choice" and "women's health" activist groups.

Coming to America: Immigrants should adopt our culture and learn our language if they want the benefits of becoming an American.

Many Will Come in My Name: Christiand Peacemaker Team organization is more about taking sides than about promoting peace.

Congress is Out on Strikes: Congress again oversteps its authority by meddling in Major League Baseball's steroid issue.

Let's suppose there are insects in your home. Really, there is very little supposition involved. Most of us have experienced an invasion of termites, ants, flies, or some form of bug. It's an aggravating experience. Now, what do you do about it?

The first step is to reach out to the insects. Establishing a dialogue is vital to solving the situation. You must communicate with them; find out what you did to incite their invasive anger. Only then can you correct your errant ways. Once they realize that you are reaching out and mean them no harm, their animosity toward you will wane. They may even halt their incursion altogether.

What if talks are unproductive? What if the process is slow and the results are inconclusive or unsatisfying to the involved parties, both you and the insects? There is another way.

Incentives are a workable alternative. You can provide what the insects want, and what they want will be evident by what they do and where they go. If the problem is termites, your home's framing will suffice. Just let them eat it. For fly or ants, put sugar or honey in the cabinets, on the countertops, and on the floor. You can reach out to them in this way.

Your willingness to feed the invaders will demonstrate your goodwill toward them. How can they continue their attacks once they are confronted with your generosity? By your benevolence the antagonists will know that you aren't their enemy. It is likely they will be overcome by shame for having invaded your home and will withdraw immediately. The insects will leave you alone.

Most of you will see but one usable action… the bugs must be killed. You'll swat. You'll stomp. You'll bait, spray, and fog. You'll do whatever is needed to get rid of the bugs, even if it means killing every last one of them and destroying their homes. If this is a workable solution for bugs, why can't it work for jihadists?

Most of you recognized where this was going before now. Perhaps some didn't. Either way, the predictable response is that jihadists aren`t bugs but human beings. Granted, but in a generic sense only.

Humans do not target civilians without provocation merely for the cause of spreading fear. Furthermore, talking with irrational people produces very little in the way of positive results. We have talked, compromised, and negotiated with militant organizations before and what do we have to show for it? Hezbollah is the perfect example.

Last summer they crossed Israel's border, much like bugs invade your home, and captured two soldiers. Very little was said. When Israel retaliated the “world” jumped to the microphones to proclaim its condemnation. Israel bowed to the pressure, stopped spraying the bugs, and the area was re-infested.

Hezbollah has since staged protests intended to force Lebanon's government from office. They took to the streets of Beirut to demand -at the very least- increased power and greater influence over Lebanon's politics. Could their success mean anything other than increased influence for Iran and Syria? Is the situation not similar with other groups of self-proclaimed “holy warriors?”

If Lebanon's somewhat pro-West government falls it will be due in large part to the West's timid approach to militant Muslims. We are too fearful of offending our enemies and we are paying a price. Perhaps a new approach is in order. Maybe it's time we deal with jihadists the same way we deal with other insects.

Iran and Syria are known to provide weapons and support to our enemies in Iraq. It's also known that many foreign fighters arrived in Iraq across their borders. Even in the face of these circumstances there are people who insist that we involve these nations in stopping the violence in Iraq. How is that different from asking Nazi Germany to help stop the violence in France during World War Two?

Pundits point to the 14th Amendment to support automatic citizenship for children born to illegal aliens while on U.S. soil. Suppose a soldier from an invading army fathered a child with a woman of a foreign country while on U.S. soil. Would that child be considered a citizen since it was born in America? If citizenship is denied due to the parent's illegal presence, shouldn't it also be denied to children of aliens whose presence is just as illegal?

Congratulations to me! I have been selected Time Magazine “Person of the Year” for creating internet content. Of course, this “honor” applies to everyone -all untold millions of you- that created web content this year. Time's spokesman explained the decision by pointing out that selecting an individual meant having to justify the decision. But selecting millions of people meant no justification was required. Typical liberalism. No one's feelings are hurt, no one is left out, and no thought is needed. Somehow, my award seems hollow when viewed from that perspective.

An old Porky Pig cartoon depicted a Rosie the Riveter-type character saying, “You want those Nazis and Japs bombed off the face of the earth, don't ya'?” That archaic attitude produced victory in WWII. Today, we are enlightened enough to charge our soldiers with murder.

Judges are considered highly intelligent people. But how intelligent is it to conclude that the Constitution prohibits capital punishment for murderers but protects the aborting of innocent babies?

As long as humankind survives there will be people who choose evil over good. As such, there will be people who choose violence over peace. As long as the good and peaceful people do nothing, the evil and violent people will rule. That's the reason “we can't all just get along.”

A 4-year-old Texas student was cited for sexual harassment when he snuggled a female teacher's chest while hugging her. The offense was later changed to “inappropriate physical contact”. It seems to me that any teacher who would interpret a 4-year-old's hug as a sexual encounter is the person we need to keep an eye on.

The Council of Islamic Court's security chairman, Sheik Yusuf Indahaadde, said, “Muslims are brothers and help each other.” We in Western Civilization fight among our selves.

Rape charges against three Duke Lacrosse players were dropped when the accuser told investigators that she is no longer certain whether she was raped in the alleged incident. Kidnapping and sex offence charges remain. But how can those charges be credible when the accuser doesn't even know whether or not she was raped?

President Bush has received criticism for not increasing the active duty strength of our armed forces, something he likely should have done before now. But when you look at charts depicting troop levels you find that the decline began in the early 1990s and leveled off around 2000. Who was president during those years, and why was he not criticized for depleting our active duty numbers?

Sen. Ted Kennedy may be the most shameless politician in American history. “Minimum wage workers have waited almost 10 long years for an increase,” lamented the Democratic Senator. How stupid does he think we are? Does anyone seriously believe that a worker who took a minimum wage job nearly ten years ago has remained at that job waiting on the government to increase the wage?

Tara Connor's underage drinking and alleged romps hit the headlines like the bombing of Pearl Harbor. I wonder what percentage of the population would have recognized Tara Connor's name or knew that she was Miss USA before the revelations? For my part, I didn't even know there was a Miss USA.

Modern living has provided us with so many conveniences. Before us is an endless buffet of entertainment, distraction and diversion. Shopping centers and malls are everywhere, each surrounded by a cadre of restaurants. We attend this club meeting, rush to that kid's practice, then to the covered dish supper at the church.

Satellite television provides hundreds of crystal clear channels, although just a few are fit to watch. Movies, music, and information are instantly accessible via the Internet. A world of information and entertainment is only a mouse click away.

When I was a boy, going to a restaurant meant a trip to the fish camp. There were no family steakhouses at that time. And there certainly wasn't a restaurant at every corner of the mall parking lot. In fact, there wasn't even a mall.

The Internet was a military secret. Television stations were few, and color sets weren't the norm. I saw Neill Armstrong become the first man to set foot on the moon… and I saw it in black and white. I think we could tune in two channels at the time.

Television itself was rare. Most people received their entertainment from the radio voices of Amos and Andy and Jack Benny, or they read books and magazines. It's only a short jump from there to the 19th Century, where horses were the main source of transportation. Just think, less than 100 years from the heyday of the buckboard man walked on the surface of the moon.

Now, you may be saying, “This is all well and good. But it has nothing to do with Bethlehem.” Perhaps that's true in a direct sense. But I wonder if we, with all the advancements of modern living, can imagine what the primitive shepherds of Luke's Gospel saw unfold before their eyes. The thought came to me as I read the Christmas Story for the umpteenth time, not that you can read it enough.

Some translations place the shepherds “in the same country”; others say they were “in the fields nearby.” Either way it is evident that they were on the outskirts of Bethlehem. Yet, it wouldn't be similar to our being on the outskirts of a nearby town today. There would be no radiant glow of the city lights reflecting against the night sky. There would be a darkness that most of us can't appreciate.

Perhaps they had kindled a small campfire and a torch or two. But they wouldn't have been very close to that light for it would have compromised their night vision, making it difficult to spot thieves or predators. And wasn't that the reason they were there? The only prevailing light came from the stars and the moon.

No distant train whistle pierces the night. No car horns honk and no jets pass overhead. There are no blaring stereos, no blinding televisions, and no ringing cell phones. The only sound of this “Silent Night” would have been their conversation and the bleating of the sheep. They are all alone.

Suddenly, there appeared from nowhere a figure whose presence illuminates the night sky with the glory of God. The angel makes a startling proclamation and is joined by a multitude of heavenly beings. Try to imagine how these men, so unaccustomed to brilliant displays, would have reacted.

With the rapid societal transformations and technological advancements we know today it can be difficult, if not impossible, to relate to the lives of those shepherds. When we consider black and white television archaic, it's unlikely we appreciate the gravity of what they witnessed on the outskirts of Bethlehem.

It's easy to sit in front of the fire, open the presents, and discuss the wonderful experience of the Bethlehem shepherds. But with our lives so accustomed to sound, light, and distraction, I wonder how many of us truly consider the frightening power and majesty displayed that long ago night? I wonder if we can consider it at all.

It is time we recognize a successful woman and refute some of her detractors. This woman is multi-talented and has achieved great personal success. She is well-dressed, stylish, and attractive. She has survived the pitfalls of the competitive marketplace. Today, following several down years, she is back on top.

You would think this woman would be the idol of the feminist. Yet nothing could be farther from the truth. Despite the fact that this woman succeeded on her terms, without assistance from a man, she has earned only scorn from the feminine left.

This woman is blamed for every bane of the feminist movement from cosmetic surgery to anorexia. Despite these critics, this 47-year-old is in demand. But you shouldn't expect feminists to welcome Barbie's resurgence with open arms.

In her most recent work, noted feminist playwright Eve Ensler expressed the hope that “… we will all refuse to be Barbie.” The National Organization of Women website sells a “This is what Barbie ought to look like” t-shirt. It is modeled by two women in obvious need of a gift certificate to Jenny Craig.

Feminists blame Barbie for fostering an unattainable, dangerous image that promotes teenage anorexia, all in pursuit of Barbie's “perfect” figure. But these activists are promoting an equally dangerous concept to young girls with the idea that being overweight is normal, natural, and wholesome.

Let's not discount the dangers of anorexia and bulimia, the two best known eating disorders. Both problems can cause physical harm to the body. Some people literally starve to death pursuing this unrealistic, unhealthy and unattractive “thin”. One percent of female adolescents are anorexic and four percent of college-aged women are bulimic. That's lamentable, but not comparable to the flip side.

Thirty-one percent of teen girls are overweight. Fifteen percent of girls under age 11 are clinically obese. That's four times the amount in 1974. The obesity numbers for teenage girls is similar. And being overweight carries its own set of health problems.

According to the Centers for Disease Control, overweight and obese individuals are at increased risk for hypertension, diabetes, heart disease, and stroke. The risk of breast cancer is also increased. These health problems are more widespread, if not as immediate, as those posed by anorexia. And obesity is far more prevalent among girls and young women than self-starvation. By encouraging adolescents to become comfortable with weight problems feminists are far worse influences than Barbie.

We need not accept that a little girl playing make-believe with a doll will fuel feelings of inadequacy. No, women won't naturally attain the measurements of a real-life Barbie. But the doll can have a positive influence on kids, if handled properly by parents.

There is a middle ground between anorexia and obesity. Why isn't it proper to encourage girls to present their best appearance, whatever it may be? Why not encourage them to be well-dressed and to pursue success? Adults constantly use the best examples to inspire greatness in their children.

Not every Little Leaguer will grow up to be Albert Pujols. Not every Pop Warner quarterback will be Payton Manning. Yet we use their good qualities to inspire young athletes to give their best effort. Obviously these are real people and Barbie is a toy. But that doesn't make her the devil in blonde hair and high heels. In fact, being a toy she is of less influence than the real life people young women are exposed to.

Largely, this is a matter of common sense. No parent with half a brain would teach their young daughter that they must become Barbie to live a worthwhile life. But if Barbie is the “perfect” woman, in terms of success and appearance, then why not use that perfection as inspiration?

Yes, perfection is an unattainable goal. But its pursuit can propel us to levels of achievement and accomplishment never thought possible. When a person sets their sights on mediocrity they shouldn't be surprised when their achievements are average at best.

Here is an undisputable fact: Barbie isn't real life. There are, however, many real-life people influencing girls and teenagers these days. On one hand we have Paris Hilton, Britney Spears, and Madonna. On the other are the “I'd rather be a man” feminists. Seems we'd be better off with a world full of Barbies.

Video games can have detrimental effects on children and I'm not shy about saying it. The near virtual world of today's advanced gaming systems produces kids far lazier than those of yesteryear. They become addicted to the instant entertainment and artificial stimulation available on the television screen. Imagination deteriorates and attention spans shorten.

Is it mere coincidence that the advancement of video games follows the same timeframe as the “epidemic” of ADD and ADHD? Of course, these assertions are merely anecdotal. But the foolish displays surrounding PlayStation 3's debut were anything but anecdotal. From sea to shining sea customers pushed, shoved, and fought for access to the newest artificial reality.

In Manchester, CT, a group of five thugs beat and robbed a new PS3 owner as he left a mall. Authorities closed a Palmdale, CA, Wal-mart when customers became overzealous, to put it mildly, in their pursuit of the PS3.

The heartland wasn't immune to such idiocy. A Wisconsin man was racing 50 other customers for a preferred spot outside a store. He was injured when he ran into a pole. You know, maybe there is a link between video games and dwindling attention spans. And in Kentucky four people were shot with BB guns while waiting in line to buy the PlayStation.

The worst example comes from Putnam, CT, where Michael Penkala found him self on the business end of a shotgun. He was shot in the chest and robbed of $2500 while waiting in line outside a Wal-mart. Three men were arrested and face multiple charges ranging from threatening to attempted murder. Now we need someone to blame.

It's fashionable to blame Wal-Mart for everything. Why not begin with the world`s largest retailer? Perhaps Best Buy and the shopping malls are the culprits. They should have provided better security to the stooges camped on their sidewalks. And what about Sony? Did they not create the hysteria when they went to market with a product that was under produced?

Maybe we can blame the buyers. Is it logical to blame the people who were stupid enough to camp outside stores to buy a video game? If the purchasers were buying for their own use I somewhat agree. It's likely that the PS3 will be readily available in a month or so, and at a lower price.

What of customers who were buying the units to resell? Can we blame them? Maybe, but they have a plausible excuse for camping in front of stores. They were trading their time for an in-demand product with the expectation of turning a profit. That is the spirit of capitalism. And capitalism is the economic system of our country, at least until Nancy Pelosi takes charge.

There is blame for a system that isn't truly serious about crime. Although the Connecticut judge who arraigned William Robertson -one of the Putnam suspects- called him a “threat to the public”, Robertson had just been placed on probation November 22nd on burglary-related charges.

Another area for blame is a quasi taboo on self-defense. When concealed weapons legislation began its sweep through the states it was met with hysterical warnings of a return to the Old West. The same can be said about the current “castle doctrine” law in Florida, which recognizes a person's right to self-defense in lieu of retreat from criminal activity.

What if the people who were beaten or shot had been armed? They would not have been such easy marks for their attackers. Of course, this position will surely incite claims that arms would have led to violence among frustrated customers outside the stores. But we had that anyway and it was the criminal element that benefited.

I place the blame on the people who committed the acts, whether mere irresponsibility as in California, or the criminal behavior in Connecticut. Let's blame the “I want it and I have a right to get it” attitude that allows people to justify any act that serves their desired end.

You're free to accept or reject any or all of these possibilities. But there is one requirement of civil society that cannot be denied. We would all benefit from a more mature, respectful, and responsible population. Those virtues proved to be in shorter supply than the PS3.

Each year Christmas becomes more “PC” than the year before. Seattle's airport is this year's nominee for the gutless wonders of December. Twenty-five years of displaying Christmas trees at airport entrances came to a halt in one night. According to airport spokeswoman Terri-Ann Betancourt the trees were removed “because we didn't want to be exclusive.”

Rabbi Elazar Bogomilsky sparked the impromptu tree-trimming. The Rabbi threatened to sue the airport authority if a Jewish menorah wasn't added to the tree display. But even Bogomilsky seemed surprised when the Christmas trees were removed.

Menorahs and Christmas trees are fundamentally different. Menorahs are undeniably religious while the origin of Christmas trees is as wide as the kinds of trees used. In fact, the religious meaning of Christmas trees is debated even in Christianity.

Ancient Romans decorated trees with strips of metal during a festival honoring Saturnus, their god of agriculture. Is the Christmas tree based on this pagan celebration? Perhaps our version of Christmas trees dates to 16th Century Germany, where a small fir tree was decorated with apples, nuts, and the like. Children received those goodies on December 25th. Or could the Feast of Adam and Eve, where the “original sin” was reenacted on December 24th, be the source for our tree? An evergreen, hung with apples, was used as a prop for the play.

No matter; Christmas in America has become a season of offense more so than a time of joy. Remember last years flap over “holiday trees” and official policies governing what greeting a retail cashier could offer? Those instances, like the one in Seattle, indicate that political correctness and “sensitivity” have run amok.

Are people offended by Christmas greetings, or are they seeking a reason to be offended? In this world of war and misery you have to wonder why expressions of hope and happiness offend. Perhaps a person consumed with their own despair cannot suffer someone who isn't defeated by life. Maybe the joy in the expression and message of Merry Christmas reminds them of the emptiness in their souls.

Let's put this in perspective. If a Jewish man were to offer me a greeting of Happy Hanukkah I would accept his wishes in the spirit they were offered. I would not become mortally offended and allow the good wishes to be overshadowed because the greeting reflected a holiday not of my own faith.

The proper response should be to thank the man for his good wishes and respond with a cheerful Merry Christmas. If he is sincere in his expression to me he will accept my greeting without reservation.

People are now too sensitive for courtesy, and that vulnerability is magnified at Christmas. Such attitudes have led businesses, trying not to offend clients and customers, to extend the "happy holidays" greeting. It's a shame that the term Merry Christmas is succumbing to the tide of political correctness and multiculturalism.

America has a Christian heritage whether anyone believes it or not. As such we are entirely within the realm of good taste and etiquette to wish someone a Merry Christmas even if that person is of another faith or no faith at all.

This said I will wish each and every reader a safe and Merry Christmas. This greeting is extended without apology to the Christian, the Jew, the Muslim, the Hindu, the Sikh, the Buddhist, the Wiccan, the agnostic, the atheist, the environmentalist, and whoever else happens to be out there. If you are a rational person you will graciously accept these good wishes in the spirit they are offered.

However, there are some people bound to take offense. With this being a season for peace I shouldn't openly offend them. If you resent my wishes and are offended by Merry Christmas, then I rescind that greeting. Have a Wretched Christmas if you like, and toss is a Dismal New Year.

Animal rights activists will stop at nothing to prevent animals from being treated like, well, animals. Their reaction to a bear hunting season in a portion of Virginia's Great Dismal Swamp Wildlife Refuge is a perfect example.

In Defense of Animals (IDA), People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and the Animal Welfare Institute (AWI) joined forces to stop the hunt. They accused refuge management teams of severely miscalculating the bear population. AWI biologist D.J. Schubert was especially critical saying, "The foundation for the hunt is extraordinarily fragile," But the bear population in the refuge is between 275 and 350 animals. And the possibility of a hunt has been studied since the late 1990s.

The hunt itself was well-regulated. According to Fish and Wildlife Service rules the hunt could last only two days. Only 100 permits were issued and only twenty bears could be taken. Furthermore, there were stringent guidelines covering who could enter the hunting area and by what means.

None of these rules stopped animal rights groups from their demagoguery. In Defense of Animals claimed, “Only after 20 black bears are reported dead will an order be made to stop hunting.” This statement is patently false. Had the first day's hunt produced more than ten kills a reevaluation was specified that could've cancel the season's second day. So, hunters would not be sitting in stands with machineguns until 20 bears were mowed down like last spring's hay, as animal activists would have you believe.

It is true that bear hunting on the refuge is a unique occurrence. But bear hunting in Virginia is far from extraordinary. Hunters tagged 23 bears on private land bordering the refuge last year, and 1440 statewide. The foundation for the Dismal Swamp hunt doesn't seem so “fragile” now. But that's not enough to satisfy animal rights activist D.J. Schubert.

Since Mr. Schubert is a biologist we can grant his intelligence. But intelligence does not preclude partiality, and Mr. Schubert has proven his biases before.

Schubert has worked with animal rights organizations to curb the use of snowmobiles in national parks and referred to Montana's first bison hunt in 15 years as “blatant animal cruelty”. Admittedly I grind the axe of hunting on the side of support. But Mr. Schubert is grinding that same axe just as hard on the other side.

The fact is that while animal activists preen and crow about saving wildlife and habitat it is sportsmen who do something about it. The Pittman-Robertson Act took effect in 1938. This law levies a federal tax on firearms, ammunition, and archery supplies. In other words, the tax is paid by hunters or people generally sympathetic to the sport. The revenue generated -over $3.4 billion since its inception- protects, restores, and improves wildlife habitat for both game and non-game species.

What's more, hunters and hunting organizations support Pittman-Robertson. Thus, while activists boast about supporting animal welfare it is hunters who actually promote the long-term survivability of wildlife. But facts will not deter the animal rights proponent from spewing nonsense.

Kristie Phelps of IDA said of the bear season, “The only reason to allow the slaughter is to appease a small minority who take pride and pleasure in killing defenseless animals, and it's just not right.”

Miss Phelps' ignorance of why people hunt is exceeded only by her ignorance of bears. I suggest she corner a black bear and discover just how “defenseless” these critters are. As to the “pride and pleasure in killing”, remember that 100 permits were issued but only 20 bears could be taken. Thus, 80-percent of hunters entered the Dismal Swamp knowing they would emerge empty-handed. Furthermore, the “slaughter” ended December 2 without a single bear being killed. So much for the fallacious notion that successful hunting is as simple as walking through the woods.

Which would an animal appreciate more: elitist rhetoric spewed by animal rights organizations, or nearly 40-million acres of habitat preserved by sportsman? Ultimately, hunters put their money where the animal activist's mouth is.

Who would think that the simple act of nursing a child could cause a stir? Untold billions of babies and mothers have performed this act since the inception of humanity. Why did it recently become big news?

The responsibility belongs, in part, to Emily Gillette. She was removed from a Freedom Airlines flight for nursing her baby on the plane. It wasn't long before a “lactivist nurse-in” -activist mothers participating in a staged public breastfeeding event- was organized at the Burlington, VT airport. Among the participants was Chelsea Clark, smartly attired in her “Got breast milk?” t-shirt. Clark said of the staged protest, “It's about raising consciousness about our culture's sexualization of the breast.” Oh, really? Let's see.

Available for purchase at this very moment on a “lactivist” website is a sweatshirt for husbands of nursing mothers. It reads, “I play with my baby's food.” The implication is obvious. Now, what was that about the “sexualization of the breast?”

Of course, once an activist begins to crow about “raising consciousness” nothing else on the face of the earth matters. Not facts, not evidence, not anything. But, just for fun, we'll address the subject anyway.

The fact is that Emily Gillette wasn't removed from her flight for the act of breastfeeding but for not covering her breast. What's more, a flight attendant offered Mrs. Gillette a blanket so she could nurse inconspicuously. The offer was promptly refused.

While this cause du jour recently gained widespread attention it is far from its -pardon the expression- infancy. The New York Times reported a similar protest in June, 2005. Approximately 200 “lactivists” staged a nurse-in at the corner of Columbus Avenue and West 67th Street. They were angry with Barbara Walters, who had voiced an opinion about public breastfeeding on ABC`s “The View” a few weeks earlier.

Starbucks was the target in 2004. Lorig Charkoudian was asked to cover her breast while nursing her baby inside a Maryland Starbucks. Next thing you know Charkoudian is posting an activist website, petitioning Starbucks corporate office, and organizing public feedings.

No doubt there are women readers now questioning my motives, since I obviously haven't nursed a baby. But the fact is I fully support breastfeeding. Mother's milk contains all the necessary vitamins and proteins for infant development. It is non-allergenic and protects infants against various diseases and infections, since the mother's antibodies are transferred through the milk. And it's believed to lessen the chances of future breast and ovarian cancers in women. There's no doubt that nursing is a natural and wise choice for feeding a baby.

I was breast-fed, and my wife nursed our two children. But it was done discreetly, with respect to established social standards. Whatever happened to decorum? Perhaps it has become as antiquated as respect and responsibility.

A mother knows when she'll be in a public place for an extended period and has several options for feeding her child. Breast pumps can be bought for under $40. Fill a few bottles and store them. Breast milk keeps up to 10 hours at 70 degrees and is easily warmed. It shouldn`t be too much of a burden for mom to find some warm tap water.

Furthermore, it's doubtful people will have a problem with tactful public nursing. Why not use a blanket? Lactivists accurately describe nursing as an intimate act of mother and child. And doesn't intimacy demand a certain degree of privacy?

As with most protesters, the nature of the protest causes the curious mind to question the motive behind it. In this case it is apparent that the activism itself outweighs all other factors. Nurse-ins aren't about nursing a child, for there are many ways to feed a baby in public without drawing attention to the activity. The lactivist isn't as concerned with feeding the child as about calling attention to themselves via in-your-face activism.

As for my part, I have no problem with a woman nursing her baby in public. It is far better than being confronted by a pack of teenagers with their pants around their knees. But I do have a problem with exploitation. Lactivist moms are exposing more than a breast or two; they are exposing a self-promoting agenda. It is the attitude behind their protests that dishonors the natural act of breastfeeding.

Everyone knows someone who is so sure of their abilities that they overcome every obstacle to success. But we often confuse that confidence with arrogance. Those two words, and the attitudes they represent, are as different as night and day.

Confidence originates from the word “confidere”. The prefix “con” means to know how and is related to the word “can”, which means to be able. “Fidere” means “to trust”. So, confidence indicates knowing how or being able to trust. This ability is generally expressed as trusting in self or others to succeed or act reliably. Synonyms include self-assurance, belief, and certainty.

From this brief review we learn that confidence is the power to believe that success is attainable and goals are reachable. Such a person also accounts for the possibility of negative results. Therefore, the confident person makes plans to overcome setbacks and failures. This attitude, combined with an attention to detail, is essential to success in any endeavor. What's more, a free society cannot function without confidence in one's own talents and in those of their neighbor.

Perhaps confidence is best expressed, and perfected, in faith in our Creator. The Book of James says that one who wavers “is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.” Confidence acts as an anchor against those waves. When we have faith in our talents we are driven to use them, and this reflects not only self-assurance but also faith in God, the provider of our abilities.

It should be noted that confidence in God and self isn't expressed in loud, boisterous, or brash behavior. There is where arrogance begins.

Arrogance comes from the Latin word “arrogantia” and means contemptuous pride and disregard for others. An arrogant person acts with an air of superiority towards those they consider inferior. This leads to reckless behavior and a lack of planning. They are blind to possible setbacks and assume all outcomes will be as perceived.

Such an attitude is dangerous not only to the arrogant person but to anyone who may be affected by their decisions. Arrogance in practice leads a person to continue pursuit of a single direction despite evidence that the promised results aren't being achieved.

I'm not raising this issue to introduce anyone to etymology or to enhance vocabulary. I simply intend to highlight the contrast between confidence and arrogance. There are two main ideologies vying for acceptance in our country. Confidence abounds in one movement and arrogance in the other.

One philosophy is defined by a faith in people to succeed and accomplish. Adherents recognize their talents and their ability to reach their goals however lofty or modest they may be. But that's not all. This group understands that the same is true for each and every American regardless of their status, class, race, sex, or other contributing factor. They are constantly working to promote that attitude.

The second group perceives their influence as essential for others to survive at all. They see people trapped by circumstance with neither ability nor opportunity to improve their situation. Therefore they, moved by their superior intellect, must guide these unwashed masses.

They devise and implement programs to “help” people who lack their genius. Then, when those programs produce no results, they demand increased funding. So sure is this group of their rightness that they refuse to admit the failures of their ideas, even when those failures are demonstrable.

Instead of changing course they prescribe more of the same. This requires them to convince other people that there is no opportunity for improvement without them. It is the ultimate condescending attitude and a perfect example of arrogance.

Conservatism represents confidence, in self and in others. It recognizes the talents and worth of individuals, and their ability to achieve goals, far beyond the reach of the latest government program. It teaches that what lies inside of each American is stronger than any barrier, real or perceived, that lies in the way of accomplishment.

Liberalism represents arrogance, expressed in condescending attitudes. It holds that success is unattainable without their guidance. It defines success for others instead of seeing each person's ability to define success on their own. But liberalism best exemplifies arrogance in its refusal to recognize the failures of its core programs to produce the promised results.

Taking all matters into account it becomes obvious that liberal arrogance grows government and shrinks liberty. As such, it poses a grave threat to the core principles of our republic.

The elections are over, in most districts at least, and the pollsters were proven correct. Democrats will control Congress for the next two years. It now seems appropriate to offer a few thoughts and observations on what happened.

Democrats campaigned on a “new direction” for America. In the first 100 hours of control they pledge to “break the link between lobbyists and legislation”, enact the 9/11 commission's recommendations, raise the minimum wage, negotiate drug prices, and install a “pay as you go” system of federal spending.

What will we have when we boil this political rhetoric to its basic element? We will find our ability to join with like-minded individuals to influence our representatives curtailed. We will negotiate with an enemy that openly desires our destruction. We will artificially inflate wages and socialize pharmaceuticals. And we will raise taxes, for we surely won`t consider reduced spending. Overall it sounds like the democrats old direction for America.

Nancy Pelosi is an appropriate San Francisco liberal to serve as speaker of the House for the democrat controlled congress, especially since Timothy Leary, Andy Warhol, and Dr. Spock are dead and unavailable.

People who believe the economy is stagnant, Bush lied, 9/11 was an inside job, and voted democrat are “open-minded” and “issue-oriented”. Conversely, conservatives disgruntled with the GOP's lack of overall direction but still happy with enough of their positions to vote republican “can't rise above party politics”.

Rep. Pelosi's second act as speaker should be the completion of a course in capitalizing on momentum, since her first act -supporting Pennsylvania's John Murtha for majority leader- was such a resounding failure.

While we're on the subject of John Murtha let's remember how democrats promised a transparent and ethical government. Rep. Murtha was investigated in the 1980 Abscam bribery sting and is considered a top player in the “you scratch my back, etc.” world of beltway politics. In other words, it will be business as usual.

Before the election liberals were complaining about the new electronic voting machines, voter fraud, tampering, disenfranchisement, cheating, and other irregularities. It was the same thing we heard in 2000, 2002, and 2004. Then, as if by magic, we discovered that everything had worked just fine when the results came in.

Pre-election polls indicated democratic victories in the mid-term election and a preference for a democratic president in 2008. The first part came true. If a democrat wins the White House, will conservatives threaten to leave the country like Hollywood liberals do when Republicans are elected?

When Harold Ford, Jr. -a black democrat- lost the Tennessee Senate race to Republican Bob Corker -a white republican- Time magazine wrote, “if he were white, he would have won.” I could find no “mainstream media” charges of racism in Maryland where a black republican (Michael Steele) lost to a white democrat (Benjamin Cardin).

While we're on the subject of Michael Steele, let's see how he's been treated on the campaign trail. When Steele announced his candidacy earlier this year, a popular liberal blogger depicted him as a minstrel and described him in racially stereotypical terms. In 2001, a Maryland Senator called Steele “an Uncle Tom.” And during a 2002 campaign debate, Steele opponents tossed Oreo cookies at him. This is worth remembering the next time democrats accuse republicans of racism and intolerance.

Republicans lost largely because they abandoned their principles. They did little to control government growth, instituted new levels of bureaucracy, opened new entitlement spending, and ignored America's call to secure our borders until late in the campaign. They gave undecided voters little reason to vote for them. The result of those choices was apparent. The answer should be just as clear.

No matter which side of the vote you were on there is one thing that is beyond debate. The Founding Fathers knew what they were doing. Americans exercised their ability to overthrow their government without firing a shot. In two years time we'll have the opportunity for peaceful revolution once again. That's something to be thankful for when you sit down to dinner tomorrow.

The words “ignorance” and “stupidity” are generally treated as synonyms in modern English. They are used to indicate similar mental conditions and capabilities. In reality, these words represent different concepts.

“Ignorance” is defined as lacking knowledge or education; being unaware. “Stupidity” is lacking intelligence or perception. The use of a simple example brings this difference into stark contrast.

An ignorant person is someone who doesn't know but can be taught. Suppose there is a man who doesn't know that two plus two equals four. If I place two oranges in his right hand and two more in his left I can prove to him that he holds four oranges. He is no longer ignorant of the sum total of two plus two. What's more, he can apply this to future scenarios. If he buys two oranges, then you come along and give him two apples, he'll understand that he now has four pieces of fruit.

There is no shame in ignorance itself. Everyone is ignorant of something. I am ignorant of mixing the fuel that can propel a spacecraft to orbit. Conversely, even the most educated doctor, scientist, or engineer may be ignorant of how to change the oil in their car.

Stupidity is a radically different condition, best articulated as a person who refuses to learn. If we distribute oranges to a stupid person as we did above, that person may deny the total is actually four. This individual may claim the total is three, or five, simply because they prefer it that way. They may even claim that the oranges aren't oranges at all, but pears or peaches.

This illustration isn't as extreme as it may sound. The stupid person is rejecting an obvious conclusion. And being stupid is to deny a fact without offering a plausible alternative. Surely there are people with mental aptitudes that preclude learning. But for the most part stupidity is a chosen path and represents someone that simply refuses to accept absolute facts.

Conservatives are often the worst offenders when it comes to misusing both words. We often dismiss liberals as being ignorant or stupid. Neither situation is the case. Let's go back to the oranges.

Liberals fully understand that two oranges plus two more will total four oranges; they just don't think it's fair. Liberals operate under the assumption that the two oranges they have plus the two you give them would've totaled six had the “greedy rich” not stolen two other oranges somewhere along the line. But don't worry; there's a progressive solution to this miscarriage of justice.

The liberal will insist that their elected representative procure two oranges from the public orange fund to replace what they should've received. Then they will lobby the district attorney to prosecute the “greedy rich”, forcing the return of the two “stolen” oranges, which will be added to the two from the public orange fund and the four they originally had. So, in the liberal world of wealth redistribution, two plus two actually totals eight. This is fair.

However, a word of caution is in order. When using this teaching tool you should carefully conceal your stash of oranges, for it may be larger than your neighbor`s stash. If a liberal notices this unfair condition they will call on you to “give something back” to the community. The “Equitable Citrus Distribution Tax Act” will be passed and your oranges be given to someone more deserving that you.

Don't bother to complain. The fact that you harvested oranges while your “underprivileged” neighbor sat on his duff watching American Idol has nothing to do with your abundance or his shortfall. You have merely been the winner of life's orange lottery.

So sit back and enjoy your oranges while you can. Don't be as ignorant or stupid as to think a liberal won't use the power of government to take them away from you.

You win a few and you lose a few. On November 7 the Republican Party lost and lost hard. Now the GOP leadership must decide why it happened. Were they outflanked on the issues? Was the conservative agenda rejected? Perhaps the party strayed too far from the message that led to their ascension to power in 1994.

Frankly, substance mattered little in this election. The Democratic strategy was to sing the “new direction” and “change” mantra without specifying what that directional change would be. Liberal Democratic leaders kept a low profile while more centrist candidates carried them to a majority. Now, Nancy Pelosi will chart the course of the 110th Congress. Did America turn out Republicans because they favor the Pelosi dream of San Francisco liberalism? It seems the GOP lost more so than the Democrats won.

When Republicans took firm control of Congress in 2002 I wrote a column stating that the party faced two governing choices. First, they could go forward with the party's main theme of adherence to the Constitution and limited government, promoting the worth of individuals and free markets over the intrusion of government. Second, they could simply not rock the boat.

Sadly, GOP leaders eventually chose option two. They largely abandoned the conservative ideas that produced their 1994 rise to power and governed as a light version of Democratic socialism. At the first sign of difficulty, adversity, or negative press the GOP abandoned its principles.

They lacked the will to proceed with reform of Social Security and Medicare despite the looming deficiencies of both programs. They passed the buck on a subject that needs to be addressed. A future Congress will have to adopt radical reform in both programs, allow them to default, or increase taxes astronomically as a result.

In direct contrast to the party platform of decreasing government entitlements the GOP gave birth to a federal prescription drug program. The projected cost began rising immediately and will continue ad infinitum. It will feed upon its own largess, just as do all government entitlements.

Congressional leaders didn't expand upon previous welfare reform. Entitlement spending continued just as if it was authorized by the Constitution. The post-Katrina misery was testament to the helplessness entitlement programs instill in their recipients. People are robbed of their independence, their responsibility, and their freedom. But instead of pointing out the failures of the welfare state, Republican strategy was to prove they could outspend Democrats.

The GOP Congress lacked the will to make earlier tax cuts permanent, much less pursue needed overhaul of the tax system. Despite rising energy prices and Middle East turmoil they could not find the courage to expand domestic oil exploration and production. And Senate Republicans folded meekly at the first hint of a Democratic filibuster.

Sure, certain conservative objectives were reached. Two apparent conservative justices were seated on the Supreme Court and frivolous lawsuits against firearms makers were stopped. But by and large little was done to define the GOP as the sole outpost for individual liberty. Party leaders played the game not to lose and we see the result.

To their credit the Democrats ran a campaign designed to capitalize on Republican timidity. They hid the liberalism of the party leadership. Pelosi, Reid, Kennedy, etc. were nowhere to be seen the final weeks of the campaign. They rode centrist candidates to victory.

The one high-profile election highlighting the anti-war liberalism of the Democratic Party was in Connecticut. Ned Lamont had defeated pro-defense incumbent Joseph Lieberman in the Democratic primary. Yet this much-hailed darling of the “progressives” could not beat Lieberman in the general election.

Joseph Lieberman is certainly not a conservative. But when unabashed liberalism can't carry the day in the liberal state of Connecticut it speaks well for future of conservatism.

Even so, you have to tip your hat to Democrats for utilizing a successful version of the old bait and switch. But what happens when those moderate freshmen are confronted by the liberals who engineered their victories? They'll have no choice but to fall in line behind Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. What will their constituents think then?

Liberal pundits claim that November 7th was a repudiation of conservatism. That's a false assertion. Republican leadership gave the voters no reliable conservative credentials to evaluate.

Republican moderation was on trial this fall and it came up short. However, when the GOP has presented a conservative alternative to Democratic liberalism they have achieved electoral success. Shouldn't the lesson be obvious?

If you are a Democratic leader, activist, or party loyalist, and you think John Kerry would make an excellent presidential nominee in 2008 you have only one path toward that end. Lock Sen. Kerry in a closet and keep him there until the election is over. If you let him speak publicly he will surely suffer a flare-up of chronic foot-in-mouth disease.

Everyone is aware of Kerry's latest faux pas, but let's review anyway. Speaking to a group of California students Kerry said, “Education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. And if you don't, you get stuck in Iraq.”

Kerry was roundly condemned and offered something of an apology. He said he regretted that his words were “misinterpreted to imply anything negative” about the military. But it's hard to misinterpret what is stated in plain English. Sen. Kerry's statement wasn't as much a mistake as a Freudian slip, a case of foot-in-mouth disease.

Kerry and his handlers quickly claimed that he had blown the punch line of a joke. He should have said, “you end up getting us stuck in a war in Iraq.” The intent was to portray President Bush as a dunce. Even if Mr. Kerry had delivered the joke correctly it cannot stand up under scrutiny. His foot is again in his mouth.

Let's compare the academic achievements of Senator Kerry and President Bush. Bush holds a BA in history from Yale and a Masters in Business Administration from Harvard. Kerry owns a BA in political science from Yale and a law degree from Boston College. That's a wash, as both men hold multiple degrees. Let's compare their grades.

Both men were similarly average students. In fact, Bush fared slightly better than Kerry. Kerry scored four “Ds” his freshman year at Yale. Bush had only one “D” in four years. Kerry's four-year grade average was 76. Bush's was 77. Consider also that John Kerry's Yale photo looks for all the world like Gomer Pyle and it's clear that he has no basis to question George Bush's intelligence.

Since he became the '04 Democratic presidential nominee Kerry has made his news by criticizing the Iraq War. If you support his stance that Iraq is an unjust mistake you might consider his position before he won that nomination.

On the floor of the US Senate in 2002 Kerry accused Hussein of breaking his cease-fire agreement from the Gulf War. He assessed Saddam's threat by wondering why the Iraqi dictator was pursuing weapons programs most nations had abandoned, including nuclear technology. He questioned why Iraq was seeking unmanned aircraft for delivering biological agents, why Iraq developed long range missiles, and why Iraq didn't account for their known stockpiles of banned weapons.

Kerry lamented Hussein's disregard for the people he ruled, his history of murder and torture, and his previous use of WMDs. Kerry added, “We should not go to war because these things are in his past but we should be prepared to go to war because of what they tell us about the future.” It is clear that John Kerry believed Iraq threatened America and that pre-war intelligence was accurate. And this wasn't the only time he took such a position.

During a 2003 speech at Georgetown University Sen. Kerry warned of the grievous threat posed by Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction and said, “we need to disarm Saddam Hussein”. Of course, Kerry held these positions while voting “for the $87 billion before he voted against it”.

John Kerry is a true politician; he speaks without thinking. His latest comment reveals what he and other “progressives” -like soon to be Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi- think of our military personnel. It also tells us that Kerry believes Americans lack the perception to notice that foot in his mouth.

I am a lifelong admirer of former UNC basketball coach Dean Smith. His sportsmanship, class, and winning attitude are nothing less than inspirational.

Coach Smith retired with 879 career coaching victories, most all time. His winning percentage ranks eighth. He coached 30 teams that won more than 20 games in a season. His Tarheels made 23 consecutive NCAA tournament appearances.

The championship banners hanging from the rafters of the arena that bears his name are impressive. Smith's teams won 17 regular season ACC championships, 13 ACC tournaments, reached 11 Final Fours and won national titles in 1982 and 1993. He was named ACC Coach of the Year eight times and National Coach of the Year four times. He led the United States team to a gold medal at the Montreal Olympics in 1976.

Of far more importance than his on-court performance was his dedication to his player's education. Nearly 97-percent of his players finished their degrees. There is much to admire about Dean E. Smith. He is dedicated, innovative, and an apparently all-around fine man. But he could not be more wrong in a current political ad.

Coach Smith has appeared in a series of newspaper ads representing Devout Democrats. Beside his familiar face appears the quote, "I'm a lifelong Baptist and vote for Democrats. One reason? Democrats are serious about alleviating poverty." I'm sure there are many faithful Democrats who sincerely have this desire. But they have adopted the wrong approach and there is ample historical evidence to prove that point.

The truth is that government social and welfare programs do nothing to end poverty; they only deepen it for those who live there. The poverty rate in America was decreasing at a higher rate before Lyndon Johnson ushered in the welfare mentality via his "Great Society".

According to government statistics quoted by the Cato Institute the overall poverty rate decreased from 32-percent in 1947 to 13.9-percent in 1965 to 10.3-percent in 1980. The overall poverty rate in 2005, according to the Census Bureau, was 10.8-percent. So, before the government began its program to "save" us from poverty, the poverty rate had decreased by 18 percentage points. Since then it has decreased by a mere 3.6 points. It seems the party "dedicated to alleviating poverty" has solidified poverty's hold on poor Americans.

The fact is that the Democratic Party's "war on poverty" has done little to alleviate poverty and much to grow the federal budget. By 1980 we were spending four times the money on public housing, and eight-times the amount on food stamps and Medicare, than in 1965.

This directly affected you, the taxpayer. Over that 15-year period the percentage of your personal income that was taken from you to fund poverty programs increased from 7.5 to nearly 14-percent. Total spending on anti-poverty programs is approaching $9 trillion with precious little to show for it. To put that number in perspective, you will have to become a millionaire 9 million times over to have that much money.

I'm not here to question Coach Smith's -or any Devout Democrat's- faith. I'll not even question their personal desire to help the poor. But it seems apparent that they have taken the wrong approach. The idea of confiscating wealth from one American to benefit another is both unethical and immoral. After all, it is easy to be generous when spending someone else's money.

It is my conclusion that the Democratic Party leadership isn't serious about alleviating poverty. Their goal is to stall economic progress and keep as many people on the dole as possible. The more people depend on government the more they will vote for politicians willing to use the power of government to steal from one American to benefit another.

It's easy to be upbeat and optimistic when times are good. As long as life goes according to plan our confidence flows like a river. But it is the down times that test our spirit. It is the reaction to adversity that determines who is fit for success or leadership. Let's look at this premise in terms of an old sailing ship.

The captains of yesteryear's sailing ships had many responsibilities. They had to read the waves and tides then adjust accordingly. They had to gauge the winds and deploy the appropriate sails to maintain the desired course and speed. They navigated by the sun, moon, and stars, not with the aid of radar or GPS. Professionalism, knowledge, and confidence were prerequisites for commanding these ships, which were often manned by surly crewmembers.

There were many captains who understood these concepts. They could pilot their vessels efficiently on calm seas with fair winds and clear skies. But what happened when the seas grew rough, the winds swirled, and the skies clouded? The fair weather captain may become confused, unsure, and disoriented. His confidence and optimism would soon erode. He would lose the trust and respect of his crew and may well lose his ship.

There were other captains, seasoned and salty, who considered the fair day an exception to the rule. They prepared for the worst. They were ready for rough seas. They could read the fierce winds and navigate the starless sky. They were unflappable, exuding confidence and optimism in the face of the most dire conditions. They had weathered the storms before and emerged better prepared to face them in the future.

Whose craft would you rather board? Which captain would you rather be? Most of us would rather sail with the second captain, the one who had faced the storms and formed the character and expertise that precedes success. Does it not make sense to want to emulate that captain as well?

It was the storm that produced the leadership qualities we seek in the captain. The sailor who hasn't faced the storm is unsure of his abilities and may lack the qualities to survive trouble.

Life's easy times produce no character or toughness. Just as any captain with a basic understanding of seamanship can pilot a vessel under ideal conditions, anyone with normal human intelligence can live optimistically when nothing goes wrong. It is difficulty that develops and hones our abilities. If we maintain our integrity in the tough times -like our salty captain- we become more capable and our confidence grows. We also project the trustworthiness and dependability that attracts opportunity.

Now let's ask a series of questions. Which type of person would we rather do business with? Which one is most reliable? With whom would we rather make deals? Would we not chose the person who had weathered the storm, just as we chose the experienced captain? Of course we would.

The ability to persevere when all seems lost is what prepares us for success and accomplishment. If we can navigate life's storms we can easily sail it's fair seas. Conversely, sailing the fair sea doesn't prepare us for the storms.

So let us be thankful for both the fair and the rough seas. Life's easy moments allow us much-needed times of rest and relaxation. They give us time to reflect on what we have learned and to prepare for what we may face. Let us also be thankful and faithful in difficulty, anxiety, and turmoil, for these are the storms that groom us to capitalize on the clearing sky.

There were two men living as neighbors beside a small river. The river was only 5 or 6 feet deep and perhaps 20 feet wide. But, being big enough to navigate and house fish, each neighbor owned a boat.

The river's small size left no room for a dock, and the steep banks made it impractical to remove the boats from the water after each use. These men solved their problem of boat security by chaining and locking their boats to trees along the riverbank. This worked quite well, and the boats rested at the water's edge.

One day a weather report told of heavy rain upstream from where the two men lived. Both men immediately recognized that their valley would soon flood. When they looked out their windows the water was noticeably higher. They went to their boats.

The first neighbor boarded his craft and unlocked the chain. As the water rose, his boat floated on the tide. He knew the possible dangers of riding the crest of the flood. But he also knew there was no other way out of the river valley in which he lived. To stay where he was could mean drowning. And there would be no one to blame but him.

The second neighbor boarded his boat as well. But he feared where the floodwaters would take him. So, his boat remained chained to the tree, bobbing up and down as the rising water raced past him. What do you think happened when the waters reached a height greater than the length of his chain? If you said, "The boat was pulled under", take a gold star.

By now you may be wondering who would be stupid enough to sit in a moored boat during a rising flood. Under such clearly dangerous circumstances it`s unlikely anyone would. But in reality millions of Americans do the same thing by refusing to acknowledge or adapt to economic changes.

No one is likely to argue that the U.S. economy hasn't changed in the last 25 years. We still have a manufacturing presence. But other sectors have undoubtedly surpassed manufacturing in terms of creating high-paying jobs. It's been easy to see and recognize, just as the flood was to the second man in our story.

Sadly, many Americans have reacted to the changing economic atmosphere just like the second neighbor did to his flooding river. As America's economic flood rose we left our boats tied to the trees, going nowhere, and eventually being swamped.

Of course, it can be difficult and disconcerting to cast-off into the unknown like the first neighbor did. It is far easier to remain close to familiar territory and attempt to preserve what is already held. But isn't it the definition of foolishness to expect a different result from pursuing the same actions?

My friends, our boats won't float on top of a rising river if we leave them chained to the trees. Our economic "boats" work the same way.

If we remain tied to the old ways we shouldn't expect to benefit from a changing economy. At some point we have to recognize that the imminent dangers of the status quo far outweigh whatever hazards may or may not lie around the bend.

We should disregard any politician, bureaucrat, or pundit who tries to convince us to leave our boats tied to the trees while they bail the flooding economic river with a spoon.

There are two prime definitions of sexual harassment. Under one circumstance, the first party continues to make amorous advances after repeated rejections. The second applies when professional advancement is made contingent on providing sensual favors.

The first situation is primarily a nuisance and shouldn't necessarily be illegal unless stalking is involved. Think about it. It isn't uncommon for a woman to reject a man's advances several times before going on a date with him. If men did not make repeated advances the movie theatres and steak houses would go bankrupt.

The second situation is illegal and should be. A person's advancement should be based on their abilities in the workplace, not in the Motel 6. This type of predator deserves punishment, although it should be added that employers aren't necessarily responsible for the unauthorized acts of an employee.

This issue hit the national spotlight primarily due to the Clarence Thomas-Anita Hill situation. If you recall, Hill accused Thomas of sexually harassing her when she worked for him at the EEOC in the 1980s. Hill claimed Thomas hounded her with discussions of sexual acts and pornography after she refused to date him.

There was no verification for Hill's accusations and soon the nature of the evidence didn't matter, only the seriousness of the charge. This established a precedent that resulted in a groundswell of harassment charges. The number of complaints filed with the EEOC and state Fair Employment Practices agencies rose from just over 6000 in 1991 to 15,889 in 1997. And the monetary rewards nearly quadrupled over that period.

It came to the point that any contact between men and women resulted in some form of sexual harassment. Radical feminist leaders went so far as to claim consensual relations, even between married couples, amounted to rape. It was the hot topic for several years.

Since 1997 sexual harassment complaints have declined to levels not seen since 1993. What happened to precipitate such a change?

Publicity surely played a role as people became more aware of their words and deeds. However, since men and women did not forego dating, engagements, marriages, and pro-creation altogether, there must be another reason for the decline in cases. Something else did occur in the late 1990s, and it silenced feminism's exploitation of sexual harassment.

William Jefferson Clinton's alleged sexual harassment of Paula Jones became a major story. The accusations were enhanced by the Monica Lewinsky affair. While there was never irrefutable proof that Clinton harassed Jones -there was, however, ample proof of the Lewinsky event- the Anita Hill axiom was abandoned. The "seriousness of the charge" no longer mattered as much as the nature of the evidence.

What were the feminists to do? On one hand they could sacrifice two women and the sexual harassment crusade. On the other hand they could abandon the president they adored. They chose option one, proving that their motivation wasn't women's issues but a political agenda.

Feminists defended Clinton on the same charge for which they crucified Thomas. They had nothing good to say about Jones or Lewinsky. By their own hand they have cemented their hypocrisy. They do not support achievement or advancement by women unless those women are, themselves, feminists.

Leaders of the women's movement have become little more than female versions of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, perpetuating the eternal victim. They promote and defend only women who go along with their perception of womanhood. They have no interest in women's choices. They belittle or silence any woman who decides to stay home and raise a family, or opposes abortion, or rejects lesbianism as a natural affection.

"Women's issues" is a politically correct term used to advance an underlying collectivist crusade. Sexual harassment was heralded when it served that purpose and dropped like a hot rock when it got in the way. Feminists now have little to say about it and even less credibility if they do speak.

Sexual harassment served its politically correct purpose for a time, but it's obviously no longer the feminist's cause de jour.

Democratic legislators insist that Iraq is a mistake and a waste of time, money, and lives. Yet every last Democratic Senator voted for $70 billion in funding for the war effort. If they believed privately what they say publicly they should oppose such an appropriation.

No matter your position on Iraq, Democratic insistence that we pull out prematurely proves their refusal to learn from history. Had their party's last president not pulled out prematurely he likely wouldn't have landed in such trouble.

Chain gangs that were legal in the 1930s are unconstitutional now. When and what part of the Constitution was amended to outlaw chain gangs? Or, is it simply that we have lost our nerve in dealing with criminals?

It is accepted that positive thinking most often produces positive results. Therefore, negative thinking must produce negative results. Decide, this day, which one you will serve.

It is now safe to carry travel size grooming and hygiene items onto airliners. This raises a few questions. What changed to make these items safe now if they weren't safe before? Why are 1-ounce tubes of toothpaste safe but 6-ounce tubes unsafe? Will Muslims with large tubes of toothpaste receive more scrutiny than other travelers? If not, why? And how serious are we, really, in combating Islamic militants?

Tiffany Hall killed a pregnant mother and the carried child. She is rightly charged with murder and intentional homicide of an unborn child. If intentionally killing an unborn child is a crime where does that leave the abortionist?

Here is yet another example of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's confused mentality. He condemns Western hegemony while Iran manipulates Lebanon via their funding and arming of Hezbollah.

A good spouse is like a helium balloon, lifting the other to greater and greater heights. Conversely, a poor spouse is like dragging a ship's anchor uphill.

Self-reliance is different in today's lexicon than yesteryear's. Self-reliance now denotes a person who doesn't rely on government for their existence. Since Christians rely on Jesus -not government- we are the most "self-reliant" people in America.

Hugo Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad did more to prove America's cultural superiority than any PR campaign we could muster. They stood on American soil and derided our nation, our government, and our president during U.N. speeches. How long would their governments have suffered our leaders doing likewise on their soil?

The French Major General in command of the U.N. peacekeeping force in Lebanon stated unequivocally that his forces would not work to disarm Hezbollah. This should surprise no one, considering the success French forces had in disarming Nazi Germany.

A political pundit's review of President Bush's speech to the United Nations declared his words "conciliatory, yet hard-line". Perhaps the reporter's assessment was relevant, yet inapplicable. Chalk up one nomination for the oxymoron of the year.

Cindy Sheehan plans to construct a tree house on the property purchased for her near Crawford, Texas. I have a few architectural suggestions for her. It should resemble a Swiss chalet, with a small door in the attic. That way, Sheehan can pop out every hour, on the hour.

Media pundits criticized the Bush administration for high gas prices and their negative effect on the economy. Now gas prices are falling and media pundits are worried it will spark inflation that will adversely affect the economy. This teaches us that both high and low gas prices stifle economic growth. That is, as long as a Republican is in the White House.

Rep. Charles Rangel recently said "...being Black in America is a death sentence". The same can be said for being White, Asian, Hispanic, or anything else. We all have to go sometime.

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) publish "fact sheets", which must be the greatest example of an oxymoron since "government assistance" and "army intelligence".

I can't help but believe that if we allowed children to earn self-esteem, instead of trying to build it for them, not only would their self-esteem be higher but of more value as well.

The IRS has a program through which private collections agencies pursue delinquent accounts. Taxpayers whose accounts are turned over to the private program receive a letter from the IRS advising them of their rights. It seems to me that if government is explaining your rights to you, you really have no rights at all.

The Guardian newspaper reports that Pakistani torture may have played a role in foiling the recent airline bomb plot. To the liberal mind this outweighs the fact that mass death was prevented. Now, in order to be fair, should we release those terrorists and allow them to complete their mission? That seems to be the mindset of the typical leftist in regard to dealing with Muslims lunatics.

The New York Times editorialized the great humanitarian work and rebuilding efforts conducted by Hezbollah in Lebanon. Wow, what great guys they are. And all the time we thought they were terrorists intent on killing the unarmed and unaware. Here's a thought: let's bring them to America and put them in charge of rebuilding New Orleans.

From a domestic standpoint fiscal conservatives face a tough choice in the coming election. A vote for the current crop of Republicans is a vote for more of the excessive spending and government growth that has plagued the last five years. But by not voting, or voting Democrat, we get a group whose main gripe with the GOP is that they aren't spending enough.

Media outlets gleefully reported the Supreme Court decision concerning the treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay as a blow to the Bush administration's war on terror. It would be interesting to know if the same pundits would have reacted in the same way to a court decision regarding FDR's prosecution of the War on Japan.

Here's a proposal for the opponents of capital punishment who argue that the death penalty is not a deterrent or that it doesn't bring the victim back. I'll drop my support for the death penalty when you can show me one executed murderer who was subsequently released from prison and committed another crime.

Any policy disagreement with a liberal is immediately labeled a "mean-spirited attack". Yet when liberals falsely accuse conservatives of poisoning the air and water, denying medicine to the elderly, and starving schoolchildren it is considered "dissent".

Hugo Chavez won praise from liberals by promising to use oil to meet "humanitarian needs". This is considered good oil, and it tells us that American leftists don't hate oil itself as a fuel or commodity. What they actually hate is the private ownership and exchange of oil, just like they hate the private ownership and exchange of everything else.

A tolerant man is no longer defined as one who lives and lets live. Being tolerant in today's politically correct environment means abandoning every last principle so as not to offend perverts, fanatics, criminals, or other weirdo's.

It took a California Supreme Court decision to reinstate a requirement that high school seniors pass an exam indicating they have mastered 10th grade English and 8th grade math before receiving 12th grade diplomas. No wonder Asians and Indians are filling American tech jobs.

Not to denigrate or deny the value of education, but isn't it odd how many free-market, capitalist companies now require a job prospect to possess a bachelor's degree? Basically, this means the only people deemed beneficial to the free-market, capitalist company are prospects who spent four years listening to socialist college professors lecture on the evils and inequities of free-market, capitalist economies.

While at a local library searching a list of publishing companies I discovered a book published by the Cornell University Press titled "Venomous Reptiles of the Western Hemisphere", by Jonathan A. Campbell and William W. Lamar. What a disappointment to find that it wasn't a history of the Democratic Party.

In all the years of Hollywood, has Tinsel Town ever produced a bigger nothing than Jane Fonda? Maybe Johnny Depp, but at least he had the decency to move to France and live among his own kind.

It's pitiful to hear union members contribute any and all personal success to their unions. In reality it is the union that is beholding to the member for survival. It seems that union members are undervaluing their worth, and overvaluing that of the unions, by crediting unions for what their work accomplished.

There is no "life's lottery" that can be won or lost. If you want to make more money or have a better life than you do presently, maybe you should consider changing something you are presently doing.

John Edwards is such a brave leader. During a recent appearance he tested the presidential waters by calling for troops to withdraw from Iraq in "a year or so". Isn't that the same time frame that American generals have said Iraqis will be ready to assume security responsibilities?

How can anyone argue that by executing a murderer we are no different than they are? It seems that the rest of us have proved our selves different by not raping, robbing, and killing our neighbor in the first place.

A videotape tape posted to an Islamic website on eve of 9/11's anniversary depicted a smiling bin Laden purportedly planning the attacks on America. A narrator said the atmosphere surrounding the session was "brimming with brotherliness… and love for sacrificing life". If that doesn't convince you of the kind of enemy we are fighting, you are a lost cause.

Phil Angelides, the Democratic candidate for governor of California, seized on a recent race-related comment by Gov. Schwarzenegger. He accused Schwarzenegger of "language that is deeply offensive to all Californians". It strikes me that any politician claiming to speak for "all" the people is someone that shouldn't be trusted with public office.

Free speech is apparently reserved for a select few. Not even the most vehement critic of "Fahrenheit 9/11" called for that the movie be pulled or altered due to its poor reflections on the Bush administration. Yet, members of the Clinton administration have demanded exactly that for ABC's "The Path to 9/11", which is said to reflect poorly on their attention to terrorism during the 1990s.

California Senator Sheila Kuehl's measure to prohibit any school activity that could be construed as critical of "sexual orientation" is proof that the gay agenda is far less about anti-discrimination than it is about forced acceptance.

Chevrolet must manufacture a little-known vehicle called a "Suburbanmarine". How else can it be explained that greenhouse gases are coming from the floor of the Atlantic Ocean, 100 miles from the New York-New Jersey coast?

Britain, France, and Germany warn that Iran's stalling on nuclear negotiations is an attempt to weaken international opposition to their nuclear program. Shortly we can expect another joint European statement telling us that grass is green and the sky is blue.

It took a federal jury to determine that Alfonso Rodriguez, Jr. -a sex offender recently convicted of kidnapping a young woman, killing her, and dumping her body- is a candidate for the death penalty. What does it say about our courts and criminal justice system that there was ever a question?

A study released by Science finds that permafrost contains as much as 100 times the amount of carbon than the burning of fossil fuels creates in a year. This would seem to indicate that any global warming we are experiencing is a natural event. However, you can bet that SUVs and the Industrial Revolution will be blamed for depositing that carbon into a substance that was frozen thousands of years ago.

Pluto orbited the sun in anonymity for untold years. It became a planet, then it wasn`t. Heated debate often accompanied its classification status. It is 2.6 billion miles from earth at its closest point, the equivalent of 1.6 million car trips from New York to Los Angeles. One year on Pluto is 248 years on Earth and the surface temperature is estimated to around 370 degrees below zero. Now, will someone please tell me how Pluto's planetary status affects life on earth?

While were on the subject, I also wonder if natives of Pluto care whether the International Astronomical Union thinks their homeland is a planet or not.

Let's play liberal politics. Anti-war activists want our troops withdrawn from Iraq immediately. Gordon Young called for the same thing during a protest march at Gettysburg. Oh, did I mention that Gordon is a Klan leader? Now, to follow the liberal playbook, anti-war activists share a common vision with the Ku Klux Klan.

We go to great pains to assure the world that we aren't at war with Islam. I wonder if that position is painting us into a corner. In denying we are at war with Islamic militants are we denying we are at war at all? It's possible that we are injuring our efforts by refusing to face reality.

The debate on Guantanamo Bay prisoners swirls like a tornado. Are they enemy combatants, prisoners, or detainees? What about the Geneva Convention, and the treatment of uniformed and non-uniformed fighters? What should be done with them? Historically, an enemy captured in a war zone while out of uniform was considered a spy and executed. Problem solved.

Falling gas prices are to be taken as an Election Year conspiracy to benefit Republican candidates. So, we should view a Democratic proposal to lower the number of abortions as similar political pandering. If not, tell my why.

A raffle to benefit a youth sports program in Buncombe County (NC) was stopped when parents objected to the prize. The radio reporter said an Uzi sub-machinegun was being given away. The reporter is either ignorant of guns, or has an agenda to serve. Sub-machineguns -meaning fully automatic- were regulated in the 1930s. If this were a true machine gun the winner would have to hold a class III license under the National Firearms Act to take possession. I'm willing to bet the gun is a semi-auto look-alike, which functions identically to any other semi-auto. It just doesn't "look nice".

The Buffalo Bills of the early 1990s were the victim of their own bad timing. Otherwise they may have been the greatest football dynasty of the Super Bowl era. Their only flaw was reaching their zenith at the conclusion of the Redskins and Giants dominance and the beginning of the Cowboys superiority.

When Syrian forces jumped to the aid of the U.S. Embassy in Damascus it smelled of a publicity stunt. Perhaps the attackers were really suicide martyrs, willingly gunned down so America will be discredited the next time we criticize Syria for supporting terrorist groups. Alright, it's a conspiracy theory. But it makes more sense than the notion our government bombed the Twin Towers.

Polling data continues to show a high number of Americans displeased with how the Bush administration has prosecuted the Iraq War. What those polls do not reveal is the percentage of Americans who are displeased because Bush hasn't been forceful enough.

Liberals are champions of dissent… until someone disagrees with their position. Such a person is immediately labeled a fascist or Nazi.

French Major Gen. Alain Pelligrini, commander of the U.N. peacekeeping force in Lebanon, said his troops would not attempt to disarm Hezbollah. This should be no surprise considering the success France experienced disarming the Nazis during World War II.

The Muslim world is angry once again, this time over historic statements the Pope quoted concerning the violent nature of Mohammed. But the Muslim world is in a constant state of outrage due to some perceived insult or injustice. Islamic leaders claiming offence has become as commonplace as Jesse Jackson charging racism. If the Muslim world wants the world to stop viewing Islam as a religion of violence they should stop performing violence in the name of Islam. Until then, who cares if they are outraged by the truth?

There is no shame in being ignorant on a subject. You can always learn, and even Einstein didn't know everything. However, there is shame in continuing to speak when it becomes obvious that you have no idea what you are talking about.

An FBI agent on a local radio program said that the agency realized we were under attack on 9/11 when the second plane hit the World Trade Center. Isn't that when everyone in America realized we were under attack? It seems that they should have known what was happening when the first plane hit the tower, considering that four airplanes had diverted from their routes, disappeared from radar, and refused radio contact at nearly the same time.

Fourteen years of work at unionized trucking companies has taught me one thing about unions. They allow productive employees to receive a wage lower than their work demands so that unproductive employees can receive a wage higher than their work merits.

CHARLOTTE-Those in attendance at the County Commissioners meeting on September 19 may have expected an ACLU lawyer to charge the podium, their restraining order in one hand and lawsuit in the other. Chairman Parks Helms precipitated this quasi calamity when he called upon Commissioner Jennifer Roberts to open the meeting with prayer. We were on the edge of a clear establishment of religion.

Ms. Roberts, however, saved the day. Her offering of a safe, Shawnee Indian prayer to the "Great Spirit" avoided use of the "J" word and will likely satisfy the most discriminating ACLU barrister. With that near miss in the rear view mirror, the meeting proceeded to matters of great importance.

Citizens of Mecklenburg County are now authorized to have dinner as a family. The board voted, by unanimous affirmation, to proclaim the 4th Monday of September as official Family Day. So gather everyone from John Boy to Elizabeth and share in the feast of togetherness. You have the official county stamp of approval.

Residents can breathe a little easier following the county's discovery of the hibernate function on its computer systems. It is now common procedure for county computers to be placed in hibernate mode when not in use.

The County Commissioners praised the new policy for saving energy and preserving the environment. So if the air feels cleaner and fresher today than yesterday its not the result of the changing season. Fall down and give thanks to your county government.

In sincerity, however, any attempt to conserve county funds should be viewed as a positive step. But one must wonder why this act of common sense was so long in coming, and what it is says about government that doing what should have been done all along warrants public recognition.

There were a few other tedious announcements and awards providing little interest to anyone aside from the recipients. But there was one highlight to the segment, provided by Chairman Parks Helms. Helms recognized fellow commissioner Bill James, referring to him as "my good friend". Now that's news.

The public appearances were mundane and inconsequential. Martin Davis did, however, provide some entertainment by asking Mr. Helm's position on county benefits for "domestic partners". Predictably, Helms declined to answer the question. We wouldn't want to be on record, now would we?

Helms qualified his refusal to answer on the premise that the public appearance time is for citizens to speak while commissioners remain silent. On that point Helms takes the upper hand and Mr. Davis has erred. Whenever a citizen can get a politician like Helms to sit quietly and listen he should take full advantage, not encourage the politician to speak.

Debate was opened on the proposed "U-drive-it" tax. This proposal will increase the tax rate on rental cars from 11 to 16 percent outside the airport area and 22 to 27 percent near the airport. It is projected to provide $7.5 million in increased annual revenue. That revenue will combine with ceded funds from Wachovia to total nearly $12 million.

Billy Shields spoke in favor of the car rental tax, pointing out that that revenue generated would go to public transportation. County revenue currently used for that purpose would then fund the cultural arts projects and renovations slated by the covenant between the county and Wachovia.

This type of bookkeeping allows government budgeters to claim the tax hike goes to fund public transportation, not the cultural arts. In reality, it provides an avenue for transferring funds that is unlikely to be discovered by the public. County government can then fund the cultural arts project while claiming no taxes were increased for that purpose.

Among the projects on tap for this new revenue stream are a new cultural arts center, an African-American arts center, and renovations to Spirit Square. All are, or will be, located in the uptown area.

Support for this "public-private partnership" also came from Natalie English. She argued that the art funding would draw the young professionals the area desperately needs to attract. These professionals would fill jobs at the new Wachovia Trading Center.

Ms. English's sales pitch never addressed why those facilities, if in such demand, cannot be self-supporting. There was also no comment given to why museum and art patrons shouldn't pay for their entertainment directly.

Commissioner Dan Bishop (R-6th Dist.) spoke in opposition to the U-drive it proposal. He said that adopting the tax and the subsequent arts and cultural funding is similar to how the commissioners handled the arena deal.

The commission of that time placed the funding of the uptown arena before the public, who soundly rejected the idea of using public funds to construct an essentially private building. The commissioners then ignored the referendum and the Bobcat's Arena now stands uptown, a majestic monument to government arrogance.

Mr. Bishop also argued that any new revenue streams should be directed toward the problem of school overcrowding. That subject has produced heated debate, pitting factions in favor of busing students from suburban areas to failing inner-city schools against suburbanites who want schools built near high growth areas.

Wilhelmenia Rembert (D-At Large) opposed Mr. Bishop's position. While she acknowledged the oppositions right to speak on the subject, she also indicated her unwillingness to consider the argument. Her unyielding support for the proposal was obvious, as was her repeated championing of "public-private partnership".

These partnerships mix government with private business. Such a concept is steeped in socialistic thinking. The private funding will come through Wachovia via direct contributions and property taxes on their new facilities. The public portion, however, will not come from Ms. Rembert or the county commission. It will come from you, the county taxpayer, through the tax on rental cars. It is also likely that property taxes will play a future role when the predictable budget shortfalls arise.

The Board adopted the U-drive-it tax on rental cars by a 6-3 vote. In favor of the proposal were Parks Helms, Wilhelmenia Rembert, Jennifer Roberts, Norman Mitchell, Valerie Woodard and Dumont Clarke, all Democrats. In opposition was the GOP contingent of Bill James, Dan Bishop, and Jim Puckett.

The tax on rental cars will increase beginning on either November 1 or December 1. Wachovia will adhere to their part in their deal with the devil. And the arts and museums will be uptown, as will the beneficiaries of the county's latest subsidy program.

For residents of Huntersville and Mint Hill who wonder what's in this deal for them, the answer is nothing. Now sit down and shut up about it, for your input matters little to none.

This public-private partnership is like all others. It provides a benefit to a select few at the expense of the non-select many. Uptown movers and shakers will take one more step toward the mythical perception of the "world class city" they so covet. Wachovia will benefit from its new facilities and the positive public relations their funding will generate. And an unrelated entity -the car rental businesses and their patrons- will be left to foot the bill yet again.

Discrimination and harassment against American Muslims is up 30-percent, according to estimates by the Council on American-Islamic Relations. Arsalan Iftikhar, the organization's legal director, blamed the rise on "the growth in Islamophobic rhetoric that has flooded the Internet and talk radio" since 9/11.

We now know that any critical assessment of Islam, especially when offered by Rush Limbaugh or Neal Boortz, is traceable to the West's unrealistic fear of Muslims. But, if Islamophobia is rampant in the West, then certainly "Westophobia" is rampant within Islam.

Pope Benedict XVI recently called Jihad -Islamic holy war- contrary to God's nature and invited Muslims to forego their violent past for a peaceful exchange of dialogue. How did he fare? Not well at all.

The Pope quoted a 14th-century emperor who said the only new ideas Mohammed brought to the world were "evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached". Pope Benedict was careful to point out that he was quoting another person, not expressing a personally held belief. And both he and a Vatican spokesman recognized that there are violent and non-violent factions within Islam. Yet Muslims -true to precedent- were offended and outraged.

You would think that Muslim leaders and followers would do everything possible to prove the quote inaccurate. But the proof, as they say, is in the pudding. And the Muslim pudding appears rancid throughout.

Thousands of clerics and mullahs joined in denouncing the Pope for a statement that he did not originate. They called for his removal from the Papacy and accused him of promoting war. The result was widespread protest in the Islamic world over a 600-year-old statement. When was the last time a Muslim cleric was excommunicated for fanning the flames of jihad? And when was the last time the Vatican planned and conducted a terror attack against Islam?

The Muslim response was a typical contradiction in word and action. Islamic leaders denounced any thought of Islam as a violent practice, yet promised great suffering to the West for any insult to Mohammed.

Al-Qaida promised to continue its "war against Christianity and the West" until "Islam takes over the world". Insults were hurled at the Pope with the warning, "You and the West are doomed". A Mujahedeen Shura Council statement read, "...we will continue our jihad and never stop until God avails us to chop your necks and raise the fluttering banner of monotheism".

In other words, the Muslim jihad intends to prove their religion is peaceful, and doesn't need to be spread by violence, by cutting off your head unless you believe what they tell you to believe. It is a doctrine at odds with its self.

Let's assess the evidence and see which side is promoting bloodshed. The West goes to great lengths to distance the war against violent extremists from a war against Islam overall. By contrast, Islam openly declares war on Christianity and Western Civilization. Muslim fanatics clearly state their goal of forcing the world to accept their practices "by the sword", just as the Byzantine emperor said.

While Muslim leaders feign outrage over the perceived Papal insult they are doing their best to prove its accuracy. It's just the latest excuse for Islamic radicals to wage war against the West. Isn't it time we acknowledged this fact? Why continue to worry about offending an Islamic world that is openly and unapologetically working toward our destruction?

I have a suggestion for the Council on American-Islamic Relations and director Iftikhar. If you would like to end "bias and harassment" toward Muslims you can begin by denouncing the head-chopping, throat-slashing, hi-jacking, car-bombers within your religion. Clean your own house and you won't have to be concerned with your perception on talk radio.

All work and no play results in a dull columnist. The last thing I want to be is dull, for bored readers will soon mean no readers. And a columnist without readers has the future of a Russian Czar.

Past columns have dealt with some weighty issues, such as gasoline prices and the minimum wage. Others have pursued philosophical subjects, like the presumed guilt bestowed upon white men of European ancestry. These were deep subjects involving intense contemplation. We've worked hard, you and I, the reader and the columnist. Now it is time to play. And what more suitable plaything than words?

A word can have more than one meaning and usage. Along that line, words can be synonymous and yet convey a different tone. Some words produce a combative and confrontational atmosphere. There is a time for such straight talk; quite often we don't hear it when we should. But it is also possible to make a point using words that avoid undesired conflict. Let's look at a few examples and have some fun at the same time.

People who do dumb things surround us. Isn't it tempting to lash out at them, to tell them how stupid they're acting and what idiots they are? Sure it is! But that approach promotes confrontation. There is a better way. When faced with such conduct, just mention to the offending party that the vacuous characteristics of their conduct corroborate deficient intellectual capacity. You'll be satisfied, and the offender will look at you like, well, an idiot.

There are many ways we can use this technique to state our case without consequence. Remember when it was gracious and thoughtful to compliment a woman's appearance? Today -thanks in no small part to the feminist movement- it is considered condescending. Furthermore, you are open to charges of sexism, or even harassment. Who needs the grief? There is a better way.

When you encounter a beautiful woman and wish to pay tribute merely state that you find her dermal constitution optically gratifying. You've complimented the lady, making your point pain-free. And this is but the tip of the iceberg; you can go as far as Roget's can take you.

Don't call your neighbor a boldfaced liar when you can insist they have calculatedly mischaracterized the particulars. There's no need to tell someone that they don't know what they're talking about when you can point out that their verbalization is fraught with refutable illations. You can even use this approach to retain your honesty while sparing a friend's feelings.

Suppose you attend a friend's speech and find it as boring as Major League Soccer. You don't have to insult your buddy by telling them their speech put you to sleep. There's no need for it. Simply state that their homily engendered halcyon repose. And if a dinner guest eats like a pig, don't tell them they've eaten too much. In reality, their gastronomical intake transcended established boundaries. Upon hearing your comment they may lose their meal altogether and you'll have helped them lose that extra pound.

You can even make up a word when necessary. Let's say a person carelessly steps on your foot, or spills a drink on your new shirt. No longer are you required to shout "clumsy fool" when you can merely exclaim "disjointilated oaf". Unless your invented expression is cast toward Merriam or Webster it's unlikely the target will know the difference.

These are but a few examples. You can create an endless supply. All you need is a thesaurus, an imagination, and a warped sense of humor. So, in keeping with the spirit of this column I will not ask you to read my next biting editorial. Instead, I'll invite you to peruse my subsequent incisive pontifications.

In closing, allow me to convey my desire that you experience a consequential spherical rotation. Or, just have a great day, whichever you prefer!

To be nonaligned is to be unaffiliated or neutral. A useful illustration is the Harlem Globetrotters. They are not members of -thus nonaligned with- any basketball association. But would they remain nonaligned if they joined such an organization? The logical answer is no, for then they would be affiliated with that group.

As usual, this logical conclusion is inapplicable to world politics, for only there can something be aligned and yet nonaligned simultaneously.

The Nonaligned Movement (NAM) just concluded a summit in Havana, Cuba. The result was predictable rhetoric from some predictable suspects. North Korea used this "neutral" forum to blame the United States for the lack of world peace, even though they seem determined to maintain a state of war with us. And Venezuela's Hugo Chavez and Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad used the opportunity to air their hatred for us and call for a Venezuelan seat on the U.N. Security Council, which would further cement that body's irrelevance.

This should be expected, for a review of NAM's membership reveals a who's who of communism, murderous dictatorships, hideous civil wars and ethnic cleansings, and states that aren't even states at all, like Palestine.

The 50-year-old movement boasts a rich history of tyranny. Although formed by nations not wanting to choose sides during the Cold War, this quickly proved a false premise. The NAM became dominated by pro-Soviet nations, and many Soviet satellites were represented in the NAM.

Any remaining façade of neutrality was shredded at the NAM's 1979 summit. It was held in Cuba, a Soviet ally. The discussion revolved around the "natural alliance" between the NAM and the USSR. Pro-Soviet speeches received a warm welcome. And there was nothing but praise for Vladimir Lenin and the 1917 Revolution that thrust communism to the world stage.

It' worth wondering how a movement having so much common ground with the Soviet Union could claim neutrality in the Cold War. The fact is that these states haven't been neutral or nonaligned at any time. In fact, opposing Western "domination" was a main plank at their original meeting.

It is now 2006, and the NAM again met in Havana. The USSR is long since gone, but its spirit lives on whenever this organization convenes. It was again held in a communist nation. Present was the aforementioned criticism of the United States, a condemnation of Israel's response to Hezbollah, and support for Iran's nuclear aspirations.

With this evidence on file it is safe to conclude that the Nonaligned Movement is a fraud; they are aligned. They are aligned with collectivism. They are aligned with dictators. They are aligned against individual liberty, Western Civilization, and their own citizenry. To be "nonaligned" in theory is to be perfectly aligned in practice.

The Nonaligned Movement's membership roles contain such stalwarts of communism as Cuba and North Korea. It boasts names like Rwanda, Somalia, Sudan, and Sierra Leone, nations that serve as examples of the world's most barbaric civil wars and genocidal destruction.

The NAM is certainly no threat to mass an army and invade the United States. But that doesn't mean it is a legitimate organization. It warrants neither notoriety nor recognition. It justifies no adulation. And it is certainly undeserving of the fawning press its recent meeting received, especially from many in the "mainstream" Western media.

A long line formed when a local gas station priced their regular gasoline at $1.99 per gallon. One customer said she waited in line for 50 minutes to buy the "cheap" gasoline. It is safe to assume that at least ten minutes were needed to fill the tank once she arrived at the pump. So, for sake of argument let's say she spent one hour of her time to fill her car at the discounted price and see how she came out.

The average price per gallon of gasoline in North Carolina was $2.55 on the day this lady found her bargain. I have no idea what type of car this lady was driving, but we'll assume it was a larger car that required 20 gallons to fill the tank. Under this scenario she received $11.20 worth of benefit for her hour at the gas station.

The average annual wage in North Carolina is just over $33,000. If we divide that wage by the total number of hours in a year it means that the average worker earns $3.81 for each hour they live. Subtracting this amount from the money saved at the pump tells us that this person's time is worth $7.39 an hour. That's less than half of the average hourly wage earned in North Carolina.

If we make the comparison based on the amount earned per hour worked, our bargain shopper comes out far worse. The average wage per hour based on annual compensation of $33,332 and a 40-hour workweek is $16.03. In this scenario, the reward for our thrifty gasoline buyer was a loss of $4.82 for the hour she spent in line.

I know these statistics aren't irrefutable data. I have no way of knowing what this individual consumer makes per hour. Perhaps she earns less in compensation than she saved by spending an hour waiting in line. But the point is not her personal situation. It's just that 50 cents per gallon, while substantial and welcome, may not be the bargain you think it is.

Your time is worth something and you must place a value on it. A person could be better off driving directly to the pump, paying $2.55 per gallon, and continuing on their way rather than sitting in line for an hour.

Now don't get the wrong idea. Our consumer can sit in line at the gas station for as long as she wants as far as I'm concerned. As long as she is happy at the end of the purchase then the market has been satisfied. She bought her gasoline at a price the supplier was willing to sell it for, and that's capitalism. I'm not taking exception with her. But I do take exception with her passenger.

"We've been waiting for this. America needs this", her accomplice offered. "It really makes you wonder why they have to charge $3 a gallon if he (this particular store owner) can get it down to $2."

This highlights how little thought the typical consumer gives to the basic cost of a good, or the cost involved in delivering a good to the marketplace. Apparently, no consideration was given to the store owner's reasons for selling the gasoline at that price. It is just assumed that any store charging more is "gouging" the consumer.

The fact is that our generous storeowner spent $2.24 for each of the 5000 gallons he is selling. This means he is going to lose a quarter per gallon for a total loss of $1250. Why would he do such a thing? Is he a poor businessman, or a Good Samaritan who is willing to sacrifice his livelihood for the public good? Not necessarily.

The reason the gasoline was sold below cost was so the tanks could be emptied quickly and the pumps replaced. He didn't slash prices because his is a nice guy -which he may be- or because he is a poor businessman. It wasn't the result of guilt for past overcharging. He wasn't driven by a surge of civic-mindedness.

Disposing of the product was a necessary business activity. Selling below $2 per gallon is a strategy that he hopes will build loyalty in his customers, not a random act of kindness or a sign that you've been getting ripped off at the pump. He needed to move the gas and in the process was willing to sacrifice profits now in the hope of generating higher profits later on.

You don't have to like gasoline prices any more than you like steak prices. But sometimes paying more for an item than you would ideally like to pay doesn't always mean you are being taken.

On the fifth anniversary of the day Osama Bin Laden's merry men killed thousands of Americans, here are a few unrehearsed and unedited thoughts on where we are.

It seems to me that we don't see the footage of the burning buildings often enough. The fact is that we don't see it at all. The media thinks it is too painful. Friends, that was a painful day, and we need to be reminded of that pain and the righteous outrage that followed. We need to be reminded of the attitudes held by al-Qaida and a large portion of Islam. Remember how they danced in the streets, firing guns in celebration, while we counted our dead?

We remembered the Alamo. We remembered the Maine. We remembered Pearl Harbor. Those images kept our forefathers, both in uniform and out, focused on the enemy of their day. We should remember 9/11 as a day that galvanized our resolve to fight for our survival. As such, we should see the footage of 9/11. Certainly not so often that we become desensitized, but often enough to remain mobilized.

We should see those jets banking to the right and diving directly into the sides of the World Trade Center. We should see both towers ablaze, their smoke filling the sky of America's largest and most recognized city. We should hear the panic in the voices of the reporters who gave eyewitness accounts of the scene from the streets of New York City. We should see the gaping hole in the Pentagon, the center of our military structure, and hear the final words from the heroes of Flight 93.

Americans need exposure to the sight of other Americans dieing because fanatics think it their mission from god to forcefully convert the world to Islam. We should see the people who were confronted by an inferno so intense, and hope so abandoned, that they would join hands and jump from the 100th floor.

What would it be like to look out the window of a hi-jacked aircraft and realize you are flying directly at a building? What would it be like to see the building getting closer and closer? At what point would you realize you were not going to turn aside? Would it seem like a split second, or an eternity waiting for the coming explosion that would take you from this life to the next?

I also wonder how serious we really are in fighting these militants. Five years since 9/11, and nearly five years since we attacked the Taliban in Afghanistan. There has been progress no doubt. But are we truly serious about defeating our enemy? Have we really fought to win in Afghanistan or Iraq? Sometimes I wonder.

Remember the Battle of Fallujah? That city was a hotbed for attacks on our troops in Iraq. But when we stormed that city with overwhelming force -with the help of Iraqi troops, I might add- Fallujah ceased to be a cradle of violence. Today Baghdad is the source of violence in Iraq and, ironically, people have fled to Fallujah in order to escape the fighting. Shouldn't that tell us something about how to approach this war?

Hezbollah is of like mind with al-Qaida. They have attacked Americans. And when they attacked our ally, Israel, we began seeking a ceasefire as soon as "world opinion" turned on the Jewish state. Why? I thought we were going to take a heavy hand with terrorists and the states from which they operate. When did we abandon that policy, and why?

We didn't negotiate with the Japanese or the Germans during World War II. We attacked them. We bombed their cities. We invaded their territories and homelands. We killed them until their will to resist was totally gone. In the process we killed Japanese and German civilians, many of whom had no more love for their imperial and Nazi governments than we did. The result was unconditional surrender from both nations, and a peace between us that has lasted sixty years.

Liberals say President Bush hasn't taken the views of "the world" into account in the War on Muslim Terrorists. I say we have paid too much attention to what "the world" has to say. We began this war with the intention of pursuing not only terrorists but also the nations that harbor them. How have we done in that pursuit?

TSA agents will search little old grandmas from Topeka, confiscating their shampoo. But no one dares profile Middle Eastern men between the ages of 18 and 40 for fear of offending Muslims. We compromise our ability to travel freely inside our own country because we do not have the guts to kill our enemies or even recognize them for what they are. And don't forget, as previously stated, that the "Arab street" was the sight of joyous celebration when our people lay dead. Why are we so worried about offending them?

On this, the fifth anniversary of 9/11, we need not remember the pain of that day. We should remember the anger. We need to recall the determination we had as a nation to punish everyone responsible for, or sympathetic to, the acts of al-Qaida. We should insist that our freedoms be preserved even if it means the deaths of millions of Muslims.

I just don't understand the mentality that thinks we can negotiate with people whose stated goal is our destruction. I don't understand how so many Americans can look at our current war effort and say we are acting too aggressively. I don't understand why we think we can talk peace with fanatics who see such talks as a sign of weakness. I don't understand how a rational person can decide that America poses a greater threat to peace than do Islamic militants.

We are the good guys. Our future is at stake. And America is far more vital to the security of the world than all the Muslim fanatics the world has ever seen. Yet we act as if we have to apologize for our "mistreatment" of the Islamic world. It's sickening!

It's time America regained our outrage. It's time we regained our determination. It's time we regained our nerve. It's time we insist that we fight terrorism by killing terrorists lock, stock, and barrel, not walking barefoot through airports and pouring out our cologne.

Yes, this is rambling diatribe. I have followed no formula, adopted no outline, nor recollected of how I "felt" on the morning of 9/11. My sole intention is to point out that we are justified in sending as many Muslim terrorists -along with their apologists and supporters- to the land of 70 virgins as possible. And if you are offended by anything I've said and demand an apology, you will surely be disappointed.

There were once fourteen horse-processing plants in the United States. Now there are only three. And those plants are surrounded by activists who would like to close them, too. They argue that horses are an American icon and deserve a better end than the display case in a foreign butcher's window.

It's hard to argue against that regal status. There is a certain aura to the horse in American history, and in the American mind.

The horse draws mental images of Gen. George Washington, sitting astride a white stallion, directing the efforts of the Colonial Army. We picture the courageous cavalry officer, his sword held high, leading a gallant charge against a seemingly invincible position. And who could forget the lonely cowboy riding across the uncharted plains of the Western frontier, his Colt and Winchester by his side? Not even baseball and apple pie are as uniquely American.

Christine Berry of the Equine Protection Network seems to take the processing of horsemeat personally. She wants to see the practice stopped and criticizes other horse organizations that don't hold that view, such as the American Association of Equine Practitioners. Berry wonders how "a vet would support the cruel slaughter of our horses". Note the collective use of "our".

Ms. Berry, your horses aren't being slaughtered. The horses being slaughtered belong to someone else. What gives you the authority to determine how other people handle their assets? She goes on to lament the processing of 3 million horses over the last 20 years with nary an explanation of where those horses, or their offspring, would be today had they not been slaughtered.

In fairness to Ms. Berry and her supporters, they appear to be horse owners and industry insiders, not your typical animal rights activists. However, they should be aware that they are lying down with dogs that have fleas. Most notably the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS).

Don't let the name fool you. The HSUS is not your local animal shelter. They are a virulent animal rights organization that relies on emotional rhetoric to promote their vision of humane treatment. A prime example of their focus can be found in Michael W. Fox, who said, "The life of an ant and that of my child should be granted equal consideration."

Mr. Fox is a "senior scholar" at the Humane Society of the United States, which is roughly akin to being valedictorian at a day care academy. But his comment should tell us all we need to know about the HSUS. And they have picked a perfect leader for their cause.

Wayne Pacelle is the group's president. His resume includes director, president, and chairman positions with the Fund for Animals, the Animal Rights Alliance, and the Animal Rights Network. He has assisted People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) with their infamous "undercover investigations" and worked to amend the Florida constitution to protect the "rights" of pregnant pigs.

Perhaps most telling about Pacelle's attitudes are his fundraising efforts that helped the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society buy boats. For the uninitiated, the Sea Shepherd Society is a violent animal rights organization that has used those boats to ram commercial fishing vessels on the high seas.

I know that processing horsemeat for export to foreign countries holds no emotional appeal for most Americans. But factually they are still animals. For the horse lover, no one can legally take your horse for slaughter without you having sold it first. And at that time your input on the animal's future ends.

Still, if you like horses and oppose their slaughter, please feel free. You can join our House of Representatives, who can find nothing better to do in this age of Islamic terrorism, expanding budgets, and overbearing Washington mandates, than to ban the process. You should understand, however, that today the Humane Society works to ban horse processing. Tomorrow they will take the sirloin, pork chop, or chicken leg off your supper plate.

You should also understand that you are joining forces with activists who consider your ownership and riding of horses to be slavery and abuse. And you may be helping to lay the groundwork that will eventually outlaw your passion.

Want to start an argument? Raise the issue of abortion or contraception. Toss in Planned Parenthood or the National Right to Life Committee and you have a mixture more volatile than diesel fuel and fertilizer.

But even the most vehement abortion opponent -like myself- generally has no qualm with contraception. Otherwise even marital relations must be pro-creational in order to be moral. And the difference between preventing a pregnancy and ending one is as different as night and day.

This brings us to the subject of "morning after pills", known as Plan B, and their recent FDA approval for over-the-counter (OTC) sales. The mere sound conjures images of the abortion pill that liberals seem to worship. To understand the situation we must determine what a "morning after pill" is, how it works, and if it is the same thing as the abortion pill, RU486.

Plan B is essentially a high-octane dose of the same hormone that's been used in birth control pills for over 35 years. It works to prevent pregnancy by blocking the release, fertilization, or implantation of the egg. Once a fertilized egg is implanted on the lining of the uterus, which is the clinical definition of pregnancy, Plan B doesn't work. As such, it is quite different from the abortion pill.

RU486 is categorized as an abortifacient, meaning its sole purpose is to abort an existing pregnancy. Basically, it works by fooling the female body. The drug interferes with the chemical signal and production of progesterone, which promotes the growth of the nutritional lining of the uterus that the developing child needs to survive. This interference tricks the body into thinking it isn't pregnant. Thus the nutritional lining isn't produced and the conceived child literally starves to death.

Since Plan B prevents conception and RU486 induces an abortion, it is easy to accept one and oppose the other. So, why is the FDA approval of OTC sales of Plan B creating a stir? Well, it is not Christian and pro-life groups that are making noise.

The FDA ruling restricts non-prescription sales only to women 18 and over. Some lawmakers and assorted "advocates" oppose this restriction of birth control to younger women. Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards says her organization "is troubled by the scientifically baseless restriction imposed on teenagers. Anything that makes it harder for teenagers to avoid unintended pregnancy is bad medicine and bad public policy." Oh really? Does anyone believe that Richards would consider a refusal to teach abstinence -the only foolproof way of avoiding unintended pregnancy- to be "bad medicine"?

Richard's statement indicates Planned Parenthood's hostility toward parents, whose charge it is to teach their children about morality and responsibility. In the process they have turned the otherwise innocuous issue of Plan B on its ear, solely to further their political objectives.

No thinking person would support Planned Parenthood helping a minor gain access to alcohol or firearms. Why then would it make sense to support their help in obtaining contraception without a parent's knowledge or permission? While the claimed purpose of Planned Parenthood's meddling is to prevent teen pregnancy, they conveniently ignore that teen pregnancy rates increased after their "family planners" challenged the moral stigma formerly associated with promiscuity.

Morning after pills have been available in the United States via prescription since 1999. They appear to be reasonably safe and effective. And since contraception prevents pregnancy it involves the users only and should be free from government intrusion. This is quite different from RU486, which involves a conceived and developing child.

Available evidence indicates that OTC distribution of Plan B should be a non-issue. That would likely be the case if liberal groups would refrain from using it to wedge their selfish interests into the parent/teen relationship.

Ultimately no pill or practice is a suitable substitute for the moral guidance and responsibility instilled in children by their parents. Opponents of age restrictions on Plan B sales are displaying arrogant contempt for that time-proven relationship.

I was not of voting age when Jimmy Carter became president or when he left office. Yet I vividly recall his presidency. Interests rates were over 20-percent. Inflation reached double digits. Our military preparedness was woeful and we were selling out to the Soviets via one-sided arms control treaties. And who could forget the gutless response to the Iran Hostage Crisis, which laid the foundation for our recurring troubles with militant Muslims?

In short, the Carter Administration is the most blatant example of presidential inadequacy in my lifetime, debatably in U.S. history.

After leaving office Mr. Carter pursued charitable work, most notably with Habitat for Humanity. Soon even Mr. Carter's critics gave him the benefit of the doubt. His image became that of an amiable, charitable, and honest gentleman who was simply in over his head as president. Mr. Carter should have left well enough alone. His continued comments on subjects where he proved totally inept have forever tarnished any descent reputation he may have created. A perfect example is his interview with the German publication, Der Spiegel.

In a laughable attempt to salvage some manner of presidential legacy Mr. Carter exposed his hostility to the nation he once served. Today he is nothing more than an elitist "citizen of the world" who would gladly subjugate the United States to the whims of the United Nations and "world opinion".

Mr. Carter lays all world problems at the feet of America and our puppet, Israel. He laments the Bush administration policy of "preemptive war" and how it has created hatred of America in Arab lands. Should we suppose that past Muslim terrorism -from the Iran Hostage Crisis to 9/11- were signs of friendship and admiration? Mr. Carter, Arab hatred of America was alive and well long before the first boot touched Iraqi sand in the Gulf War, much less the current conflict.

Speaking of the Gulf War, let's not forget that the current "preemptive war" Mr. Carter condemns is the direct result of Iraq's non-compliance with that cease-fire arrangement. Without doubt President Bush did not outline the reasons for war as well as he should have. But Iraq incited this war by refusing to honor their commitments.

Mr. Carter blames the recent war in Lebanon on Israel's failure to negotiate. But Hezbollah's aggression is the direct result of negotiating with people who view diplomacy as a sign of weakness. This is evident from past Israeli withdrawals from Southern Lebanon and deals made with the PLO.

Mr. Carter knows that Hezbollah invaded Israel, captured Israeli soldiers, and instigated the war. Yet he ignores that truth because it does not fit his condemnation of Israel for their "massive bombing of the entire nation of Lebanon". Excuse me Mr. Carter, but which side bombed only specified targets -having warned civilians to leave the area ahead of time- and which side hid behind Lebanese civilians and fired rockets indiscriminately at Israeli towns?

If that's not enough to convince you of Mr. Carter's incompetence, consider his assessment of the Lebanon cease-fire agreement. Carter said, "Hezbollah said they would comply, I hope Israel will comply". It seems our former president is more confident in the word of a known terrorist organization -one that has attacked us before- than the only outpost of Western Civilization in the Middle East.

When questioned about America needing "regime change" Mr. Carter responded, "…there is a self-corrective aspect to our country". There he has a point. And no better example can be found than his overwhelming defeat in the 1980 election.

If only he'd been content with his charitable work he would likely have maintained an honorable reputation. But the misguided notion that his demonstrable failures are now pertinent shows him to be a delusional stooge. He was a presidential disaster, and now a national disgrace.

Der Spiegel means "the mirror" in German. If Jimmy Carter wants to see a man whose policies destroyed American prestige and power more that any other president of the last fifty years he should take a long, hard look in "der spiegel" tomorrow morning.

Two thousand years after his crucifixion Jesus Christ remains both the most revered and reviled figure in human history. The modern result is two differing camps on religious liberty and the relationship between government and faith. A portrait of Jesus now hanging in a West Virginia high school is a perfect example.

The ACLU and Americans United for the Separation of Church and State have sued on the grounds that the painting endorses Christianity as the school's official religion. However, there are some logical holes in their argument. No student or teacher is forced to acknowledge the painting or express any regard for its presence. And there are no required classes on Christianity at Bridgeport High School.

By contrast, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently upheld a California school district's curriculum on Islamic studies. It is now fine for students to recite prayers "In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful…" memorize the Muslim profession of faith, chant, "Praise be to Allah", and state "the Holy Quran is God's Word". This is constitutional in the eyes of the court that ruled the words "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance is a government endorsement of religion.

What would happen if schoolchildren were made to pray "In the name of Jesus Christ, Our Savior, the Son of God," or state that the Holy Bible is God's Word? You can bet the ACLU and their allies would be first in line at the lawsuit filing window. Yet, I have heard nothing from them about the role-playing of Islam in California's 7th Grade.

So, it now seems that the promotion of Islam is inconsequential while a picture of Jesus heralds the end of the republic. Maybe it was actually a group of Christians that flew planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

The picture of Jesus reflects a figure in human history. An artist's conception of how Jesus may have appeared is no more an establishment of religion that a picture of Karl Marx is an establishment of communism. What would you bet that the ACLU wouldn't oppose hanging that portrait in a public school?

Actually, "separation of church and state" appears nowhere in the Constitution. The First Amendment reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". The men who adopted these words were largely men of faith, with no intention of banning God from all public forums. The First Amendment was adopted to prevent the Church of England from becoming the Church of America.

Christians should have no desire to establish the Southern Baptists, the Methodists, the Catholics, or anything else as the official "church of America". However, we should be sick and tired of the ACLU and like-minded organizations silencing any public expression of the Christian faith while apparently ignoring situations like that in California.

I am a Christian, and I do not support government-sanctioned religion. Go back to the situation in California. Even if America became a majority Muslim nation it would not be constitutional to establish a Muslim public school system. So, I have no interest in establishing a Christian public school system. Anyway, I don't think Jesus needs an endorsement from the Department of Education or the school board to validate his worth.

The ACLU specifically targets any form of Biblical morality in public schools, even when Jesus isn't mentioned at all. And what has been the product of that effort? Students -especially in metropolitan school districts- can't be taught not to lie, steal, murder, or covet under the threat of litigation. Those moral directions are from the Ten Commandments and thus violate the "separation of church and state".

On the other hand, teenagers can be taught to explore their sexuality and to engage in sexual promiscuity as long as they use a condom. And if they are so overcome by passion that they can't get to the store? No problem. Planned Parenthood can provide an abortion and your parents never have to know.

I agree that the majority cannot legitimately force a religious practice on a minority. However, the minority cannot silence a majority simply by claiming offence either. Tyranny is tyranny, whether by few or many.

On religious freedom the ACLU speaks from both sides of its mouth. Thus, their pious crowing about respect for liberty is moot. In fact, they are dragging that very concept through the mud.

Let's suppose you are a Black man, traveling alone, through a small rural town. You stop at a convenience store for gas and a snack. When you enter the store you notice that everyone is white. In fact, everyone you saw as you entered town was white.

Outside the store are several pick-up trucks, each with gun racks in the rear windows and confederate flags flying from the beds. The men out front are dressed in full camouflage, or worse yet, white robes. You are not approached or threatened in any way. Even so, you decide it wise to consider the possibility of danger under such circumstances.

You have just employed racial profiling, judging a group of white men as potentially dangerous based on how they look rather than their actions toward you. Chances are good that you would have no such concerns for safety if the men were wearing suits and ties.

Reverse the roles for a White person passing through a mostly Black inner-city neighborhood. Gathered at the next corner is a group of young Black men. Their pants are hanging on their thighs, boxers exposed. They are decked out in bling, their caps backwards or sideways. In short, they look as if they fell out of a rap video. They appear not to notice that you even exist. But you avoid them, thinking they may be a potentially dangerous street gang. You'd be a fool if you didn't.

This is also a case of racial profiling based on the appearance, not the actions, of the people in question. If the same group of Black men were gathered outside a country store -minus the "gangsta" attire- it is likely they would not be perceived as threatening.

The same scenario could play out for a Jew faced with a group of men wearing small moustaches; their hair swooped to the center of their foreheads, and swastika tattoos. Would the Jewish person be wrong to prejudge this group of men as a possible threat? Common logic would say no.

When the potential for harm lies solely in the appearance of the threat in question it becomes wise to profile based on race or ethnicity. If we have the right of self-preservation then we are not required to place our selves at risk so as not to offend a possible menace. Yet, this is exactly what opponents of racial profiling insist we do.

When we look at racial profiling in this light we see that the profiling is not so much about race as it is about the appearance of the race in question. And isn't the appearance of any situation a prime indicator of its danger potential? If you dress or act in a manner that is associated with dangerous or criminal behavior you shouldn't be surprised when you are suspected.

I raise this subject to ask the question, should we profile young Middle-Eastern travelers? Common sense would scream that we pay special attention to them.

It was Middle-Eastern Muslims who commandeered planes and flew them into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. It was Middle-Eastern Muslims who blew up trains in Madrid and London. The same is true for those who attempted to board and destroy up to a dozen airliners at Heathrow Airport. And a woman of that description was recently detained on suspicion of smuggling explosive materials onto an airplane in, of all places, West Virginia.

This is not to say that we should detain every Muslim encountered. But we should pay closer attention to them than we do to grandma, and not be afraid to question them if they act the least bit suspicious.

Would this be unfair to the peaceful Muslims and Middle-Easterners who raise suspicion merely by their appearance? I guess it would. But life isn't always fair, is it? In fact, peaceful Muslims -especially American Muslims- should be on our side. This is true not only to preserve innocent life and the nation where they choose to live, but also to save some hope of portraying Islam as a peaceful religion.

Democrats are traditionally viewed as the party of the poor. If this is true, what incentive does the Democratic Party have for improving the fortunes of the poor? If the poor do not remain poor the Democrats will have no constituency.

Cindy Sheehan is quite a trilogy. In one person we find the patriotism of Benedict Arnold, the intellectual genius of Moe Howard and the sex appeal of Ruth Buzzie, all packaged neatly in what Soviet leaders termed a "useful idiot".

Common practice for Islamic militants is to hide among civilian populations, using them as human shields, and launch attacks on other civilians. When we respond, and civilians are inadvertently killed, we are accused of human rights abuses and war crimes. Where is the condemnation of the Islamic terrorists?

A drunken Mel Gibson made anti-Semitic remarks and was vilified like Satan himself. But, when Hezbollah's Sheik Nasrallah does the same thing, while sober, pundits consider his remarks "interesting". Now, tell me which is more anti-Semitic: the utterances of a drunken movie star, or reigning rockets indiscriminately on Jewish towns?

Past interpretation of the Constitution holds that any child born on American soil automatically becomes a citizen of the United States. If that precedent applies to children born to parents who are in this country illegally then the child of a soldier from an invading army would be a citizen as well.

Studying the Bible is like trying to dive to the ocean's floor while wearing a life preserver. No matter how hard you swim, or how deep you try to go, you'll find that you can scarcely break the surface.

The idea that an immigration bill must be passed, even if it makes the situation worse, is ludicrous. It's like finding that you have no water to fight a fire, but gasoline is readily available. And, since you must do something, you toss the gasoline on the fire.

The premise behind wealth redistribution is to improve the "have-nots" by taking from the "haves". In truth, enough wealth cannot be taken from the "haves" to change the "have-nots" into "haves". The end result is to turn the "haves" into "have-nots", and equal misery for everyone. The socialist mind considers this fair… until it happens to them.

Striking production workers for the reality show "America's Next Top Model" claim the greatest challenge of their job is to avoid creating doubt about reality TV's legitimacy. I would say they are pursuing a lost cause.

Here is poetic justice. Microsoft's spellchecker doesn't recognize the last name of former Vice President Walter Mondale. Among the suggested corrections for "Mondale" is "mundane".

If you've ever wondered about the power of mind control and propaganda look no farther than Cuban farmer Rafael Reyes. Speaking of Cuban dictator Fidel Castro's current illness and questions about his return to power Reyes said, "I, at least, am worried, because without him we are nothing". Yes indeed, communism champions the "working man".

While world focus is on Lebanon, Israel and the Palestinians continue to fight in Gaza. The United Nations recently called on both sides to "recognize their obligations to protect civilians". But it speaks volumes that Israel alone was singled out for U.N. criticism.

Boston, Detroit, Chicago, Minnesota, and Seattle are a combined 75 and 15 in inter-league play. Conversely, only San Francisco and Colorado are above .500 against American League teams. While this may not render the World Series a foregone conclusion, it does indicate on what league the smart money will be.

Karen Armstrong is a best-selling author of religious history, having written on most major religious practices. In fact, she says she draws strength from them all, which tells me she has trouble making up her mind. I do not, however, intend to discuss or debate Karen Armstrong herself, but her continued references to the United States as a democracy.

When did the United States change from a republic to a democracy? And what is the defining difference between the two concepts? It can be a confusing debate, for the defining lines have been blurred almost to the point of defying recognition.

In classic definition, a democracy is a governmental system in which the people vote directly on the issues decided by government. Most democratic practices follow this basic definition, occasionally with some exceptions.

Political thought has developed something termed a representative democracy. This is a form of government in which people do not vote on most issues directly. Instead, they elect representatives to decide issues on their behalf, with some exceptions. Occasionally, issues are decided in pure democratic manner via the use of public referenda. The only problem with a representative democracy is that it doesn't represent a democracy as much as it does a republic.

A republic is defined as a political system where the power is based on principles controlled ultimately by the governed. Representatives are elected periodically to decide what direction that government follows. The head of state is also elected, either directly or indirectly. The later is true in the United States, for we elect our president not by majority vote but by Electoral College.

A republic rests in the principle that majority rule has no right to trample the basic rights of the minority. The Electoral College is a perfect example of that idea. And despite detractors, the 2000 presidential election is a case study in the value of a classic republic over a classic democracy.

Al Gore won the overall popular vote by virtue of overwhelming support in the major metropolitan areas of the Pacific coast, the Mississippi Valley, and the northeast. However, a look at the nation county by county indicated overwhelming support for George Bush. In fact, President Bush won more than 2400 counties while Gore won only 674.

If we elected our president by pure democratic vote the large urban areas could silence the voice of less populated areas. This is tyranny by the majority, in which suburban and rural areas would have a lesser voice in deciding our head of state. In the electoral system areas of lesser population retain influence in direct proportion to their population and are, therefore, not dominated by densely populated regions.

Our Founding Fathers recognized the mob rules dangers of a democracy. A republic was instituted -now called a representative democracy- so as to protect individual liberty from the tyranny of the majority. The difference is clear when democracy and republic are viewed in classic definition. But modern politics have blurred the defining lines.

The characteristics of each system has been combined and watered down until neither means what it once did. Even the terms themselves have been used in such perverted fashion as to confuse the value of each. For example, the Soviet Union incorporated "republic" in its name, and North Korea employs "democratic". But, were core principles followed in either case? Such misuse of terminology further complicates the understanding of each system.

A classic democracy is based on the idea of mob rules. There can be no true freedom or individual liberty because the door is ever open to the tyranny of the majority. A simple majority can decide that Blacks cannot speak freely, that Whites cannot bear arms, or that one gender cannot vote, depending on the numbers.

In a republic the people control their government by electing representatives who themselves are governed by constitutional principles. This provides a safeguard for individual liberty against the whims of the majority. No person can be denied basic liberties under this practice, yet the people can still influence what is and isn't acceptable conduct via their elected representatives.

You can give government any name you wish, or you can change it to suit the whim of the day. But it is the basic operating principles that shape and define the system. The United States -when operating as intended by the framers- is a republic, no matter how many pundits gush over the word "democracy".

I was born in the Year of Our Lord Nineteen Hundred and Sixty-Four. That is one hundred years after the abolition of slavery, nearly that long after the last Indian Wars and 472 years after Columbus corrupted the Western Hemisphere. I have never known a time when women and Blacks weren't allowed to vote. In fact, my biggest concern during the Civil Rights era was waking up in time for Captain Kangaroo.

Now, despite the fact that I can view these occurrences only within the context of history, I have come to understand that each is my fault. Inasmuch as confession is good for the soul I want to set the record straight and apologize to any ethnic group, race, religion, creed, gender, sexual preference, or other oppressed minority whose life is ruined because I am a white, heterosexual male.

I will begin with the militant Muslim. I am extremely sorry for my desire to fight back when Islamic freedom fighters bomb our buildings, behead our contractors and drag our dead through the streets. I now know that I am responsible for your children becoming the human bombs that kill unarmed restaurant patrons for the glory of Allah.

To mother earth, please accept my most humble apology for living in a house with electrical power, air conditioning, and other modern conveniences. If I only lived in a cave -eating nothing but worms and dandelions- the world would not come to an end within the next ten years, as Al Gore has been preaching for the last thirty years.

Oh my insensitivity; I've done it again. A worm is a living being -defined by hopes, dreams, and a desire to live- just like humans. So, to all the animal rights activists, please forgive me for eating meat. With your help I'll kick this barbaric practice. In fact, I'll go one step better. Plants are living things too, so I'll refrain from vegetarianism and encourage all white men to do likewise. Soon we'll all waste away and the world will become Utopia.

I apologize for slavery even though, as mentioned earlier, the institution ended 100 years before my lifetime. The fact that I have never owned slaves of any race, sex, or nationality -and abhor the idea of one person owning another- will not enter the equation. This will apply to anyone whose ancestor could have been enslaved at any time or place throughout human history.

I do hereby issue a request for pardon to any woman I have addressed as ma'am, Miss, or Mrs., or for whom I have opened a door. Yes, this was once considered a courtesy and a gesture of respect. But I now understand that these erstwhile innocuous acts were bred from an innate chauvinism. I am also sorry that you have been cursed with the burden of birthing the next generations of humanity.

My desire for lower taxation means I am responsible for mistreating the poor. From now on I will do my part to "soak the rich", henceforth defined as anyone with one cent more in their bank account than I have in mine.

It is with deepest regret that I offer sincere confession of guilt to homosexuals. If you suffer from AIDS or other STDs it is my fault. Blame me. You can also hold me accountable for the fact that you must force acceptance of your sexual decisions on an unwilling public in order to boost your self-esteem. If only I were more tolerant, your purity would then be evident to everyone.

I will apologize for remembering neither the Maine nor the Alamo as often as I should. And if I occasionally remember either of them I hereby apologize for that as well. I am sorry for the Chicago Fire, the San Francisco earthquake, the rise of the Soviet Union, the demise of the Soviet Union, steroid abuse in pro sports, and the wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald.

I apologize for sexism, racism, chauvinism, Nazism, communism, socialism, radicalism, anarchism, liberalism, conservatism, fundamentalism, and every other "ism" that may or may not exist. Each instance must be a grand conspiracy of the Illuminati, for which I accept responsibility as well.

Lastly, to anyone not receiving an apology I apologize for not including you in the apologies. It may be that I am not aware of you, your disenfranchised compatriots, or the degree of your torment. Even so, I am confident that your suffering is at my hands. And the insensitivity of not recognizing your anguish is cause for confession as well.

It seems that every state in the union and the federal government is pondering an increase in the minimum wage. Even municipalities are getting in on the act. Chicago recently required big-box retailers to pay a "living wage". Who could oppose such a concept? Are there people who want others to work for an unlivable wage?

Increasing the minimum wage, and rhetoric about a "living wage", are sensible arguments for politicians. They sound compassionate to the plight of the poor and they look good on the evening news. But how do such proposals fare in the real world? Will people then earn more money, or will fewer low-skilled workers have jobs at all?

University of Connecticut economist William Alpert says that economists cannot prove a correlation between a rise in the minimum wage and a rise in unemployment. Yet even he doesn't believe the minimum wage actually increases income for low-wage workers. In fact, Mr. Alpert himself cites an economic formula stating that for each 1 percent increase in the minimum wage there is a .20 percent decrease in minimum wage jobs.

Admittedly that isn't a large number, but it is there nonetheless. What's more, many economists do find a link between the minimum wage and unemployment.

Gary Becker, a Nobel Prize-winning economist, states unequivocally, "Hike the minimum wage, and you put people out of work". And economist Thomas Sowell also believes that mandated minimum wages put lower skilled workers out of a job. In his book, "Basic Economics", he cites a survey in which 90 percent of responding economists agree with that assessment.

Cornell economists Richard V. Burkhauser and Joseph J. Sabia assert that a 10 percent hike in the minimum wage -.51 cents an hour at the current rate- would decrease employment by 5.7 percent among teenagers and 8.5 percent among Blacks and uneducated workers. So, there is ample evidence among economists that raising the minimum wage does, in fact, lead to less employment.

This phenomenon is due largely to what Frederic Bastiat termed the seen and unseen effects of policy. The higher minimum wage is easily seen for the worker who receives the higher wage. However, even if current jobs aren't lost due to the wage increase, new jobs are not created due to the higher cost of labor. This is an unseen effect of policy that doesn't make its way to the six-o'clock news.

The very reasoning behind the minimum wage is onerous at best. Proponents paint businesses, big or small, as greedy and evil entities that become rich by taking from the poor, with nary an explanation of how this is possible. Emotional arguments are raised, such as the picture of the family of four struggling to survive on a minimum wage income. It's a heart-wrenching mental picture. The problem with such arguments is that, occasionally, reality checks in and emotional myths are destroyed by facts.

The 2004 Consumer Population Survey estimates 73.9 million Americans are paid hourly. Less than 3 percent earn at or below the minimum hourly wage. When we consider that most of that number are employed in exempt sectors where tips play the predominant role in income we find that less than 1 percent of hourly workers earn the $5.15 minimum wage.

More than half of all workers receiving the minimum wage are under the age of 25, and over 82 percent have no dependents. Only 2 percent of high school graduates -and workers older than 25- are paid minimum wage.

These numbers support the idea that minimum wage earners are by-and-large young, unskilled workers just entering the workplace. Very few are supporting families with that wage.

Walter Williams -a professor at George Mason University- wrote, "Poor people are not poor because of low wages. For the most part, they're poor because of low productivity." This is a simple concept, but very true. People generally earn what they are worth. A worker must produce more value than they receive in compensation to remain viable to an employer. Otherwise there is no reason to pay the worker. Government action cannot change this equation.

As this debate rages on we will hear no end to the pundits championing the need for a "living wage". They will march a few minimum wage workers to the microphone and shed crocodile tears about their plight. Not once will they mention the unseen people who could have filled the jobs their minimum wage increase aborted.

But, then, as long as politicians, advocates, and other busybodies are able to preen and crow about how much concern they have for workers, who cares what unseen consequences their actions impose on poorer Americans?

Does racism still exist? Sure it does. It always has and always will. As long as humans survive there will be Whites who don't like Blacks who don't like Hispanics who don't like Asians who don't like Arabs who don't like Americans who don't like Europeans who don't like Jews. It is an unfortunate fact of humanity.

Bigotry, however, isn't always external. It is often self-contained. In fact, the greatest racist threat Black Americans face today comes in the form of the modern civil rights leader.

Al Sharpton exemplified this idea while addressing the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. He said of successful Black Americans, "they will soon be back in the streets with us in a short matter of time. You won't last long if we stay out of the streets".

First, for Sharpton to position himself as downtrodden is laughable. But it is the second part of the statement that is troubling. Does Mr. Sharpton truly believe that today's successful Black Americans would be nothing if he were not protesting something? If so, he has expressed an absolute lack of confidence in the abilities of the people he claims to lead.

Walter E. Williams was born in 1936. As such, he grew up in the era of segregation and discrimination. Today he holds a doctorate in economics and has written for several respected scholarly journals. Mr. Williams is in his 26th year as a syndicated columnist. Somehow, he also found time to author several books and chair the economics department at George Mason University. His awards are numerous and he has testified before both houses of Congress.

Thomas Sowell was born in the segregated South and raised in Harlem. As such, he understands both racism and poverty. He is a Korean War veteran. And despite not finishing high school he graduated from Harvard and Columbia, eventually earning a doctorate in economics from the University of Chicago. His economics career began in the early 1960s, before anyone heard of Mr. Sharpton.

Today, Mr. Sowell is a Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institute and praised by his peers as a visionary thinker and revolutionary writer.

There is Janice Rogers Brown. Judge Brown rose from a sharecropper's childhood to a seat on the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia. However, this Black American woman received no support from the civil rights community during her confirmation hearings, mainly because she doesn't think the way she is supposed to think.

Eva Patterson, president of the Equal Justice Society, is quoted as saying "it is not racist to oppose her" -meaning Judge Brown`s appellate nomination. No ma'am it's not. But it's not racist to oppose the message of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson either.

These three examples aren't alone in representing achievement by Americans who happen to be Black. There is Shelby Steele, Condoleezza Rice, Herman Cain, Ken Hamblin, and Alan Keyes. I find it highly doubtful that any of these successful professionals opposed the Civil Rights activism of the 50s and 60s, which obviously opened doors for them. However, these leaders have recognized that true civil rights depend on individuals and their efforts, not on belonging to a group.

The civil rights movement of yesteryear succeeded in removing barriers to individual achievement and success. Today's civil rights activists erect barriers to individual achievement in favor of protecting groups and organizations. As such, they are doing no favors for the next generation of black men and women.

People like Dr. Williams, Judge Brown, and Dr. Sowell, are far better role models for Black Americans -in fact, all Americans- than the modern civil rights "leader". No thinking person can seriously believe that these successful men and women would be fired from their positions or stripped of their honors if they stay "out of the streets"?

The United Nations Human Rights Committee has given America a poor review. We must do more to protect the poor, especially following natural disasters. What the pompous U.N. fails to note is that without America it would be even more inconsequential than it is now.

America remains the land of opportunity, despite the many faults we may have. The problem is that opportunity doesn't jump up and shout, "Here I am". You have to go find it. And government involvement does not create prosperity; it is actually the antithesis.

While we are on the subject of human rights and opportunities let's look at the U.N.'s record and see how this body of peace has fared. We'll begin with China, a nation with a long history of stifling freedom.

The Chinese government currently admits to holding 3000 political prisoners, although the exact number is unknown and likely much higher. No organization can exist without government approval. And while freedom of speech and of the press is "recognized", it must adhere to the tenets of communism and Marxist thought. Some freedom.

Religious liberty fares poorly as well. Four religious practices are allowed by the state: Christianity, Taoism. Buddhism, and Islam. But public worship without government approval is strictly prohibited. Unapproved worshippers are arrested, monitored, or fined, their property is taken and their churches closed.

These practices violate the UN's own Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief. Yet what country do you think currently sits on the Commission on Human Rights and will soon sit on the Human Rights Council? If you said China, take a gold star.

Cuba, with a similar disregard for liberty, is a present or future member of both human rights panels as well. Now, how does the U.N. stand to criticize America when such oppressive regimes as China and Cuba are determining the organization's policy on human rights?

In 1994 the ruling Hutus began a systematic slaughter of 800,000 Tutsi opponents. This brought a response from Tutsi rebels. Where was the U.N.? Its contingent hit the trail after losing ten soldiers; effectively leaving Rwanda to fend for it's self. The result was one of the worst short-term slaughters in modern history.

Sierra Leone is another fine example of the U.N.'s work. The West African nation has endured a brutal series of wars -characterized by rape, torture, and machete amputations. Liberian President Charles Taylor became involved and is now accused of helping rebel groups commit gruesome acts of dismemberment, slavery, and even cannibalism.

When the fighting finally ceased more than 50,000 were dead and the U.N. itself declared Sierra Leone the world's "least livable" country.

As bad as conditions are in Sierra Leone, life in Sudan may be even worse. Twenty years of civil war has left 2 million people dead. When this fighting ended, it was replaced by government armed Arab militias, which then killed more than 200,000 people and displaced over 1 million.

What do these nations have in common, other than an unspeakable disregard for humanity? All three are members of the United Nations and have been for more than 40 years. It seems the U.N. has failed miserably in protecting human rights.

I know America isn't perfect. But I resent an organization with as much blood on its hands as the United Nations lecturing us on failing to protect human rights. The U.N. should concentrate on removing the rats in its kitchen before worrying about the mouse in our walls.

High on my list of favorite columnists is Thomas Sowell. Especially enjoyable are his random thoughts on the passing scene. So, with proper deference to Mr. Sowell, I will offer a few of my own.

The AP reported that Hezbollah did not expect such a forceful response when they abducted two Israeli soldiers on July 12. This tells us how the Islamic fanatic's mind works. Appeasement is seen as weakness while overwhelming force gains their attention.

What message do we send to kids by preaching drug abstinence while the use of adolescent "behavioral" medications is on the rise?

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, while briefing reporters about her trip to the Middle East, expressed the United State's commitment to ending the fighting... but only when certain conditions are met. Hopefully, that means after Hezbollah is rendered impotent and inconsequential.

The catastrophe of a man's reluctance to take a stand when he is right is exceeded only by his refusal to admit when he is wrong.

As a child I "smoked" candy cigarettes and "shot" toy guns. Yet, I grew up to be neither a smoker nor a homicidal maniac. I must be quite a disappointment to child "advocates" and other micro-managing busybodies.

Fahrenheit 9/11, Michael Moore's propaganda film, depicted Staff Sergeant Raymond Plouhar as an over-aggressive recruiter who unscrupulously targeted poor kids. In June Sgt. Plouhar was killed in Iraq. I wonder if Michael Moore understands that the target of his scorn died protecting the filmmaker's right to publicize his own foolishness. On second thought, I don't wonder at all.

Scientists say bovine flatulence produces the greenhouse gas methane. As such, fewer cows mean a healthier environment. Does it not then follow that liberal vegetarians, such as PETA members, are contributing to global warming by refusing to eat meat?

If North Korea's missile tests are an adequate barometer of their technology then they do not pose the threat some experts believe. And considering that their know-how likely came from their communist neighbor, Red China may not be as formidable as we think, either.

If the attitude of today's peace activists were the rule in 1942 we would not have declared war on Japan. Instead we would have considered Pearl Harbor a criminal act and attempted to prosecute the planners and pilots who participated. After their trial we would have immediately released them since their attack was a justifiable response to American arrogance.

A recent headline proclaimed, "Couple given life for killing S.C. businessman". Were they, and others, given the opposite of life maybe crime rates would not be where they are.

Secularists resist Christianity due to their perception of hypocrisy among Christians. In a fashion they are correct. Consider that the standard measurement for Christian behavior is absolute perfection and you'll see why Christians don't always practice what we preach. However, our "hypocrisy" still doesn't make righteousness any less right, or sinfulness any less wrong.

When shots were reported at the Rayburn Building on Capital Hill, Capitol Police immediately locked down government buildings. I wonder if Rep. Cynthia McKinney considered it an act of racism that she wasn't allowed to leave her office?

It was interesting, and ironic, to learn that the lawyer representing Anna Nicole Smith -the busty, blonde former stripper and playmate- in her inheritance battle was named Howard Stern.

Outright lying is essential to the pro-abortion movement. Nowhere is that better exemplified than in their opposition to Senate Bill 403, the Child Custody Protection Act, and its House companion, H.R. 748.

This recently passed legislation provides for the prosecution of third parties who knowingly transport a minor across state lines for the purpose of obtaining an abortion in violation of parental notification laws. In other words, parent, no one has the authority to take your teenage daughter to another state for an abortion without your approval.

Predictably, this bill garnered the usual set of detractors, most notably Senators Ted Kennedy and Hillary Clinton, and the ACLU. Just as predictably, each resorted to misrepresentation in making their case.

Sen. Kennedy said that Congress should have higher priorities than "turning grandparents into criminals". Sen. Clinton added, "We're going to sacrifice a lot of girls' lives". Other Democrats lamented alleged dangers posed to pregnant teens who have abusive parents. As typical, none offered evidence to substantiate their assertions. In fact, their claims indicate they have ignored the language of the bill they voted on and hope you will, too.

Section 2431(e)(2) of S.403 defines parent as a "parent", "guardian", "legal custodian", or "a person standing in loco parentis" of a minor. The House version contains an identical definition. In other words, grandma and grandpa aren't going to jail if they have legal custody of the minor in question. However, a grandparent`s authority does not supersede that of a legal parent. And, yes, there are provisions to protect the health of the mother.

As duplicitous as the Democratic opposition is, the ACLU presented the most egregious prevarication via their press release. They claim this bill will restrict a teenager's ability to obtain an out-of-state abortion "even in a medical emergency". This accusation, at best, indicates the ACLU`s ignorance of the bill they oppose. At worst, and most likely, it is an outright lie.

Section 2431(b)(1) clearly states that the prohibition "does not apply if the abortion was necessary to save the life of the minor". The language further stipulates that the endangering situation can be due to any physical disorder, injury, or illness, including complications related directly to the pregnancy itself.

The ACLU also claims the bill "contains no exception for an abortion that may be necessary to protect a teen's health". Once again, see section 2431(b)(1) of the bill, which does exactly what the ACLU claims it doesn't.

Sadly, opponents of S.403 must resort to such deception and distortion simply because they dare not reveal their true agenda. Their opposition to this law isn't about the health of teenage girls, incest, or even individual rights. It is about securing legal authority for pro-abortion organizations, such as Planned Parenthood, to take your daughter across state lines for an abortion whether you like it or not.

This is part of the collectivist, "it takes a village" mentality of liberalism, which by its nature despises not only the family structure but also the personal liberty it claims to espouse.

This legislation deserves passage. Not only does it preserve life, it also recognizes parental authority over minors. Parents have every right to raise their children free from the micromanaging hand of congressional liberals, the ACLU, and pro-abortion organizations.

Finally, there is an explanation for that tailgating, horn-honking, curse-breathing, finger-flipping jerk in the rearview mirror. Predictably, it has nothing to do with irresponsibility or the lack of self-discipline. That driver is a victim, afflicted with a newly discovered mental disorder.

The latest invention in the psychiatric community is Intermittent Explosive Disorder (IED), formerly known as flying off the handle. This disorder mostly affects males. But, as pointed out by Psychology Today, premenstrual women can also suffer fiery eruptions of temper, as many a married man may attest.

IED is characterized by a person's failure to control their rage, resulting in injurious or destructive outbursts that are out of proportion to the situation. What's interesting is that the condition is most prevalent not only in men, but in young men. This is also a segment of society that lacks maturity and judgment, the absence of which naturally leads to irresponsible behavior.

If you're no longer a young man, don't despair. You can still be a victim. The National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) says that anyone having experienced three instances of "impulsive aggressiveness" at any time in theirs lives can be diagnosed with IED. So friend, if you've played three rounds of golf there's a good chance you're now included in the victimhood society.

Experts differ somewhat on the cause of IED. Some practitioners blame the problem on the improper production or function of serotonin, a neurotransmitter that helps regulate behavior. Another line of thought pins IED on negative beliefs about other people, unsurprisingly attributable to harsh punishments by parents. That argument should raise a red flag.

Certainly poor parenting influences an adolescent's outlook on life and relationships, as apples don't fall far from their trees. Abusive parenting can foster abusive tendencies in children. However, this "cognitive distortion" theory can also be used to usurp parental authority and abandon time-proven child discipline methods, such as a spanking when needed.

According to minddisorders.com, the diagnosis of IED is one of exclusion. The attending psychiatrist must first rule out other mental disorders and substance abuse factors when analyzing bursts of anger. When these options aren't applicable, a pronouncement of IED is appropriate. As such, IED is a "catch-all" diagnosis, a way to rationalize irrationality.

Basically, what we have done is create a new class of dependent victims. Someday -if we continue down this path- everyone will have some form of mental illness, relieving us of all responsibility. And without responsibility there is no freedom.

The purported number of IED cases -possibly as many as 16 million- is based on data compiled by the National Comorbidity Survey Replication via face-to-face household surveys of over 9000 adults. That approach alone is sufficient to produce explosive anger among respondents.

The NIMH funded the study, along with supplemental grants from the National Institute on Drug Abuse and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Interestingly, each of these organizations operates under the National Institutes of Health, itself a component of the federal government's Health and Human Services Department. This gives one the idea that government is providing an avenue for its own growth.

Victimhood creates a sense of dependency, on which government feeds. More victims create the "need" for more funding. In turn, this equation creates more victims who will then become dependent on government. It's a never-ending cycle, in which more and more people are encouraged to abdicate personal responsibility, and thus their liberty.

Of course, this government produced mental illness theory may be mere speculation. The expanding realm of mental illness could be nothing more than a justification of the insecurities and inadequacies present in psychiatry itself. And when you think about it, once the population is classified mentally ill, only the psychiatrists will remain normal.

The Supreme Court's Kelo Decision upheld a municipality's condemnation of private property for other private use. This abuse of imminent domain produced public outrage. It's not proper for government to condemn property for a non-public use. In this case, the property of "working class" people was taken for the benefit of powerful developers. Let's assume that the class situation is reversed. Would there be the same outrage?

Ralph Horowitz owned fourteen acres of land in Los Angeles. The city took his property, with compensation, in the 1980's to build a refuse-to-energy incinerator. Such a project is a public use and a justifiable exercise of imminent domain. But the incinerator project was scrapped following complaints from area residents. Once the public use was cancelled, shouldn't Mr. Horowitz have been given the opportunity to re-purchase his property? Not in Los Angeles.

Instead, the city transferred control to a local food bank, which in turn allowed immigrant farmers to cultivate the parcel rent-free. Under these circumstances Mr. Horowitz's land was taken for a non-public use, just like the property in Kelo. Horowitz sued and eventually won the right to purchase the property.

Displaying a classic entitlement mentality, the farmers protested their eviction from the land they didn't own. They blocked Mr. Horowitz's access to his property. They trespassed. They vandalized. They assaulted a bulldozer driver and a police officer. And their "plight" drew the usual gaggle of mush-headed celebrities.

Dan Stromer, council for the farmers, accused Horowitz of brokering a "secret deal" to buy the land at an undervalued price. No doubt the $5 million Horowitz paid isn't the going rate for 14-acres of Los Angeles real estate. But it`s more than the city originally paid. And the purpose of imminent domain isn't for government to condemn land for profit.

Had the property not been condemned for a project that was never completed, Mr. Horowitz would have realized the profit of the rising land value anyway. To allow government to profit from an imminent domain boondoggle is to open a lid that makes Pandora's box seem tame.

This is not, however, the end of the protester's disregard for private property. Mr. Horowitz offered to sell the acreage for $16 million, but the activists claimed an inability to raise the money. So, celebrities such as Danny Glover and Darryl Hannah -so quick to condemn Ralph Horowitz- couldn't raise $16 million for this worthy cause? Or, would they just rather keep their possessions while using government to steal from Mr. Horowitz, gaining free publicity for their "compassion" in the process?

The South Central Farm supporters continue demanding that Mr. Horowitz abandon his property, even after refusing his offer to sell. Their arrogance prompted Horowitz to declare the property unavailable to the protesters, no matter how much money they raise. "Where does this kind of `you-owe-me' mentality end?" asked the exasperated landowner.

The fact is that dependent attitudes never cease for people who lack respect for private property. Private property separates America from most of the world. Private property respects individual liberty and rejects communalism. The South Central Farm protesters represent the antithesis of freedom and, as such, reject this basic human principle.

This is yet another sad example of the "I'm a victim" syndrome. The complainers don't own the property and never did. Yet they demand the right to stay. If we respect the concept of private property we will support the immediate eviction of the South Central Farmers, and their celebrity activists.

King Solomon, writing in Ecclesiastes, acknowledged that there is "a time of war and a time of peace". It is not by coincidence that war is mentioned first. War can be understood in the absence of peace. But peace cannot be fully appreciated unless war is understood. Until war produces a victor there cannot be peace, meaning one side must suffer until their will to fight is vanquished.

Southern Lebanon has served as the launching pad for attacks on Israel since the PLO's al-Fatah Raid in 1964. Over the course of years, continued PLO raids prompted an Israeli invasion of Southern Lebanon. Just like today, an international outcry followed; Israel stopped short of victory, and a United Nations buffer zone was established.

The U.N. patrols produced their typical result and nothing was accomplished. Within four years the PLO was again launching attacks from Lebanon, prompting a second successful Israeli invasion. Israel maintained a presence in Lebanon until 2000, when they withdrew in a vain attempt to appease Hezbollah militants. Such capitulation only serves to embolden Hezbollah and their ilk, fostering the current situation.

This is only a small sample of Middle East violence over the last 58 years, and my purpose here isn't to conduct a history class. Suffice it to say that in each case Arab states or Islamic terror groups, such as Hezbollah and the PLO, initiated the violence. And in most cases they intentionally targeted civilians.

The current fighting in Southern Lebanon mirrors history. Hezbollah, operating with the knowledge if not the complicity of the Lebanese government, crossed the border in a de facto invasion of Israel. Their aggression sparked this war and Israel has not gone too far in her defense despite international accusations of "disproportionate force". In fact, the more Hezbollah members Israel kills the better off the entire civilized world will be.

Arab states and Islamic factions have held Israel under virtual siege since 1948. They have made it common practice to attack unprotected civilians. They have blown up buses, seized cruise ships, and hi-jacked jetliners. Homicide bombers have attacked urban clubs, cafes and markets. They have even shelled Israeli farmers who were plowing their fields.

The diplomatic efforts and cease-fire agreements arising from each violent escalation have produced only two results, neither of them good. One, they have allowed militants to re-group and re-arm. Two, they have fostered an image of Western weakness in the Islamic Arab world. Westerners are now perceived as lacking the guts to finish the job.

We have come full circle and Solomon is proven correct. Peace is a reality only when war produces a victor, with victory being defined as destroying the enemy's will to fight. As such, Israel's response to Hezbollah's aggression must be overwhelming if it is to be effective. What's more, if Lebanon desires freedom from terrorism they should join Israel in decimating Hezbollah, as should all Muslims who want Islam viewed as a peaceful practice.

The fighting in Southern Lebanon is but one more front in the war against a radical Islamic ideology that is dedicated to the destruction of Israel and Western culture. There is no such thing as disproportionate force when fighting for one's survival. And this fight must be won by the right side.

With nearly a year behind us since Hurricane Katrina belted the Gulf Coast we are constantly reminded that the lessons remain unlearned. That's true, but in a way unlike the prevailing opinion. The lesson of racism, poverty, and conspiracy -defined by Louis Farrakhan's theory of government conducted levy demolition- are the wrong lessons, for they breed a dependent spirit.

New Orleans was a mess before Katrina turned it into a ghost town. Now, any attempts to rectify the situation and begin anew are met with howls of protest. Plans to demolish the ruined housing projects are greeted with marches and lawsuits. Housing vouchers for obtaining private property rentals are demonized. Why? Simply put, these options require effort by people unaccustomed to self-reliance.

Cherlynn Gaynor, who lived in the housing projects slated for demolition, exemplifies this attitude. "Basically, you're telling low-income families, `You cannot come back here. You have nowhere to come home to"', said Gaynor, "Where are we going to go?"

First, there's no place to come home to because the housing project was rendered un-useable. Second, does anyone have the right to return to a place where they lived off of others and continue to do so? Ms. Gaynor expresses an attitude of total dependence. That attitude is what led to the mayhem and lawlessness in New Orleans.

More perplexing than the actions of the protesters and litigants is the position of HUD Assistant Secretary Orlando Cabrera. Cabrera says, "we're committed to the idea of restoring New Orleans to the city it was." For heaven's sake, why?

This city was a crime capital. New Orleans' 2004 murder rate per 100,000 residents was ten times the national average. Rape was 25 percent above average, assault 58 percent, and robbery 180 percent. Overall, the Crescent City was above the national average in all major violent and property crime categories.

The "Big Easy" fared no better in terms of poverty. In 1999, four in ten New Orleans families with young children lived in poverty. That increased to 60 percent when no husband was present. Prior to Katrina, at least 5100 families lived in public housing, 88 percent of which were headed by women. Many of those tenants lived rent-free.

That is a picture of New Orleans before Katrina. Who in their right mind would want to put it back that way? It seems to me that the people enduring such poor conditions would be first in line for change, not marching and suing to resurrect the status quo.

Here's the lesson of Hurricane Katrina. If the liberal idea of a social war on poverty actually worked the stats presented would be reversed. The reality is that redistributionist policies breed dependence and irresponsibility, not economic improvement. This irresponsibility led directly to the chaos witnessed in New Orleans following the storm. The affected residents no longer knew how to care for and protect them selves.

The lesson of Katrina isn't racism, poverty, social injustice, or other leftist buzzwords. The lesson is the absolute failure and despondency that always accompanies communalist policies. It's just not politically correct to acknowledge that truth.

Let's imagine the scene on July 4, 1776. Our Founders are gathered in a hot, stuffy, Philadelphia meetinghouse to discuss and amend the previously approved move toward independence. The discussion was likely as heated as the temperature, as political debates are prone to be. Yet these men focused on the task at hand. Before the session ended they had adopted a brief outline of the American idea of government along with a list of grievances against the British Crown. The resulting document was the Declaration of Independence.

These men, by and large, were wealthy men with much to lose. They were in a position to get along with what they considered British tyranny. Yet they were willing to risk their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor to a principle much larger than they. Today, we have sold out their efforts so we can use government to steal from our neighbor.

What would the Founders think of a federal government that pays able-bodied people not to work? Would they approve government subsidizes to failing businesses? What would they have to say on the practice of taking wealth from one person and redistributing it to another? I have to believe they would be appalled by what we've done to their republic.

What would they think of an intellectual hierarchy that considers American history passé? They wouldn't approve the bloated educational bureaucracies that waste the taxpayer's money like no tomorrow, all the while whining about their lack of funding. Administrators and school boards that implement the latest trendy stratagem, overruling the wishes of parents, would anger them.

This raises another subject. What would they think of organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union and the People for the American Way? These organizations have used the mythical separation of church and state to wage war-like actions against the free exercise of religion. I wonder if they would approve of our tyranny by the minority? Doubtful, since they were fighting a war against that very concept at the time of their declaration.

Would they approve of the current tax rates Americans are forced to pay? Let's remember that these men considered the Stamp Act and a tax on tea to be egregious affronts to the rights of man and the role of legitimate government. And I shudder to think what they say about forced "contributions" to a centralized retirement plan, the withholding of earned pay, or the levy of taxes on income.

It's a safe bet that they would not appreciate the sheer contempt displayed toward the right to bear arms. The shouts of Paul Revere would have fallen moot had Charles Schumer, Ted Kennedy, Joe Biden, and their ilk sat in the Continental Congress. Those citizens who rallied against the British would have long since been disarmed.

This list could fill volumes. Were Thomas Jefferson commissioned to write a similar document against what passes for government in today's America a single parchment would not suffice. The Founders believed that man should tolerate much before embracing change. "But", Jefferson noted in the Declaration, "when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government."

I wonder what might happen if those renowned gentlemen congregated in Philadelphia today? Something tells me that Mr. Jefferson would have a busy pen.

The Vatican has issued a statement declaring that traditional families are under siege. Among the stated perils are abortion, gay marriage, and in vitro fertilization. Let's review their assessment piece by piece.

Abortion on demand is more a matter of convenience that a woman's health. It is now a method by which a sexual participant can abdicate the responsibility of their intimate choices. In that light, there's no wonder liberals love and defend abortion, for they abhor personal responsibility.

Chief among the problems with abortion is that it terminates a human life. If that which is conceived were not alive it could not grow inside the mother. Seems that should end the discussion right there. Still, there is another aspect that often goes unnoticed. Abortion devalues human life, particularly children. When we accept the premise that it's a woman's "choice" to abort a child why are we surprised when parents kill their children?

Gay marriage is strictly a moral issue. It doesn't involve the disposability of human life, as does abortion. Even so, it remains a challenge to the time-proven morality of the structured family unit. Introducing immorality to morality will soon pollute the latter until it is unrecognizable. A gay union may not weaken the individual relationship of a particular husband and wife, but it can devalue the concept of marriage as a whole.

Perhaps a germane analogy for gay marriage's effect on traditional marriage may be likened unto patching a fine piece of mahogany with plywood. The mahogany untouched by the plywood may be just as pure as before. But the piece as a whole is less valuable. Come to think of it, many heterosexual marriages are well served by that comparison as well.

I'll not argue that government should punish consenting people for what they do in private. But we can use government to establish boundaries for what is and isn't considered accepted public behavior.

The in vitro fertilization angle may or may not be immoral. There undeniably exists a desire in mankind to perpetuate our species. This drives couples to explore any and all possibilities in order to conceive. But perhaps there are reasons certain couples cannot conceive, raising the point that circumventing this form of natural selection causes more problems than it alleviates.

Artificial impregnations have drawbacks that should be weighed against the benefits of pregnancy. Multiple conceptions are common under such practice, often to the point that all or some of the children cannot be carried. This leads to selective abortions, stillbirths and other complications. Then there are the financial problems associated with getting five kids for the price of one.

The final assault on traditional families indicted by the Vatican report is contraception. There I believe they have missed the boat. Preventing conception is quite different from ending conception.

Contraception prevents fertilization from taking place. If there is no fertilization there is no life, for the male and female components must mix in order to create life. In this light the use of contraception is no different from, if you'll pardon the expression, early withdrawal. How is that detrimental to the family unit?

To accept the Vatican position on contraception is to assume that legitimate sexual relations must be pro-creational only, having nothing to do with the ongoing marital relationship. But, if sexual relations inside of marriage are moral then it follows that not all marital relations must be for the purpose of perpetuating the human race. Also, it is emphatically logical for a couple to prevent a pregnancy rather than to end one

The Vatican's ideas on abortion and homosexuality are defensible from both a logical and religious perspective. The concept of artificial insemination isn't crystal clear and can be debated in perpetuity. But the point is missed on contraception.

Now, even though contraception doesn't end a life the Vatican position is somewhat understandable. The condom has become quasi-sacred to those who worship at the shrine of unbridled sexual indulgence. This idea of sexual rebellion against time-honored values is the lifeblood of those who oppose tradition and, thus, any spiritual-based morality.

However, if abortion is wrong because life begins at conception then it follows that preventing conception does not end life. And if it's argued that contraception promotes promiscuity, well, that horse left the barn shortly after man rose from the dust.

There was a man who rose early and worked hard each day. He was faithful in his attendance, produced quality work, and earned a decent income for his family. During the course of his labor he came upon an idea that would improve the efficiency of his entire industry.

While friends and co-workers played golf, fished and hunted, this man sat at his desk drawing his idea. He tried to envision the intricate details and account for every possible measurement and angle. After many revisions he was able to construct a scale version of his idea. Then began the patent search.

He waded through the search process. He completed all necessary forms and applications. He paid the lawyer and research fees. Finally, he gained a patent for his idea. Along the way he had invested thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours with no financial return whatsoever.

It was now time to determine costs. Materials and labor were priced and figured along with the capacity for production. He soon determined how many items he could produce per day and at what cost. During the course of his research he found several contractors who could manufacture the product efficiently. He now needed clients to buy his invention.

He began to pitch his idea to managers he knew within his industry. Yet, despite his enthusiasm and the benefits of his creation most people refused to hear him. Those that did listen rejected the idea. Our hero persevered, eventually finding someone who recognized the possibilities his invention created.

Now he had an order for a specific number of items and a delivery date. Capital would be needed to begin production. A second mortgage was placed on his home, retirement funds were cashed out, bank loans were secured, and friends and family invested in his venture. This man placed at risk all his assets, everything he had worked for, to finance his idea.

He makes his delivery and the item is a huge hit. In fact, it performs in practice even better than in theory and soon becomes an industry standard. Even those executives who refused him previously are begging him to fill their orders.

The invention begins to create income, retire debt, turn profits, and makes this gentleman very wealthy. But he doesn't splurge on the lifestyles of the rich and famous. There are no flashy cars or ritzy homes. He instead makes wise investments that cause his fortune to grow. His net worth enters the millions, then ten millions. But he remains the same man who punched the forty-hour time clock. He has the same wife, family and interests.

Liberal politicians, in both parties, would take much of it via the estate tax. Never mind that the income used to build the estate was taxed along the way; they would tax it again. In fact, they will claim it is the moral thing to do.

When the House debated a repeal of the estate tax House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) called it a debate over values. She said, "It is morally wrong to do this [repeal the tax], especially when we are turning down, rejecting, an increase in the minimum wage." Rep. Pelosi has gall. No integrity, but plenty of gall.

Let's look at the scorecard. This inventor worked hard, risked all his assets, overcame repeated rejection, and eventually gained success. Our government leaders think it morally right to take the wealth he created away from his heirs. This attitude is the antithesis of America. The "morality" championed by Pelosi and Co. is one of Marx-based socialism.

It is appalling for America to impose an estate tax for several reasons. It punishes success. It establishes that all wealth is government property. And, it amounts to double taxation. But perhaps the best example of the tax's egregious nature is how it allows politicians to confiscate property, in this case wealth, in order to buy votes on Election Day.

The Estate Tax represents the very height of immorality, an immorality perfectly personified by Rep. Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic Party, and a handful of alleged Republicans.

The Korean War ended on July 27, 1953 devoid of a victor. Inasmuch as war demands a winner in order to produce peace, tension on the Korean Peninsula never waned. This is especially true in the communist North.

North Korea's self-touted nuclear program is threatening to test launch the Taepondong-2 missile, an updated version of the projectile that sparked international outrage when launched toward Japan in 1998. Purportedly, this edition could reach the western United States with a nuclear payload.

The stated U.S. position says the test amounts to a provocation, violates Kim Jong Il's self-imposed moratorium against such missile exercises and that negotiations are needed. The only problem with a diplomatic course in North Korea is that treaties require all parties to be trustworthy. History proves that communist dictatorships habitually lie. The Soviet Union routinely violated arms control agreements and the word of Kim Jong Il has proven even less honorable. Would an agreement have value?

The Arms Control Association's Daryl Kimball accuses the Bush Administration of not negotiating with North Korea. But the fact is that the Bush White House has negotiated with North Korea, as did the Clinton Administration. The problem lies in the fact that we must totally submit to all lawlessness generated by North Korea or they storm out of the negations like a spoiled child.

The very idea that negotiation can do more than prolong the inevitable is dubious at best. When North Korean nuclear ambitions first became clear in 1994 President Clinton was rumored to have planned a military strike against the backward communist state. Instead, Jimmy Carter met with Kim Jong Il and brokered a meaningless covenant that the North ignored from the outset. Instead of ending a threat, Jimmy Carter's peace deal provided a façade of legitimacy to the North that allowed them to continue their nuclear research until they announced possession of a weapon.

The fact that Carter's foreign policy talents once again proved worthless should come as no surprise. Nor should the fact that North Korea made a promise they had no intention of keeping. There may have been a diplomatic opportunity to halt North Korea's nuclear rise in 1994. But Jimmy Carter, wrongly hailed as a hero, squandered it.

North Korea has become largely ignored as America's attention focuses on Islamic terrorism and the fledgling Iranian program. Their announced test of a missile capable of hitting the United States may be nothing more than an empty threat intended to garner recognition. On the other hand, the North Korean horse may be out of the barn and we may have to accept the fact that a new nuclear nation exists.

I'm not dismissing the idea of negotiations with Pyongyang altogether. But we should enter such talks fully aware that North Korea is unlikely to abide by whatever agreement is produced. History proves Kim Jong Il is not a man of his word.

A military strike is another option. Without doubt we could defeat North Korea. But there is the concern over the Chinese and Russian reactions as well as that of our own "mainstream" media, which would undoubtedly report any available information that could undermine our efforts. That precedent was established in Vietnam and cemented in Iraq.

We can ignore North Korea and hope their threat is pure hokum. We can hope the ruling nut doesn't have his finger on a functional launch button. And if he does we can hope he doesn't press that button.

Perhaps the best option would have been to settle the matter fifty years ago. But that alternative is now gone. Now, which of our present options do you prefer? And which would you care to pursue with potentially nuclear Islamic radicals in the future?

Considering the current state of demagoguery there is likely no support for the military option in North Korea, or in Iran for that matter. So how about an ultimatum? Suppose we tell North Korea and Iran to go ahead with their plans… with this understanding. If there is a nuclear attack on America -regardless of its origin- we will hold both countries responsible and retaliate by eradicating both nations.

This works for everyone. We aren't promoting an "imperialist" invasion. We've violated no one's sovereignty. There are no American troops being killed, and we aren't engaging in "pre-emptive" warfare. It seems everyone, both right and left, should be happy with my solution.

News stories from the last month create an interesting pattern. Let's look at a defining collection and see what they may indicate.

A crash involving a U.S. military vehicle preceded riots in the streets of Kabul, Afghanistan that resulted in 20 deaths and 250 arrests. A related roadside bomb resulted in the deaths of three Afghan and two U.S. troops. The riots were the highlight of a three-week spate of violence that has taken more than 500 lives and fueled speculation of the Taliban's resurgence.

A United Nations peacekeeping force -perhaps the ultimate oxymoron- may be in the future for the violence-laden Darfur region of Sudan. Violence there has resulted in the massacre of entire villages, often through the use of machetes and axes, in the name of religious purity.

Palestine has been subject to bloody infighting between black-clad militias supported by the Hamas governing body and loyalists to the Fatah party led by Mahmoud Abbas. Hamas is said to have withdrawn the militia from public duty. But past precedent should indicate the value of ceasefire agreements in Gaza.

Somali militiamen fired weapons in the air and cut electrical power to several areas of Somalia in the last week. There was no strategic purpose involved, such as driving away an enemy force or severing their communication abilities, however. Their purpose instead was to prevent Somalis from watching the World Cup soccer tournament on television. It seems that such "Western entertainment" is banned by their version of Islamic law.

Tunisia sentenced a man to 20 years in prison as an accessory to the bombing of a historic synagogue on the resort island of Djerba. He apparently helped his uncle mount a gas-filled tank on a truck that was subsequently driven into the Jewish house of worship. The predictable explosion killed twenty-one.

The Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta, a secretive and shadowy group loosely linked to Islamic extremists, has carried out attacks on Niger's gas and oil facilities and kidnapped workers.

Inmates at the Guantanamo Bay prison used staged suicides to lure guards into cell areas where they were confronted with makeshift weapons. Considering this precedent may explain why the actual suicides at the facility weren't prevented. Quite frankly, I wouldn't sacrifice one American life for the life of every single cutthroat and thug detained at Gitmo.

British police arrested two terror suspects and searched other homes in the predominately Muslim communities of Bradford and Dewsbury. Is it coincidence that the Dewsbury homes were less than a minute's walk from a mosque? And Swiss agents arrested seven suspects after thwarting a plan to shoot down an Israeli plane over Swiss airspace. This was related to a broad European sweep aimed at the Salafist Group for Call and Combat, an Algerian organization linked to Al-Qaida.

Now, what are the common factors in each of these situations? What links them together? The common thread in each account involves some combination of Islamic fanaticism, terrorism, and the hatred of Israel and Western culture. Their widespread coverage -involving Europe, Africa, the Middle East, and Cuba- should prove to even the most disinterested person that the militant threat is serious and world wide.

Certainly America cannot send troops to every street corner where death may congregate. Nor is it practical to believe that extremism will ever disappear from the earth, no matter how harshly we deal with our enemies. But these instances of recent violence should tell us why we can't sit idly by in an attempt not to offend our enemies, hoping our pacifism prompts Islamic radicals to be nice to us.

There was a time when our nation recognized a potential threat posed by a foreign enemy. We assumed that enemy wouldn't dare strike our homeland. Then, one fateful morning, that enemy did strike and three thousand Americans were dead. Our nation was righteously indignant and calls for retribution arose from sea to shining sea. The ensuing war soon put the enemy on the defensive.

Their attack caused us to reassess a separate risk to our national security and survival. We knew about this threat as well, and had spent several years monitoring the moves of the ruling dictator. But there was one distinct difference. This threat was not a known participant in a direct attack on the American homeland. Even so, we waged war against it.

The war plan involved mobilizing large numbers of American troops culminating in a massive invasion. The invasion cost lives, as wars and invasions are bound to do. This enemy, like the first one, was transformed to a defensive force and it became apparent that they were on the losing side of the conflict. News from the war remained bloody. But the advance was apparent.

This enemy, however, wasn't inclined to absolute surrender when faced with mounting evidence of impending defeat. They mounted a counter-offensive that exposed weaknesses in the U.S. war plan and troop positioning. They inflicted increased casualties on our forces and appeared to be changing the direction of the war.

When news of the enemy's successful counter-attack reached the home front there was understandable fear that the war was turning against us. Some people thought we had advanced too quickly, without considering the resolve and tenacity of our enemy, and had overextended our forces and supply lines.

The thoughts of absolute victory that abounded following the success of the invasion were replaced with uncertainty. Could we repel their assault and continue on to what had appeared certain victory? Was the war now lost?

What should our leaders do? Let's assess the situation. We still must fight the enemy that attacked us directly. And here we are, facing what appears to be a change in momentum against the enemy that did not attack the American homeland. Many of our young men are dying and civilian casualties are high. Should we pull out of the second engagement and focus our attention solely on the first?

This is a basic description of our current engagements in Afghanistan and Iraq. But if you screamed, "Bring home the troops", you just gave up on the European Theatre in World War II. Think about it.

Japan's ambitions were known but their potential danger to America was largely ignored. Then, one morning, they attacked and three thousand Americans were dead. War began and the Japanese were soon on the defensive.

Germany did not directly attack the United States. Yet we waged war against Germany, for the second time within recent history. The subsequent mobilization of our forces culminated in a massive invasion -known as D-Day- that caused the Nazis to retreat. But Germany, a proud people, weren't ready to throw in the towel.

They mounted a counteroffensive known as the Battle of the Bulge, and it caused many Americans to believe the war had turned completely against us. It turned out to the Third Reich's last hurrah.

I fully understand that World War II and the current war are different situations. The enemies are different. The nature of conflict is different. The timeframes, troop levels, and magnitude are different. However, these similarities do exist.

No one wants our troop safe more than I. But running from a problem solves nothing. If today's attitude toward war had prevailed in the 1940s, what would the last sixty years have been like? And if the "run and hide" mentality prevails in the current fight against Islamic tyranny, what will the next 60 years have in store?

Rising and falling temperatures can be measured. Thus, comparing today's records with those of the early 20th Century can indicate a rise in the average global temperature. It is this information that drives global warming doomsayers to promote world socialism under the pretense of saving the planet. But apparently global warming and climate change isn't new to Earth at all.

Ice core samples taken from the Arctic floor indicate a tropical climate existed at the North Pole 55 million years ago. The Arctic's average temperature was 74 degrees and redwood forests abounded alongside flowers, ferns and animals. The Arctic Coring Expedition, a conglomeration of scientists from universities worldwide, produced these findings.

Hope Jahren -a Johns Hopkins geo-biologist quoted in a 2002 National Geographic Today article- added, "The Earth today is very different compared to how it was millions of years ago." There's the point; Earth changes. It has done so before and not due to man's activities.

Whether or not the timeframes are accurate I don't know, for such long-range dating relies on formulas that are largely theoretical. And not all scientists agree with the reasons cited by the research for the warmer polar region. There are, however, a few key points on which these scientists concur.

At some point in history the Arctic was warm and ice-free. The warming occurred naturally via an unproven cause and the Earth responded to the rising levels of carbon dioxide blamed for the higher temperature. There's one thing we do know for certain. That warming period was not the result of the SUV or the Industrial Revolution. "An Inconvenient Truth" is that Earth's temperature rose and fell without the help of man. Sorry Mr. Gore.

The researchers offer no conclusion on the cause of the Eocene epoch warming trend. However, they think it resulted from methane, wildfires and volcanoes. All are natural occurrences. They also offer an idea on how the climate cooled.

Azolla, a fern still in existence, absorbed the carbon dioxide and cooled the environment. Other research indicates that honeysuckle and poison ivy react similarly to increasing carbon dioxide. I know neither of those vines is exactly desirable, but it is an indicator that Earth deals with changes in climate. You know what? It may have been created that way.

If the Earth produced and survived previous periods of climate change, why are "experts" so quick to blame a brief period of warming (less than 100 years) on improved human prosperity and living conditions? Perhaps there is an agenda to serve.

Global warming research is funded largely by governments, or by private organizations dedicated to government expansion. Since the idea of expansionist government cannot defeat the goals of human freedom, the proponents of socialism must defeat capitalism by fear. And they must capitalize on the fear they create by insisting that we "act now" to avoid an unknown future catastrophe.

An irony, one the climate disaster advocates hope you`ve forgotten, is that the same greenhouse gases and industrial emissions now blamed for global warming were lamented as the dawn of the next Ice Age just 30 years ago.

Don't take any of this to advocate the willful pollution of the environment, despite the assertions of environmentalists. Conservatives need air and water just like everyone else. Yet there are too many contradictory voices arising from the climate change debate, and too much evidence that the event is not unprecedented, for us to submit to the socialist agenda of the environmental movement under the guise of "saving mother earth".

A unit of U.S. Marines is alleged to have killed 20 unarmed civilians in the Iraqi town of Haditha. It's been all over the media outlets and despite what Jack Murtha, CNN, etc., may believe, what actually happened isn't clear at this time. These Marines should be considered innocent until proven guilty, shouldn't they? Funny how the same folks who preen and crow about the injustice of holding captured Muslim fighters without filing legal charges have pre-determined the guilt of this Marine unit.

The Marines involved told of a roadside explosion that killed one of their comrades. They immediately came under fire from enemy forces, who were hiding among women and children. This testimony clearly indicates that America's overall reputation in Iraq is not one of indiscriminately killing women and children, or else the human shields would serve no purpose. It also shows that our enemy has no such qualms about killing civilians.

The accusations arose from videotape obtained by Time Magazine and Arab television depicting dead Iraqi women and children. Iraqis in the area provided further account at the time of the firefight. However, there are a few things we should consider before accepting this evidence as condemning fact.

Media coverage, such as Time, is consistently critical of America's military effort in Iraq, tending to accentuate the negatives and deprecate the positives. Arab television reports should speak for them selves. And considering that Haditha is a haven for insurgents we can also question the neutrality of the Iraqi witnesses themselves. What we "know" about this incident may be far from the truth.

Thus far, Haditha is treated as if it's the first massacre in the history of mankind. In fact, massacres are common throughout human history, both in peacetime and wartime.

Documented massacres range from Alexander the Great and the Destruction of Thebes in 334 BC, resulting in 8000 deaths, to the present day. The Soviet Union's Great Purge of 1937-38 killed 1.3 million "enemies of the state". Nazi Germany did away with over 6 million Jews, and the twelve-year Armenian Genocide of the early 20th Century resulted in 1.5 million dead.

Massacres are associated with both war and peace. They have occurred for ethnic, religious, and criminal reasons. They have been state-sponsored and non-governmental. Wikipedia lists 260 documented massacres totaling over 17.2 million deaths. Past precedence doesn't excuse any wrongs committed by the U.S. military. But it does indicate that modern life has forgotten -or chooses to ignore- the reality of mankind's barbarism and the brutality of war.

The old adage, "War is Hell", still rings true. Just as massacres represent an uncivil disregard for humanity, war is the absence of civility. By the modern definition of massacre many Allied operations from WWII -such as the bombings of Dresden, Hamburg, Hiroshima and Nagasaki- are now considered massacres and war crimes.

Can anyone legitimately believe those fliers are war criminals, on par with Hitler? That's only possible if you are so naïve as to believe warfare can be a civil undertaking. Their acts only answered the demands of victory in war. Is it possible the Marines at Haditha did likewise?

Winning a war requires the use of decisive force. That means civilian casualties. Sure, many Japanese civilians died at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But can you imagine how many would have died if America had invaded the Japanese homeland? That could have been the largest massacre, by today's definition of the term, in human history, killing far more than 600,000 attributed to the atomic bombings.

Modern man conveniently ignores the realities of war. We choose to believe that conflict exists only between organized military units. War actually exists between ideologies and attitudes, and that involves civilians. Civilians whose allegiance favors Al-Qaida in Iraq are just as much our enemy as the group's formal members.

It is time we reconsider the realities of war and return to a former concept. To think that war can be civil, lawful, rule-driven, bloodless, and painless is a fool's concept. Wars may be fought less often if we come to terms with this undeniable truth. And when war is waged it would be waged with the goal being total victory and not political correctness, thus conflicts would be decided quicker with less overall death and suffering.

To return to the main point, identifying the enemy in Iraq is difficult at best. There are no uniforms or identifications. Our enemies do not hesitate to use women and children as shields or to carry out suicide bombings. In that aspect Iraq is similar to Vietnam, in that "innocent" civilians can bring death to American forces at any moment.

Stop and reflect before you join the cacophony of talking heads bent on labeling this Marine unit "baby-killers". War is by its nature a massacre, a widespread destruction of human life. Media outlets worldwide incessantly attempt to discredit the U.S. military. And the eyewitnesses in Haditha may have a biased agenda behind their accusations.

If investigation determines that this Marine unit acted outside the bounds of legitimate force they will be dealt with. You should also remember that they are innocent until proven guilty and their actions on that day may be justifiable. If the latter is the case I hope those young men will not become sacrificial lambs on the altar of modern, politically correct warfare.

The United States Senate seems determined to disprove the old adage that crime doesn't pay. Otherwise, there is no explanation for the recent immigration bill.

Much of the legislation's value can be assessed by who has their arm around whom in support of the measure. Sen. Ted Kennedy joined with Sen. John McCain to secure its passage, while Majority Leader Bill Frist and Minority Leader Harry Reid also supported the bill.

Bi-partisan cooperation in Washington generally doesn't bode well for most Americans, and any legislation commanding the support of Kennedy and Reid isn't a conservative's dream. But an interview with John McCain is the most telling factor for determining the Senate's lunacy.

McCain appeared on Fox News Sunday in May for an interview with Chris Wallace. There, on worldwide TV, McCain declared his support for paying Social Security benefits to aliens. "Well, they paid the taxes", lamented Sen. McCain, "should they be deprived of the taxes that they paid? I don't think that's fair". How those Social Security accounts were obtained means nothing to Sen. McCain.

An illegal alien without a Social Security number is paid under the table by their employer and sends nothing to the so-called trust fund. One who has paid FICA taxes must, therefore, have a number. How was that number obtained? Can illegal aliens gain a legitimate SSN, or are those numbers gained by dubious means?

Quite likely the SSN's used by illegal aliens are obtained through falsified documents, are phony Social Security accounts, or result from identity theft. All of these activities are illegal under current law. Sen. McCain's attitude seems to be that aliens stole their identities fair and square and should benefit from their ingenuity. Try that excuse if you gain a million bucks in an armored car robbery.

Illegal aliens broke the law by entering the country under the radar. They broke the law again by falsifying government documents or committing identity fraud and theft. I think it's abundantly fair to deny them the "benefits" from taxes they paid under false pretences. Any money paid to the "trust fund" should be considered the fine for their illegal acts.

Now, let's check the score in the McCain game. We are to excuse the willful disregard for our immigration laws. Then we are to pay benefits to the illegal entrants for their fraudulent activities, all in the name of being fair. What if this applied to the rest of us?

Suppose you committed security or investment fraud, then demanded amnesty along with the right to keep the money acquired by your action. Do you think that would be a just verdict? If so, start your petition to free Key Lay and the rest of the Enron crowd. The same idea can be applied to credit card or bank fraud. Why should you not be allowed to keep the gains from those activities? And if a Mafia hit man is arrested we surely can't deprive him of the money he earned via his profession. After all, he secured it with his marksmanship.

The same idea is applicable to any law you'd care to mention. But, as an American citizen, try arguing in court that the written law should simply be ignored and see how far you get. Yet that is exactly what the Senate is proposing in their "comprehensive" immigration bill.

The government of the United States is intended to protect and represent the United States, not Mexico. When one chamber of Congress abdicates its responsibility for the sole purpose of pandering to an illegal voting bloc then our alleged leaders have sold us, and the rule of law, down the river.

Representative William Jefferson (D-LA) is the target of a 14-month bribery investigation. During the course of the operation he was taped accepting bribe money from an undercover agent. The marked bills were later found in his home during a legal, warranted search. He has yet to be indicted, but the outlook is not promising for the Congressman.

The investigation reached a boiling point when FBI agents, acting with a court issued warrant, searched Rep. Jefferson's congressional office. Congress was outraged by this alleged abuse, especially as it relates to the Speech and Debate clause of the Constitution. The question is how far that clause goes in protecting the actions of Congress. The answer appears to be, "not very far."

Several court rulings cited by the Justice Department's Criminal Resource Manual hold that Congressmen possess Speech and Debate immunity during their legislative acts. This allows full freedom of speech and debate on the floor of either chamber, free from influence or intimidation by the Executive or Judicial branches of government. However, this applies only to the discharge of their official duties.

In Johnson v. United States, the clause is expressly held not to shield legislators against bribery charges. And while the decision imposes limits on the evidence used to prosecute such a charge it does not indicate that a search of a congressman's office is wholly inappropriate.

The legitimate function of Speech and Debate, as defined in United States v. Brewster, is to protect Congress "against inquiry into acts that occur in the regular course of the legislative process and into the motivation for those acts." Surely taking bribes is not the regular course of the process and an acceptable motivation for legislation.

Other court rulings not directly associated with criminal investigations have held the Speech and Debate Clause applicable only to congressional actions related to shaping our nation's laws and cognate to the legislative process. In none of these decisions can I find authority to break the confidence of the represented people.

The House of Representatives is our branch of the federal government. To quote James Madison in Federalist 51, "In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates." Our representatives should be protected in their legislative acts and discussions, for they are the foremost voice of self-government. They should not be protected when they betray their office, and they are no more above the law than anyone else. The FBI search would not be questioned if you or I were the target.

Despite the sometimes-archaic English of the Constitution, the wording in Article 1, Section 6 is rather clear. It says legislators are "privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same." This applies to all cases "except Treason, Felony, and Breach of the Peace". In other words, the Speech and Debate Clause protects legislators while conducting the legitimate business of Congress only.

If accepting bribes now constitutes the legitimate business of Congress and not felonious activity, then it's no wonder we're in the shape we are in.

Al Gore's alleged documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth", is promoted as an accurate description of our ultimate destruction. I am skeptical of such doom saying predictions. However, one prediction regarding Mr. Gore's movie is absolute. This "PC" film will win the Oscar for best documentary next year.

Various reviews insist that global warming will destroy all life on earth and we have but ten years to avert catastrophe. Caroline Libresco, a reviewer for the Sundance Film Festival, gushed over Al Gore as if she were writing a love letter. She hailed Gore as the final authority on all things climate. Almost immediately she exposed her ignorance.

Libresco mentioned how Al Gore became interested in climate change while at college thirty years ago. What she neglects to mention is that the climate change movement of that day blamed industrial emissions for global cooling and warned that human actions were forming the next Ice Age. That's quite a contradiction from today's message.

Global warming is more political science aimed at capitalism and personal liberty than at a changing climate. For example, our records are just over 100-years-old. The average global temperature is about a degree warmer now than then. Assumptions of temperature before that time, and predictions of temperature a century into the future, are based on hypothetical opinion.

If Al Gore can predict climate change 100 years into the future then he should be able to help us avoid present calamities. Mr. Gore, please tell us when the next hurricane will strike the United States, where it will hit, and with what severity. While you're at it, tell us when and where the earth will quake, and if a tsunami will result so we may evacuate all areas in its path. Perhaps you can halt the eruptions at Mt. Merapi in Indonesia, which emits more greenhouse gases than does your Excursion.

Since Mr. Gore understands the exact impact of weather patterns and how they will affect the earth's future in 2100 he should have a firm grasp on how to manipulate the weather of the day. Mr. Gore, bring rain to the drought-stricken areas of Texas and Oklahoma. Or perhaps you have stopped the rain there, since both are red states.

Tell us how we can raise the winter temperature in Siberia, or the summer temperature in Phoenix; then do it. Make any change in the immediate weather patterns, or any meaningful short-range prediction. Tell us what the temperatures of ten major cities will be on December 3rd of this year. That shouldn't be too hard for a man capable of predicting weather and temperature patterns with pinpoint accuracy and total certainty into the next century.

Why doesn't Mr. Gore offer these short-term forecasts? If he predicts the temperatures on December 3rd and turns out wrong he can be held accountable for his inaccuracies. Mr. Gore will be long-since dead and gone by 2106. Being wrong about global warming inflicts no consequence or responsibility on Mr. Gore today.

The funny thing about our world is that it came to be without the help of man. It has survived the daily work and activity of man since we first arrived. The world has survived massive extinctions, volcanic eruptions, mammoth earthquakes, and an epic Ice Age. It has warmed and cooled continually over the course of years, and it is still here. Earth will survive man's existence, just as it was created to do.

What may not survive the assault of Al Gore are our economic system, our representative republic, our national sovereignty, and our personal liberty.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales touched a nerve by declaring journalists open to prosecution when classified information is published. He furthered irritated that nerve when he said government will not hesitate to track reporter's phone calls related to a criminal leak investigation.

Journalistic advocates were, predictably, outraged. They argue that such prosecutions threaten free speech and the public's right to know. Certainly the press has a right to report, and the pubic has a right to know, what our government is up to, but not necessarily while it`s happening.

The debate puts a free press against the government's responsibility to secure our nation. Let's use a few historical illustrations to decide which argument is right.

Suppose the date is May 25, 1944 and today's journalistic attitude is in place, represented by getting the scoop and the ratings no matter the circumstance. Suppose the media learned of the D-Day invasion plans. Would it not be obligated to keep them secret until at least June 7th? The logical answer is yes. But I can imagine the lead report now, "Allies plan French invasion for June 6th, Rommel declines comment". Such a report would be treasonous and should result in jail time for anyone involved.

In the Pacific Theatre a journalist learns that American forces are using the Navajo language to encode messages. Would that reporter not be obliged to sit on that information? Disclosure would compromise the war effort and likely result in thousands of dead American soldiers. Likewise, a newsman would have no right to publish a story publicizing the British decryption of Nazi code, for the same reasons.

Move forward to the height of the Cold War. Undoubtedly the Soviet Union possessed satellite images of our nuclear missile launch sites. But that doesn't mean the New York Times or the CBS Evening News should publish the location and function of the silos themselves. And certainly if a journalist attained launch and override codes there would be no right to publish or a public right to know.

I'm no advocate for government control or censorship of the press. No thinking person is. In the world of the Framers the media existed to expose government workings to a willingly governed population. However, no thinking man wants the media to report classified matters of national security either.

A free and functional press comes with great responsibility, such as keeping the mouth shut at the appropriate time. The press should freely report stories such as Watergate, Abscam, and the missing FBI file scandal. That does not give reporters free reign when their reporting compromises the safety and security of the nation. Sometimes our right to know and the press' freedom to report come after the fact.

Government itself is primarily responsible for any exposure of sensitive or classified information. But much of our press is more concerned with their political alliances than with the principal obligation of their profession. As such, they have compromised their credibility with the public just as much as has government.

Whenever the media runs with a story that can endanger the primary role of government, that being the protection of the nation, they can and should be held accountable. Freedom of the press is no excuse for a lack of common sense, or worse, disseminating propaganda.

Do you believe the Bush Administration is spying on the average American's daily activities? If you follow the mantra of the Democratic Party and the "mainstream" media you do. Bush stands accused of listening to the phone calls of Americans and collecting their calling records from the various land and cellular phone companies. The issue raised is the price to American liberty.

Critics and politicians generally tell only half the story, and this case is no different. The wiretap accusations are intended to paint the picture of a government agent listening to your call to Aunt Matilda in Toledo. Actually they occur only when a call exists between a domestic and a known terror suspect outside the country. And the story published by USA Today regarding the collection of phone numbers has been disputed by at least two of the companies cited by the paper.

Just as spy issues on American soil should cause us to keep an eye on government, selective reporting and hypocrisy should cause us to keep an eye on media outlets and politicians.

Government intrusions are always troubling, regardless of which party holds the reigns. Certainly wiretaps and calling record compilation is open to abuse. But if we are continually attacked due to undetected terrorist activity there is no liberty whatsoever. If we cannot defend our freedom internationally there will be no freedom domestically. Therefore, I must conclude that current Democratic and media pundit concern for liberty is politically motivated. Why was there no fuss over previous government intrusions on liberty?

The normal media outlets reported the Clinton Administration's procurement of 700 FBI files on prominent GOP leaders, but without noticeable outrage over the invasion of their privacy. Wonder why?

I saw no widespread media or Democratic anger towards Mayor Richard Daley when Chicago deployed 2000 street surveillance cameras. Daley said, "They are the next best thing to having police officers stationed at every potential trouble spot". Where are the police state comparisons and Hitler analogies commonly lobbed at Bush?

Where was the ACLU, that stalwart defender of our liberty, you wonder? They raised no objection on grounds that no one can expect privacy on a public street. There's some truth to that, for you do not own the street. But that reasoning can apply to your phone number as well, since you don't own it either. And can you expect privacy when you transmit your voice across airwaves via a cellular call? Not if you apply the ACLU's explanation.

Chicago recently updated the cameras with microphones that can detect a silenced gunshot. You can bet such a sensitive device can also hear your conversations. And what about red light and speeding cameras, which cannot determine the actual driver of a vehicle observed in an unsafe act?

The Bank Secrecy Act of 1970 requires financial institutions to report any single transaction of more than $10,000 to the government. And if you purchase a monetary document, such as a cashier's check, with over $3000 cash you will be reported to the feds as well. And federal law forbids the institution from informing you of the report.

Effective May 2nd, insurance companies are required to report these "suspicious activities" as well, with mutual fund companies to follow next November. What's more, the Treasury Department may soon require car dealers, travel agents, and real estate agents to do the same.

Gun owners have certainly not been without their share of government "data mining". If you've ever bought a gun you've completed Form 4473. Those forms must be submitted to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, by law, when a dealer ceases business. During the Clinton Administration, BATFE used those forms to construct a database of legal gun owners, in direct violation of the Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986. You heard nary a whimper from Democrats or media about abusing the law or invading privacy, did you?

This is not necessarily a defense of the Bush spy programs. We should always be suspicious of government intrusion, even if the purpose seems legitimate. But the media pundits and Democratic Congressmen who are thumping their chests over the right to privacy are doing so purely for political gain.

Most of them care absolutely nothing for your rights. Most care nothing for the Constitution, save for the "free press" protections. In fact, they have disdain for both concepts when it truly applies to personal liberty, such as keeping what you earn and determining the use of your property.

American liberties have been under assault for generations, and today's loudest "champions of freedom" have turned a deaf ear and a blind eye. That is, until speaking out suited their political purpose.

Societal norms are established for the overall good of society and homosexuality has been determined an act contrary to decency standards throughout the course of human history. The gay activist's demand for marriage or civil unions is nothing more than an attempt to loosen those standards.

Beth Littrell of the Georgia ACLU stresses a difference between a civil union and a marriage. Let's review each and see if she's right.

In practical theory a civil union and a marriage are one and the same. Both establish a legally recognized civil status. In Vermont, where civil unions are recognized by the state, the similarities between unions and marriages are quite clear. Participants exchange vows and establish "next-of-kin" rights. The process also extends spousal benefits to "partners" of employees. A gay civil union can be dissolved -divorce, in plain language- in family court by the same method as a normal, heterosexual marriage.

In regard to state law there is no noticeable difference between a marriage and a civil union. The only appreciable legal difference between the two lies at the federal level, which does not recognize the relationship between those so joined. And there is no current way to force other states to recognized "civil unions" performed in Vermont, thank Heaven.

Realistically, the difference between homosexuals marrying and uniting is simply that "civil union" doesn't sound as threatening to most people, even though it is pretty much the same thing.

Behind the veiled rhetoric of equality, the true purpose of the gay marriage-civil union activism is not so much about the ability to marry one's "life partner" or the benefits of marriage, but to force acceptance of homosexuality as a natural attraction. Once a civil union is established on equal terms with a regular marriage -existing only between a man and woman- then a historically condemned act of depravity becomes mainstream. We need point only to an outspoken gay activist for proof.

Svend Robinson is a long-time gay activist and homosexual. He is a former member of the Canadian House of Commons and the Canadian Mounted Police. Mr. Robinson resigned his position in April 2004 after publicly acknowledging his theft of a $50,000 ring. And Svend told us all we need to know about the gay movement when he said, "The right to marry for same-sex couples is a huge step forward in the long road to full equality."

The "full equality" mentioned by Robinson can be interpreted as full acceptance. This means opponents of homosexuality, whether for religious or other reasons, must accept homosexuality as a legitimate physical and emotional relationship.

Gay marriage is the modern day incarnation of the classic Trojan horse. Activists package the idea as the right to live their lives without being beaten, jailed, or otherwise stripped of basic human liberties. This is the façade of the "horse". Hidden inside the horse is their desire for forced acceptance of their abnormal sexual desires, and the ability to charge any moral or natural opponents with discrimination and homophobia.

Georgia voters went to the polls on Election Day, 2004, and approved a constitutional amendment banning any form of recognized same-sex union. The fact that 76-percent of voters approved the amendment makes the stance of Georgians crystal clear on the subject. They do not want gay marriage, in any form, accepted as normal.

This week Fulton County Superior Court Judge Constance Russell overturned the amendment. Gay activists immediately claimed victory and many opponents of gay unions charged judicial activism. But both accounts are premature if not downright unfounded.

Judge Russell's ruling was anything but a victory for homosexuals, for it is based on procedural measures, not equal protection before the law. The ban of gay unions was not deemed unconstitutional under Georgia law, only the method by which the ballot referendum was presented to voters.

Georgia's constitution requires ballot referendums address only one issue. The court held that a marriage and a civil union are two different institutions and, therefore, separate issues that should be presented on separate initiatives.

Jack Senterfitt, who challenged the amendment, said of the ruling, "It protects the right of voters to make independent decisions on each independent issue". That is an ambiguous statement, for to follow that precedent would open challenges to any voter referendum construed to address or reference a secondary issue. This also undermines our form of government, in which we elect representatives to make public decisions. Even so, Mr. Senterfitt's statement should underscore the idea that courageous representatives would render most referendums obsolete.

Most elected representatives are afraid to tackle issues such as gay marriage in any meaningful way, fearing public charges of homophobia or intolerance. But the fact of the matter is that such decisions are their job. Determining public policy is the legitimate role of legislators. Why do they campaign for the post and then shrink from the test? The answer is simple.

Forgoing tough decisions allows politicians to foist the responsibility of their office to the voters, where it doesn't belong in a representative republic. They effectively absolve their selves of accountability on touchy public issues and walk on both sides of the fence.

Certainly a legislative ban on gay marriages would open the door to true judicial activism, and maybe Judge Russell would then overturn the law based on "equal protection" considerations. But that is another subject altogether.

There is overwhelming public support for Georgia lawmakers to openly oppose the subject of gay unions. They should act on this "hot-button" issue instead of hiding behind a voter referendum. Their current lack of courage betrays not only their constituents, but also their own moral fabric and the basis of a representative republic.

A lack of leadership creates a vacuum, which will naturally be filled. Unfortunately, there are excessive vacuums present in legislative houses throughout our land.

The U.S. Constitution protects the right of a free press, meaning government cannot silence or censor media criticism. This is a good idea, for as free citizens we should know what government is up to. But the right of a free press is not a trump card, overruling the remainder of the Bill of Rights, despite the thoughts of many journalists.

Former Dick Cheney Chief of Staff Lewis Libby faces charges of perjury and obstruction of justice. He requested any media-held information that could aid his defense. That request was met by media lawyers claiming a violation of the rights of a free press on grounds that research and reporting methods would be compromised. There's no mention of the rights of the accused.

Mr. Libby has constitutional guarantees, too. The Fifth Amendment recognizes a right to the due process of law and the Sixth Amendment acknowledges a right to confront witnesses hostile to a defendant's case. If the media withheld their notes, research, drafts, and communiqués, would they compromise his defense, and diminish his rights?

The controversy centers on former New York Times reporter Judith Miller and the Valerie Plame, CIA leak investigation. The entire issue has devolved into a spin party on both sides of the aisle, making it difficult to determine who's right and who's wrong. But media arrogance and hypocrisy is on parade, even in their treatment of Miller herself.

She was hailed as a heroine when she chose jail rather than reveal her sources. That heroine status proved fleeting. When she revealed her source former supporters turned on her like so many rabid wolves, despite the fact that her informer -Libby himself- gave her leave.

The logical mind assumes the media would love to see Miller testify for the prosecution in the Libby trial, for it could bring embarrassment to the Bush administration. So, why their apparent angst for protecting information that could incarcerate Libby and bloody Bush's nose? Perhaps NBC News, The New York Times, and Time Inc, have a few skeletons in their closets that can't stand the light of day.

The media leaders and their lawyers claim the requested materials are unrelated to Libby and the CIA leak. Even if that's true, the documents could cast doubt on Miller's credibility as a witness -aiding Libby's defense- and on the media's credibility as well.

The media could enhance their trustworthiness if they were more open with the sources of their reporting, shunning the convenient "anonymous source" whenever possible. Anything can be packaged as fact under such a disclaimer. Does anyone remember Jason Blair?

It is true that government should not compel reporters to release their source on every story they write. But they can't have their cake and eat it too. Confidential sources can point toward many motivations on the part of the informer and the reporter. Money, power, political differences, or personal vendettas, can motivate a "confidential source" to leak. All can raise questions about the accuracy of the information.

News outlets defend their right to report under the First Amendment and that's perfectly understandable. However, the right of a free press doesn't provide reporters carte blanche. Their right to conceal sources and report freely ends where other rights begin. Defendants have the right to access information and material necessary to their defense just as surely as the media has the right to report freely.

There are none so deaf as those who will not hear. That saying, modified slightly from its more recognized form, applies to students at Gallaudet University who are protesting the school's new president.

The Board of Trustees named Jane K. Fernandes to succeed retiring president I. King Jordan, who was the first deaf president in the history of the deaf oriented university. She's not receiving the warmest of welcomes, with protesting students and faculty questioning whether she's "deaf enough". Let that settle for a moment. How deaf does one need be?

Imaging if a newly appointed president at Bethune-Cookman was deemed not "black enough". Or better yet, an incoming president at Duke who is not "white enough". The condemnation of such inane accusations would be riotous. Why should that not be the case at Gallaudet?

Mrs. Fernandes has served as Provost at the school since 2001, supervising academic programs. She has occupied a senior leadership position for more than ten years, managed a staff of 670 and a budget of $83 million. Mrs. Fernandes has authored or co-authored numerous books and scholarly publications and helped design teaching strategies that are now the rule at more than 450 schools where deaf students are taught.

She owns a B.A. from Trinity College in Connecticut and a M.A. and Ph.D. from the University of Iowa. Jane Fernandes has obviously gained experience in areas related, directly and indirectly, to guiding Gallaudet. What disqualifying evidence do the student protesters offer?

Student Sara Stallard summed up the lack of substance this way, "Jane Fernandes doesn't have the ability to be the next icon of the deaf. She doesn't have the ability to speak for us all". Well, Sara, who does have the ability to speak for "us all"? And why would we want such a person anyway? Have you ever thought of speaking for your self? Are you so void of substance that you need an "icon" to validate your existence?

Graduating Senior Anthony Mowl posted an extensive Internet essay that waxed eloquent but said nothing substantive. Basically, it was a regurgitation of the "we weren't heard" mantra. Mowl continued with blasé talking points, never once offering a legitimate reason to rescind Mrs. Fernandes' appointment.

Mr. Mowl, the opportunity to provide input does not mean your input will be implemented. Why not accept the word of the revered, retiring King Jordan, who said, "Students were heard. They [the Board of Trustees] just didn't agree with you." This is a life lesson for you Mr. Mowl, get used to it. People aren't required do what you want.

What has any current Gallaudet student done that qualifies them to deem Mrs. Fernandes unqualified for leadership? The fact that you are loud doesn't equate to being right. Please offer some concrete evidence to refute Mrs. Fernandes' qualifications or shut-up and go back to class.

The proof is in the pudding, and Jane K. Fernandes may prove to be the worst college president in the history of academia. Even so, that will not legitimize the current actions by Gallaudet students, nor will it prove them correct.

Students were provided a voice, student concerns were heard, and student concerns were overruled. A right to speak does not bequeath the right of acceptance. Tell me why Mrs. Fernandes is unfit for the post, other than the fact that she isn't King Jordan. Until you can offer some substantial facts to disqualify Mrs. Fernandes your opinions will fall, pardon the expression, on deaf ears.

Follow this link to Anthony Mowl's essay. I have a response posted there as well. I think you'll see that I'm not alone in my opinion of the Gallaudet protesters. http://deafness.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2006/05/05/mowl

For a talk radio host to be held to a higher standard of personal conduct than a U.S. Congressman is beyond ludicrous. Yet that is current position of the far-left, liberal Democrat.

When Rush Limbaugh admitted his addiction to prescription painkillers he was vilified by liberals. "Hypocrite", they shouted. "Junkie who scored black market drugs in the service of his need for a fix", wrote Kimberle Crenshaw on commondreams.org.

Mrs. Crenshaw questioned why Limbaugh wasn't jailed immediately. She wondered why the current draconian drug laws didn't destroy his life. The answers are elementary, which may explain why this law professor cannot arrive at a logical conclusion. Mrs. Crenshaw, I'm here to help.

When Rush revealed his problem he had not been arrested repeatedly for the same offense. Rush was not feeding a recreational high or escaping from reality. He became addicted via legitimate medical treatment, much like Brett Favre a few years ago. And Rush isn't likely to form a drug gang and kill others in turf battles or peddle his wares to thirteen-year-olds. This is not an excuse for Rush, just fact.

Mrs. Crenshaw and other liberal writers descended on Rush's failure with the zeal of vultures on a dead deer. Yet their accusations quickly sank to the level so typical of liberal argument. Bloggers were rife with nonsensical yammering, innuendo, and four-letter name-calling. Crenshaw herself quickly succumbed to progressive buzzwords such as "disempowered", "in-groups", and "out-groups".

Funny, but nowhere on commondreams.org was there mention of liberal Rhode Island Rep. Patrick Kennedy's addiction problems, which resulted in an accident. A search of commondreams.org produced no matches whatsoever.

Rep. Kennedy suffers from an addiction to pain medications. Sound familiar? He has been to rehabilitation twice in the last five months and numerous times over the last twenty years. But mental health professionals praise Rep. Kennedy for openness about his dependencies.

There are no liberal calls for his resignation. There are no columns by Prof. Crenshaw demanding Patrick Kennedy's incarceration. There is not even token condemnation of socialist Hollywood celebrities for their recreational drug use. Yet Rush Limbaugh, a conservative celebrity, should be jailed. Is it because he posses a threat to a safe society, or because he posses a threat to their agenda? If you can't shut him up, lock him up.

In all fairness to Rep. Kennedy, I hope he overcomes his demons and gets his life in order. He obviously has problems, and I can sympathize. If I were Ted Kennedy's son I'd likely turn to drugs and alcohol, too. Even so, what does it say for liberals when they are silent, or demand understanding, on Patrick Kennedy and demand ostracism for Rush Limbaugh?

The reaction is pure politics; protect your own and destroy all others. Liberals who condemn Limbaugh while ignoring or downplaying Kennedy's repeated problems have sacrificed honesty, integrity, and credibility to an ideology and their blind quest for political power.

Whenever a politician is right and willing to stand on that principle vilification is sure to follow. That began for Rep. Taylor when he questioned the wisdom of the proposed 2200-acre, $30-$100 million memorial to Flight 93 and the Oklahoma City bombing memorial. His practical stance makes him a perfect target for emotion-based criticism.

Oklahoma City National Memorial and Museum director Kari Watkins says Taylor is way off base. "He could learn a lot from this private-public partnership", Watkins said. But the memorial that expected to draw over a million annual visitors actually draws less than 50,000. So who's right and who's wrong, and what is the purpose of such a memorial?

The Oklahoma City bombing killed 168 people, injured 850, and affected the lives of thousands more. Five buildings were damaged or destroyed. It was a black day, and surely worthy of remembrance. But I have to wonder; does the memorial upstage the memory of the victims, and so disrespect them?

The Oklahoma City National Memorial and Museum planners sought he finest materials available to construct the monument. Let's look at a few and decide if they were truly necessary.

Will we recall the dead more readily because of the bronze-clad "Gates of Time" imported from Japan? Are the natural sandstone benches a testament to their lives? Do the specifically grown landscape trees, or 168 glass and bronze Memorial Chairs, add to the legacy of the dead?

The Oklahoma City Memorial is more tourist attraction than tribute, similar in principle to Carowinds or Colonial Williamsburg. An excerpt from the Website says, "There is nothing like it anywhere", and calls it, "an enriching educational experience". Is the purpose of a memorial to outshine all others, or educate anyone? I thought the purpose was to remember a solemn occurrence. Silly me.

No doubt the Flight 93 memorial commission will top the Oklahoma City memorial. The likely result is an opulent monument to indulgence that overshadows the memories of the heroes who thwarted a terror attack.

I propose an alternative. Let's erect a simple, dignified, and respectful monument to the people who died on Flight 93. What would be wrong with a large granite stone engraved with the names of the dead, perhaps their age, and a description of the event? We can include the now famous line "Let's Roll!" at the top. Such a simple memorial need not cost millions of dollars. It need not attempt to overshadow the event itself.

The Flight 93 memorial`s primary purpose, as with all memorials, should be commemorating an event and those directly involved. The purpose is not to attract tourism, provide an "experience", or outdo a previous memorial site.

Opulence doesn't equal respect, love, or the magical notion of "closure". But it can cheapen all three. Mr. Taylor is right on the money, pardon the pun, and deserves our support.

An old Ozzy Osbourne song contained the line "I'm going off the rails on a crazy train". Ozzy wasn't thinking of Amtrak when he screeched those words, but he well could have been.

Amtrak celebrated its 35th Anniversary on May 1st and right along with it the 35th Anniversary of unprofitable operations. Yet, there are some signs of improvement, if you want to call them that. The passenger rail line lost $1.3 billion dollars in 2002 compared to just $550 million in 2005. And the board of directors has agreed on a mission statement, after only thirty-five years of trying.

It will become Amtrak's objective to offer safe, reliable, and economical service and exceed customer service expectations. How's that for a generic, non-binding statement? It sounds like one of those fill-in-the-blank Last Will and Testament packages offered by a dubious late-night TV law firm. And Amtrak will only require you, the taxpayer, to dig deep for another $8 billion over the next five years to make it happen. What a deal!

Contrary to popular belief Amtrak is not a government owned transportation company. It is actually a private company surviving on government subsidies, making it a poster child for socialism. This is evidenced through arguments offered by the rail service's proponents.

Supporters argue that rail service eases congestion, reduces pollution, and uses less energy. To enforce that assertion they tell us a single rail line can carry a number of travelers equivalent to sixteen highway lanes. Maybe that's true, maybe it's not. But it will only work if people are riding the trains. And if people were riding the trains, Amtrak would be profitable, wouldn't it?

The favorable argument for subsidized rail service quickly descends to typical class warfare. It's just not fair that wealthier people can afford to travel more often that poorer people. "Socioeconomic disparity", and "ethnicity" are cited as contributing factors to support continued passenger rail subsidies.

Such unsupportable arguments are part and parcel to the mindset of the socialists who comprise the "progressive" movement. The obvious intent is to portray Amtrak's detractors as selfish, rich bigots who take advantage of "the poor".

To Amtrak's credit, the system does have some short routes that could be profitable. Why not concentrate on that segment of the traveling market and eliminate the longer routes, which lose as much as $550 per rider each time they leave the station? Perhaps then Amtrak could survive within its means.

It is said that nature abhors a vacuum. Markets do as well. Wherever there is a need, or vacuum, someone or something will rise to fill that need. If there is a true demand for passenger rail Amtrak will reach its 70th birthday without another $29 billion-plus in taxpayer subsidies. If not, let's write Amtrak's obituary and close the book on this sorry tale of American-style socialism.

No one is likely to jump for joy as regular gasoline approaches $3 per gallon, and I'm not here to say you should. But before we jump on the "Big Oil" demonization bandwagon let's see how clean we, and our savior known as big government, truly are in relation to gas prices.

The record first quarter profits announced by the major oil companies make them an easy target for demagoguery, playing to the common thread of greed and jealousy. The public calls for government action against "profiteering" and "gouging" by oil companies. It's the equivalent of diving into shark-infested waters.

The announced profits by oil companies are up; that's not debatable. Yet their profit margins remain at the normal 9 to 12 cents per gallon. This means the consumer is buying more gasoline, even at the higher price. We are engaged in a voluntary exchange with the oil company. Can we say the same for the government?

Between 1977 and 2004 oil company profits were $643 billion, a yearly average of $22.9 billion. Hold onto your seat. During that time gas taxes swelled government coffers $1.343 trillion, or nearly $48 billion per year. Government profits from gasoline sales were twice those of oil companies. And "Big Oil" profited more from their product than did government in only three of those twenty-eight years.

"But gas is a necessity", you argue. True enough. We need gas to travel to work, school, the store, or wherever. But, if gas prices were such a burden, would we still be eating out, or attending movies or ballgames, with our current regularity? It seems to me most Americans value the experience they receive from those endeavors more than the price of a gallon of gas.

Therein lies the voluntary exchange between consumer and provider. Where is our voluntary exchange with government? While our state representatives wailed about "price gouging" from one side of their mouths they were raising the gas taxes from the other. Congress never considered lowering the federal gas tax. Why expect them to "do something" about energy prices. Are we that stupid?

Certainly lower wage earners are feeling pocketbook pressure. We're not discussing them. But for the rest of you, get your priorities in order.

We don't want to pay the market-driven price for a necessity, such as gasoline, because it interferes with our preferred spending habits. Paying more for a staple product -whether gas, health care, or food- means less money for cable TV, the latest cell phone, broadband Internet, beer, and cigarettes.

The accusation is obvious. But just in case you missed it, we are like spoiled children. We want to have our cake and eat it, too. We demand the true needs of modern life be provided cheaply so we will have more expendable income for the latest perk, gadget, or gizmo.

It's your money, you earned it, spend it how you please. But you have no defensible platform to argue for government to control market prices so you can spend money on what you want rather than what you need. And you have no grounds for blaming "Big Oil" for your inability to prioritize your finances.

Let's give Osama Bin Laden a little credit. He is open, though not honorable, with his intentions whereas most terrorists aren't. His latest diatribe, released via the militant apologetic mouthpiece known as Arab television, proves this idea true.

Bin Laden accused the United States and Europe of engaging in a Zionist war targeting Islam by refusing to fund the new Hamas-led government in Palestine. This accurately describes the beliefs of other terrorist groups and their leaders, yet many will deny such sentiments and affinity with Al-Qaida. Now, Bin Laden's openness has blown the whistle on them.

Let's look at a few of Bin Laden's key statements and establish the correlation between his organization and other Islamic militants.

When Western governments balked at sending foreign aid to Palestine, to be administered by a governing terrorist group, Bin Laden labeled it a "war on Islam". "The blockade which the West is imposing on the government of Hamas proves that there is a Zionist, crusaders' war on Islam", crowed Osama.

Osama Bin Laden possesses many qualities, predominantly negative. But he's neither stooge nor fool. Osama knows Western governments will not, cannot, fund a government controlled by Hamas anymore than we would fund a government controlled by Al-Qaida. Bin Laden also knows that his inciting rhetoric on the subject plays well to Muslims.

Overall, his words serve as an absolute indicator that a large portion of Islam is dedicated to the demise of Israel and Western Culture. Perhaps Iran's loose cannon of a president isn't so far off the Islamic reservation as many reality-denying Westerners prefer to believe.

Hamas isn't quite so open as Bin Laden in stating their intentions, at least not with words. Sami Abu Zuhri, spokesman for Hamas, said, "the ideology of Hamas is totally different from the ideology of Sheik bin Laden". Well, a man's words are cheap when his actions are contradictory. Let's see how truthful Abu Zuhri is being.

Al-Qaida utilizes suicide attackers and human bombs. So does Hamas. Both groups knowingly and wantonly target civilians. Any reprisals for their attacks on us are labeled acts of Western or Zionist aggression. Israel is the main excuse given by both groups to justify their violence. And there's always a U.S.-Western-Zionist war being waged on Islam.

Such rhetoric is common practice for demagogues, who will relentlessly promote inflammatory accusations solely to cement their standing with populist sentiment. Accuracy is never given a second thought.

This is similar to the scene in Washington this week, where our so-called "representatives" are having it out with "Big Oil" over the price of gasoline. That debate would be silenced by knowledge, and so would the anger most Muslims cultivate toward us. However, it is far easier to believe a lie, for a lie absolves the listener of responsibility.

Osama Bin Laden knows that most of the world sees right through his Zionist war propaganda. And he also knows that his target audience, the "Muslim street", will gobble it up like cake and ice cream. At least he isn't trying to hide his message.

What should be done with Zacarias Moussaoui? Unless you've spent the last few years in a cave, swapping stories with Osama Bin Laden, you'll recognize Z-Mouse as the man who stands accused of aiding the 9/11 attackers. He is the only supposed collaborator to stand trial. And what a trial it has been thus far!

Z-Mouse has graciously provided us with his narrative of 9/11 while on the witness stand. The accounts and images of American suffering made his day, according to his own testimony. He would prefer to see similar attacks carried out on unsuspecting and unarmed American civilians "every day". What a warrior he is.

Moussaoui has declared that he harbors "no regrets, no remorse" for whatever role he played in killing thousands of people, as if an apology should matter at all. And when the prosecution asked if he would like to see another 9/11 kind of attack Moussaoui said, "Every day until we get you."

Not content with merely dragging our country through the mud collectively, Moussaoui got personal. When a female Naval officer took the stand and wept while recounting the deaths of two subordinates she was mocked mercilessly by Z-Mouse. "I think it is disgusting for a military person [to cry]", said Moussaoui, adding, "She is military, she should expect people at war with her to want to kill her". When asked if he was happy to see her tears Z-Mouse responded, "Make my day".

Zacarias, if you were truly as tough and dedicated as you talk you would have worn a uniform, openly identifying your self as "military". Lt. Nancy McKeown wore her uniform. It seems to me that she has not only more pride in her cause than you in yours, but also an infinite amount more courage as well. How does it feel, Mr. Islam, to be outdone by a "mere woman"?

What should be done with Zacarias Moussaoui if he is found guilty of conspiring with the 9/11 hijackers? The prosecution wants him sentenced to death. The defense argues for life in prison, citing his small role in the attacks and his mental instability. Moussaoui's attitude makes execution the easy choice. But is it the most appropriate way to make him pay for his transgressions?

If the attitude displayed by Zacarias Moussaoui is genuine, which is debatable to say the least, his desire is martyrdom. Why should we give him what he wants?

Why not lock him away for the rest of his days with no accommodation of any kind? No prayer rug. No lemon-baked chicken, or other Muslim goodie that we have provided free of charge to the "abused" thugs detained at Guantanamo Bay. No window opening toward Mecca, and no Friday prayer service. Perhaps this would be a more appropriate punishment for Z-Mouse, and a better message to those who would follow his path toward the 70 virgins of Islamic martyrdom.

A death sentence, and the divine eternal punishment that would come with it, will be far worse than anything we can do to Z-Mouse, so there's an argument for sending him on his everlasting way. And I'm normally all for the death penalty. But, I wonder, would human justice be better served on Zacarias Moussaoui by making him live?

New Orleans, the Crescent City, has been a stalwart example of the welfare society and a breeding ground of dependency for many a year. It should be the shining city on the hill for liberals, the crowning achievement of the Great Society. That is, if the equation of government regulation plus entitlement addiction plus lack of forethought equaled prosperity.

Government, if it functioned as liberals believe, should have instantaneously provided for all needs in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. There should have been no shortages of goods and services, no inconvenience, and certainly no death. Years of dependency on government produced an opposite result.

Residents loudly voiced their displeasure with the response to the hurricane, although they themselves did absolutely nothing to prepare for a storm that could be seen coming five days ahead of time. Imagine standing in the middle of a railroad track on an open prairie. You can see the train coming for miles, yet you wait for someone to push you off the track, or for the train to change direction. Who could you blame when the train bowled you over?

New Orleans' government and residents sat idly, as if someone other than God Himself could have diverted the approaching gale. Such attitudes are the predictable result of dependency-building government policy. Was the lesson learned?

When the mayoral primary race was complete the people who screamed the loudest following the storm supported the man most responsible for the anemic government response to the damage. There were bus caravans of evacuees returning to the city to cast votes. There were satellite voting stations, mailed and faxed ballots. The preliminary result is a demand for more of the same.

Sure, these folks have every right to vote in their election. But they should also prepare to accept the consequences of their vote.

Of the 300 predominantly black precincts in New Orleans, 281 backed current Mayor Ray Nagin. Nagin gained at least 66-percent of the black vote and the largest percentage of the overall vote cast. These were the New Orleans residents reported to have suffered the most in Katrina`s aftermath. Why would they choose to maintain course?

Apparently, the residents of New Orleans absolutely refused to learn the lessons taught by Hurricane Katrina. Lorraine Payton said, "... whoever gets elected is going to help us rebuild. This is about trying to save us right now." Her words include no reference to personal responsibility or accountability. The attitude remains that government is the only source of safety, happiness, and providence.

The odd logistical requirements caused the New Orleans primary election to be hailed as an "unprecedented experiment in democracy". Contingent on the outcome of next month's run-off election, it may unfold as an unprecedented display of reliance and self-imposed enslavement.

The nation's larger metro areas are losing population, and the same can be said for northeastern states and the western coastline. The Brookings Institution's William Frey calls it a case of middle class flight spurred by a search for more affordable housing. There is some merit to that thought, as 12 of the 20 urban areas with the highest housing costs are in the declining areas.

Prof. Richard Florida of George Mason University explains it this way. More younger, wealthier families are moving into these areas and driving up the cost of housing via a bidding war. Larger families cannot keep pace and move to an area with lower housing cost. That's all well and good, but it represents only part of the alleged "problem".

The cities, states, and geographical areas that are loosing population are also among the highest taxed, highest regulated areas as well. Areas gaining population offer lower taxation and less regulatory burden. This environment promotes a freer population, one in which property rights receive more respect. Could that be a factor in the Great Exodus to the suburbs and rural America?

Regulation will drive prices and pressure incomes, thus driving people away from an area. This pricing pressure is due in no small part to government actions. According to the Tennessee Center for Policy Research, land use regulations increase the cost of the median home by an average of $25,000 in more than 100 metropolitan areas. And in San Francisco that burden can add $850,000 to the cost of a high-end home.

It becomes apparent that the manipulative land-use regulations that are claimed to drive the growth of cities are, in reality, driving people out. The reason boils down to a basic human desire for liberty.

The main thrust of the urban migration is said to be high housing costs and a desire for open space. Open space is a magic word in the lexicon of the smart growth planner and proponent. But the open space sought by the urban flier differs greatly from the vision of the anointed urban planner.

The smart growth mantra envisions international equity on the use of resources. In the current climate you, the American, hogs it all, selfishly gobbling up the world's goods while everyone else does without. And they have the perfect solution to the problem.

All that is required for the world to live in perfect peace and harmony is a drastic reduction in the use of all natural resources, stabilization of the world's population, and the equitable distribution of wealth throughout the world. Fancy phrases, and they sound all warm and fuzzy. The realization of these goals reads like a wish list of socialistic liberalism.

We should forego all modern convenience and live in the Middle Ages to conserve resources, adopt unfettered abortion and condom distribution to control population, and implement world socialism in order to attain the "equitable distribution of wealth". Of course this only applies to those of us in the great unwashed, the elites in the smart growth circles will continue to enjoy the pleasures of modern life because they alone possess the innate intelligence to properly use and appreciate them.

They will conveniently overlook the fact that the socialist doctrines they promote are now present in most of the world's population and have led directly to the lack of clean water, food supplies, decent housing, and health care they lament as unfair.

"Urban sprawl" is another favorite son of the smart growth movement. They claim sprawl destroys the environment and consumes America's best farmland at the rate of 45.6 acres each hour. Yet they never bother to explain why we produce more food per acre than ever before. Nor do they bother to state that tons upon tons of surplus foods are sent to starving countries each year and are immediately impounded by the socialist dictator in charge to feed his army while the residents do without.

The entire concept of "smart growth" ignores the basic laws of the open market. It is based on the arrogant assumption that you aren't smart enough to determine the best housing and location for your family. Therefore, you must be commanded by the truly intelligent.

Their cleverly designed code words such as "planned development", "civic pride", "growth boundaries", and "open space" are predicated on their deciding what's best for you. Someday, if they have their way, we'll live in high-rise multi-unit housing constructed along light rail lines, which we'll use to commute to our government appointed jobs.

The rape allegations swirling around the white Duke lacrosse players and a black stripper have the makings of the latest made-for-TV courtroom drama. It has already begun and, as the saying goes, "you ain't seen nothing yet". The racial flames were obvious from the outset, and ready pundits are there to fan the fire for us. Regardless of the outcome of the investigation someone is bound to feel slighted.

Now I wonder, have we been too hasty in calling for the heads of the accused? This is the classic underdog mentality. The lacrosse players are students at an exclusive private school and their background is one of at least some wealth. The "little man" -in this case, woman- should receive her justice over members of the wealth and privilege set. But is it justice if she's lying, or accusing the wrong people?

DNA samples taken from each and every white team member failed to match samples taken from the accuser. Defense attorneys claim to have time-stamped photos of the woman bearing the wounds in question at the time she arrived at the party. And there ATM receipts and cab driver accounts that would seem to exonerate the defendants. Yet, even if the evidence were overwhelming, the DA couldn't dismiss the charges due to the racial component.

Then there is the medical exam conducted on the accuser, which says the woman's injuries and behavior is consistent with those of a rape victim. It seems obvious that something unwanted happened to her. However, without DNA evidence or eyewitness accounts it will be her word against that of the accused.

This introduces her credibility into the equation. The fact that she is a stripper with a criminal history who was found drunk to the point of unconsciousness shortly after the incident is said to have occurred doesn't portray her reliability in a favorable light. Expect the defense to make use of this when the case comes to trial.

Many commentators rising to the defense of the woman have argued that if the roles were reversed the investigation would be different. They claim that if this had been a white stripper from Duke claiming rape at a party hosted by the North Carolina Central basketball or football team the accused would have been arrested on the spot.

Would NC Central have cancelled the season of a nationally ranked basketball or football team in mid-season? Would their athletic department have accepted the resignation of the team's coach, as did Duke University on both accounts? It's highly unlikely.

The case is not without its wild accusations and allusions as well. Blog author L. Nathaniel Rock asks if the stripper deserved to be raped, and if white athletes have a right to rape black woman. The answer is so obviously no that it raises questions about the question itself. Such inane suppositions aren't raised for their legitimacy but for the purpose of playing the race card. Rock even links the case to the old history of slavery. Small wonder calls of racism so often fall on deaf ears these days.

For all the stereotypical rants, accusations, and pontificating from all sides the case remains for the criminal courts to decide. If the evidence points to guilt the convicted should receive the full sentence due. If the supposed victim is lying she should be prosecuted.

You may recall that White Americans were convinced of O.J.'s guilt, yet when he was acquitted the verdict was accepted, although reluctantly. Due process ran its course and that was the result. Will those now citing race have the courage to do the same? Or will an acquittal of the Duke rape suspects be played as a racist conspiracy?

This case should and will be decided by the evidence presented and the court process, with the burden of proof resting on the prosecution and the accuser. It may not be foolproof, and it may not be perfect. But it beats the reactionary court of public opinion, wherein the defendants already appear to be guilty.

Nathaniel Rock wonders if "an African Woman (she's really an American, not African) who was allegedly raped by white athletes on the Duke University campus gets the justice she deserves". Yes indeed, will she get the justice she deserves? It will be decided in the criminal justice system. Let's wait and see.

Palestine's Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh recently criticized America for restricting diplomatic ties with the new Hamas-led governing body. He argues that the Palestinian people are being punished unjustly, meaning less foreign aid money, for having elected Hamas to power. It appears to me that Mr. Haniyeh has answered his own protest.

Actions have consequences, both intended and unintended. Electing a known militant organization should mean a harsh lesson in reality for Palestinians, represented by a reduction -or complete loss- of U.S. foreign aid. No one can have their cake and eat it, too.

However, according to an Associated Press report, America may try to change that principle in the case of Palestine and continue to provide money to that government. State Department representative David Welch said America is "devoted to the humanitarian needs of the Palestinian people and we shall remain so". So, our government will continue to funnel money into the hands of an ungrateful people.

When was the last time you saw a Palestinian, either private person or government representative, stand before a camera crew and publicly thank America for the financial support they have received? I can't recall an example. Instead we are criticized and demonized for not giving more money. It is as if the Palestinians are on our welfare rolls, or are residents of New Orleans.

The primary complaints lie in the amount of foreign aid given to Israel verses that given to Palestine, and the restrictions on how it is spent. We provide about $3 billion each year to Israel and around $100 million to the Palestinian Authority, with far greater restrictions and monitoring on how the Palestinian money is spent. Logically, this makes perfect sense.

Israelis did not take to the streets of Tel Aviv, firing guns into the air and shouting with triumphant glee, when 3000 of our countrymen plummeted to the ground in the fiery remains of the World Trade Center that fine September morning. The streets of Ramallah were lined with Palestinians doing just that! And then they will elect a government cut from the same cloth as the 9/11 attackers and expect no consequence whatsoever? That's baloney!

We are going to don the black hats in that region no matter what we do, what we say, or with whom we form alliances. Why doesn't Palestine look to their supporters for the aid their near bankrupt government needs? Oh wait, they have! Iran, the nation that claims such a close affinity to the plight of the Palestinians, has promised $50 million in aid to the Hamas government. That's half what we provide on a continual basis. If this doesn't prove that we can't buy friendship then we may never learn.

It is said that for every action there will be a like or greater reaction. The Palestinian people know what kind of organization Hamas is. They know Hamas' stated purpose, and their ultimate goals. Yet, they elected them anyway. This would indicate that Palestinians support, as least temporarily, the message and agenda of Hamas.

By choosing to align with our enemies the Palestinians have also chosen their circumstances. It is not the responsibility of the American taxpayer to reach into his or her pocket and soften the blow of their decision.

Illegal crossings of our southern border are up and it should come as no surprise. Whenever you propose legalizing illegal behavior you will have more illegal behaviors seeking legalization. It doesn't have to be illegal immigration. It could be robbery, murder, assault, or whatever. If the consequences of the illegal act are by-passed more participants in the illegal activity will come forward.

Francisco Loureiro has managed a shelter along the Arizona border for 24 years and vouches for the increased pressure on the U.S. border. The last time he can recall such a rush was 1986, which to no one's surprise coincides with the last amnesty -I mean, "guest worker"- plan. It is a natural occurrence for the "cure" being promoted in Washington to actually increase the severity of the disease.

The problem with immigration that we now face is not immigration or immigrants, but a lack of assimilation. The people flowing over the Mexican border are not seeking to become Americans. Instead they are seeking economic benefit while effectively establishing Latin America north of the border. It is as much an assault on America and our culture as would be an invading army, an idea that may not be far from reality.

According to a report on immigration published by the Los Angeles Newspaper Group there have been confrontations between Border Patrol agents and Mexican Army regulars, who are aiding illegal border crossers. The Mexican soldiers are said to have sold out to drug cartels, which provides Mexico with a ready excuse for ignoring their actions. But it is a poor excuse indeed.

The Mexican government is responsible for the action of it's military, end of story. If they will not control them, we should. Mexican troops crossing our border or threatening our agents, with or without official authorization, should be engaged and destroyed like any other invading force. Yet our official position is to have agents hide from the Mexican military and avoid confrontation. That's not synonymous with border security.

Here on our own soil the supporters of unchecked illegal immigration incessantly accuse us of racism. Arturo Garcia of the L.A. Independent Media Center referred to the planned May 1st illegal immigrant boycott as an act to "stop racism and build a new movement for and in defense of civil rights and human rights that are being trampled upon in the belly of this capitalist beast".

Can you believe such an arrogant statement? Did you notice the total disdain for capitalism, the opposite of which is socialism? Mr. Garcia, if it is socialism that immigrants prefer to the "capitalist beast" then why go to the trouble of immigrating when it is readily available a few miles to the south?

Even the proposed amnesty plan isn't enough for Mr. Garcia, who charges that even the slightest increase in border protection is racist policy. He opposes a fine upon aliens who would be legalized even though they obviously broke the law to get here. He opposes any attempt to collect back taxes even though the illegal immigrant worked here and used pubic services.

Garcia opposes background checks for legalizing alien workers and their being required to learn the English language. Imagine our gall! Why, of all the arrogance! Who do we think we are for trying to find out what type of person is being welcomed into our country and stating that they must communicate with us instead of we with them?

Perhaps, Mr. Garcia, you would approve of us if it were legal for immigrants to enter our private homes uninvited, force us to speak their language in our living rooms, and serve them a plate of beans and tortillas? Would that make you happy, Mr. Garcia?

Friends, you and I aren't the racists in this case. The racists are Arturo Garcia, as evidenced by his blatant hatred of America and our culture, and the constituency he represents.

Americans have not only a right but also an obligation to maintain our culture. If you want to come and be a part of it, that's great! Adopt our culture as primary, obey our laws, and speak our language. We welcome people wanting to be Americans. However, we are under no obligation to welcome people who come here to establish their homeland.

If you prefer Hispanic culture and lifestyle you'll find it in abundant supply south of the border. You can enjoy it there. Don't think you have some right to drag America down the degenerative economic path that other nations have followed. And, quite frankly, I am sick and tired of being labeled a racist simply for desiring to preserve the unique American culture, which is the supposed reason immigrants come here to begin with.

It is said that there are two constants in life, two undeniable and unavoidable certainties: death and taxes. Sometimes it seems almost debatable which is preferable. Beyond debate is the one constant public opinion on taxation, shared by all social classes and incomes. Taxes are too high and the system is too complicated and burdensome.

This would seem like good news to supporters of tax reform, presenting the opportunity to unite the country toward the common goal of changing an onerous and unpopular system. The problem lies in each demographic perceiving the injustice of taxation only upon their own situation, while believing the other demographics are making out like bandits.

The lower end of the wage scale, by and large, pays little to no taxes on income. In fact, they often receive refunds in excess of what they have paid into the system. This means they are not only avoiding paying taxes on income but are receiving a handout to boot. Yet they are the first to grouse about "the rich" -meaning anyone better off than they- not paying their arbitrary "fair share".

The welfare mentality views taxation as unfair if higher earners do not pay ever-increasing amounts into the system, ensuring their entitlements are fully funded. Therefore they are susceptible to the "soak the rich" mantra so popular in political circles.

To this segment of America the tax system is inequitable because it doesn't provide them with a large enough portion of what their neighbors have earned.

The middle-income earners see the tax system as unfair to them, to small business, and to the self-employed. This is true. But they also think high-income earners and big business pay too little in taxes. They have the perception of being caught in the proverbial squeeze play where those above and those below are pressing against them.

This segment of the economic population views the upper income earners as receiving large tax breaks and deductions that are unavailable to them. They also see the lower income group as living off of the taxes they pay. The idea germinates that "the rich" aren't doing enough to help the middle-class pull the weight of the demanding welfare wagon. Caught in the middle, there is no consensus on which way to turn.

The top earners, derogatorily referred to as "the greedy rich", are those whose incomes exceed $200,000 annually. They see the top 5-percent of the wage scale as paying an inordinate share of the total tax burden. The more money they earn the higher the rate at which they are taxed and the greater the payment heading off to Washington.

The graduated tax rates that aggravate these people have the effect of punishing achievement and success. And if we view money and income in its simplest, free-market form, that being a tool of measurement for one's value to the community, their argument carries weight. Such a tax scale reflects the "from each according to his means, to each according to his need" mentalities of Karl Marx, the father of communism.

So we find national consensus that the tax system is unfair. It is the reasons behind the unfairness that vary widely and serve the astute politicians who play the differing sides against each other. They fan the flames of jealously the lower income Americans feel toward "the rich", feign sympathy for the higher earners who see the lower classes as welfare leeches, or cater to middle America by promising tax relief targeted toward their economic range only. All the while they do nothing substantial to make the tax system equitable or manageable.

The predicted result is no appreciable change in the tax code, all segments of American incomes remain at odds with each other, and pandering politicians retain their seats of power.

However, there is a simple solution that is readily available and will result in true tax reform, a simplification and fairness that cannot be argued. We should immediately repel the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which granted Congress the authority to levy taxes on all income at will. By doing so Washington could collect no tax on any form of earned or generated income whatsoever.

Independent achievers -at the lower, middle, or upper income levels- will not see their income taxed to support the welfare-state mentality. Any poor who harp will expose their selfishness in claiming portions of their neighbor's property. Most important, politicians will have less money available to buy the votes of any American, rich, poor, or in between.

Sound like a pipe dream? Maybe, and a repeal of the 16th Amendment would be a lengthy process. But tax reform can happen if Americans truly care more for the future of our republic and the legacy we will leave our children than for instant gratification and the allure of gain at the expense of others.

Our elected officials work for us, and we can totally overthrow our government every two years if it isn't serving its proper purpose. With this fact in evidence we can only conclude that we are receiving exactly the kind of taxation that we are demanding.

Iran's announcement of successful uranium enrichment touched off howls of "world consensus" protest this week. The only silent faction on Iran's nuclear progress seems to be the hard-left of American politics, which apparently believes a nuclear Iran is a proper power check to the global domination/world imperialism policies of the Adolf Bush administration.

Wait, I'm drifting off course. Let's get back to the main subject. Where were we? Oh, yes! The mythical subject of "world consensus"!

The United Nations Security Council demanded an immediate halt to Iran's enrichment process, a meaningless proposition considering their lack of teeth when it came to enforcing similar demands on Iraq. Mohamed ElBaradei is heading for Tehran to engage in talks next week.

ElBaradei's ethnicity is enough to satisfy the ruling nutcases in Iran, but his background affiliations are far too Western for him to be accepted as anything other than a stooge of the "Great Satan". Certainly the time for diplomacy and discussion isn't dead, but ElBaradei's efforts are likely to be as fruitful as trying to tear down the Great Pyramids of Egypt with a plastic spoon.

More than likely the current Iranian situation will result in referral to the U.N. Security Council and the imposition of economic sanctions. Those worked so well in Iraq, where the U.N.'s sanctions and aid program served to enrich the man destined for punishment and punish the people it intended to serve. Sanctions will only cement the desire of Iran's leadership to develop weapons, a thumbing of the nose at the West, and serve as a propaganda tool for inciting the nationalistic emotions of their citizens.

There is an interesting thought, and one we should all pray is true. Iran's quirky leadership could be all mouth. Their nuclear aspirations could be empty threats intended to instill a false sense of national pride in their controlled populace. That's what we should hope for, but we would be foolish to bet the farm on its reality.

Pundits are claiming the United States is preparing attack plans against Iran. This should be a surprise to no one. It is likely, if our military is as sharp and dependable as I think it is, that we have battle plans for most countries on the face of the earth. Does anyone doubt that the Pentagon has formulated, and is constantly updating, attack and counter-attack strategies for China, North Korea, and Russia, just in case?

Odd as it may sound, the long-term good of the United States and the fuel for final victory over Islamic fanaticism may be a nuclear-armed Iran. Iran is without question a state-sponsor of anti-Western and anti-American terrorism. While there may not be a direct physical connection between Iran and 9/11 they are without question sympathizers with the attackers and their cause.

Iran has publicly stated a desire for a world without America. I am beginning to wonder, do we have the stomach for the fight that has be laid at our doorstep? Does the slogan we see so often, "these colors don't run", bear any weight, or is it empty rhetoric?

The reaction of Americans toward the Iraq War, if current polls are accurate indicators, would say that our attitude toward the war against Islamic terrorism has changed. It's almost as if 9/11 never happened, except for those who believe the entire episode was a Bush administration conspiracy plot to benefit Halliburton.

There is never an image of the Twin Towers tumbling from the New York skyline, carrying 3000 Americans (we're fortunate there weren't more) to their ultimate demise. The coming release of a movie depicting the events of Flight 93 over Pennsylvania has been met with mournful laments. "It's too soon to see those painful images", is the standard talking point.

That's hogwash! It's never too soon to remember an act of patriotic heroism, which is exactly what the passengers of that doomed airliner displayed. We need to see what happened on that plane, even if it is based on second-hand accounts. We need to see planes hitting the World Trade Center. We need to see our countrymen leap from the 110th floor because that is preferable to the intense heat of the terrorist-induced inferno. We need constant reminding of what makes Zacarias Moussaoui so happy.

When Pearl Harbor was attacked, we remembered. When the Maine was attacked, we remembered. We remembered the Alamo. And we were more focused on defeating our enemies because we remembered what they had done to us.

We seem to have forgotten the lesson of 9/11, and no longer recognize the threat that Islamic militants pose to our nation. We as a people have grown complacent, asleep at the switch, just as we were during the 1990s.

I'm not saying war with Iran is the only option at this time, or even a preferable option. But the current political climate points toward an America without the collective will to prevent Iran from using a nuclear weapon, much less building one. As such, any military effort would be demonized to the point of ineffectiveness.

Insomuch we may be better off long-term to forget about Iran's nuclear aspirations, hoping against all reasonable hope that the program is for energy purposes only. If Iran is being truthful we win!

Suppose they aren't being truthful. Suppose they do create a bomb and use it on an American city. Suppose New York, Los Angeles, Miami, or other major metropolitan area becomes a smoking hole in the ground. Perhaps such an occurrence would be in the best interest of America's enduring future and survival. Then we will wake up and be willing to do whatever is required to destroy our enemy's will to fight. Wouldn't we?

Who or what is responsible for your safety? Is it the police, or other emergency personnel? Can you expect the police to be there at the precise time a crime is committed? If you do it is likely you don't understand the job of a police officer or the role of police in a free society.

The role of policemen and police departments is to investigate crimes, then pursue, apprehend, and jail perpetrators. Sure, there are times they will be able to arrive at the scene of a crime in commission, or uncover a plot and stop the crime beforehand, or even happen to be in the right place at the right time. But to stop a crime in planning or progress is the exception, not the rule.

We are our ultimate protection. If we are to be safe, and remain free, we should be prepared to provide for our defense against criminal attack, up to and including meeting force with force.

U.S. Rep. Cliff Stearns of Florida has introduced H.R. 4547, the Right-to-Carry (RTC) reciprocity bill, which recognizes that basic right of a free people. This bill would treat a state-issued concealed weapons permit just like a driver's license, meaning it would be valid in other states with RTC laws on the books. The permit holder would then be required to follow state law in regard to where the weapon can be carried, which is largely a matter of common sense.

Currently 40 of the 50 states recognize the right of citizens to provide for their own defense with RTC laws, including the recent addition of Nebraska. Stearns bill would make your state-issued permit good in any of those states.

Notably, the states that do not acknowledge your ability to protect your life are concentrated in the liberal bastions of the Northeast and California. That's worth remembering the next time some socialist disguised as a "liberal" attempts to lecture you on the virtues of their Marxist-based theory of "liberty".

Those same liberals will be totally opposed to Rep. Stearns reciprocity efforts, and will undoubtedly trot out the same tired, old clichés they have used to oppose RTC efforts at the state level. They will allege that such a law will lead people to settle minor disputes with gunfire, our streets will flow red with blood, and America will return to the Wild West days. Every city will be the modern equivalent of Tombstone or Dodge City.

They have been wrong each and every time they have used these stale talking points and they will be wrong again, as usual. According to FBI crime statistics, RTC states experience violent crime rates that are 21-percent lower than the rest of the country, and 9 of the 10 lowest crime states have RTC laws on the books. That hardly supports the harebrained rhetoric bandied about by gun control activists.

There is a simple reason that crime rates are lower in RTC states; criminals love life, too! A violent criminal may have no qualm with tossing lead at you. But they really don't care to have it tossed back at them. A violent predator is far less likely to attack a person that is potentially armed, preferring to ply their trade on the helpless.

The right to defend one's life is God-given and belongs to each and every peaceable member of society. This is recognized -not granted- by the U.S. Constitution and the Supreme Court (Beard vs. U.S., 1895). It is non-forfeitable and non-alterable.

A free people must accept the responsibility to protect their life, home, and liberty at a moment`s notice, recognizing that government functioning in its proper capacity cannot. Those who forego this right/responsibility have surrendered their safety and liberty to a third party, becoming more vulnerable and less free in the process.

A people that are capable of bearing arms in defense of life and liberty are an emancipated people. Those incapable of bearing arms are subjugated serfs. The latter is not the legacy of the American.

South Carolina's chief officer of the NAACP opposes an amendment to the state constitution opposing gay "marriage". The source of the opposition and the reasoning behind it is surprising if you still believe the NAACP is an organization dedicated solely to black achievement. In reality they are more interested in promoting the social code of liberalism than advancing "colored people".

The depth of their corruption is indicated by Rev. Nelson Rivers. Rivers said, "We cannot be afraid and surrender the higher ground for moral principles." This quote came from the mouth of a reverend; a man of God. Wouldn't you think the higher ground and moral principles would be synonymous?

Ah, but that would get in the way of promoting an agenda of classification through which nearly everyone can claim minority status and charge some form of discrimination.

The NAACP is dedicated to a socialist political agenda regardless of whether or not it advances "colored people". Blacks who still support the group's original purpose have become sacrificial lambs on the anointed alter of "higher ground".

The high leadership of the NAACP has a long track record of ignoring achievement by blacks if that success is not then attributed to the organization's assistance. You'll recall that they lifted nary a finger in defense of Clarence Thomas during his Supreme Court confirmation hearings. Even when the Anita Hill saga proved to be a baseless accusation the association's leaders were deafeningly silent. Never was there a word of praise for Thomas and his accomplishments, or for his seat on the high court.

The same can be said for Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice, neither of whom received one whit of support from the organization dedicated to successes by "colored people". And their double standard is not limited to the pubic sector. They ignore conservative achievers in the private sector with equal relish.

Thomas Sowell rose from the poverty of Harlem to graduate from Harvard University. He has authored more books than most of us could ever hope to read and uncountable articles, columns, and essays. He is now a Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution on the campus of Stanford University.

Walter E. Williams is an economist, syndicated columnist, and substitute radio host. He is the former chair of the Economics Department at George Mason University in Virginia. And, to hear Mr. Williams tell it, an all-around nice guy.

Both of these men have and are accomplishing great things and encourage other Blacks to do likewise. They push Blacks to rely on their abilities and intelligence instead of government programs and subsidies. Why are they not held up as examples and role models for inner-city youths, and in fact all young Americans, by the "black leader"? Perhaps I've answered my own question.

The so-called "black leader" and groups like the NAACP are constructed brick-by-brick of socialist policy, and are dedicated to that agenda more so than the advancement and achievement of the people they claim to represent. In their zeal for their collectivist ideology they have not settled for relegating black conservatives to the back of the bus but tossed them under the tires.

Rev. Nelson's quote about preferring politics to moral principles belies the NAACP's alleged purpose. Not only has the "higher ground" of liberal politics ceased to be on par with moral principles, it has become its antithesis as well.

Let us tune into yet another sorry episode in the congressional career of Georgia's Democratic Representative, Cynthia McKinney. The story is certainly well told by now. But, for the refreshment of memory, we'll conduct a quick recap.

Rep. McKinney recently entered the Capital without her identifying lapel pin, which she apparently never wears, and wasn't recognized by the police officer in charge of security. When the officer confronted Rep. McKinney she was, shall we say, less than cooperative. She refused the order to stop and continued on her merry way. The officer, as he should, stopped McKinney. She rewarded his diligence with a punch in the face, claiming she was "inappropriately touched".

Rep. McKinney isn't that pretty, and it's hard to imagine the officer getting his jollies by "feeling her up". But I digress.

McKinney eventually issued a rather tepid apology following lengthy private censure from members of her own party, who would like to have been reading about Tom Delay's resignation rather than McKinney's latest display of elitism. Before that apology came the predictable, and inevitable in her case, play of the race card. "The issue is racial profiling", fulminated McKinney, who went on to accuse Capital Police of racism for failing to recognize her.

This isn't the first time Cynthia has played her trump card out of turn. There was her 1996 congressional campaign when she labeled supporters of her Jewish GOP opponent "holdovers from the Civil War days", and, "a ragtag group of neo-Confederates". Then came the 2000 presidential race when she accused Al Gore, the nominee from her own party, of having a low tolerance for black folks. "I've never known him to have more than one black person around him at any given time", McKinney bawled.

Gore's 2000 campaign manager was black, by the way. Of course, it's unlikely he had more than one campaign manager so she could have been right by pure default, though the bitterness in her comment remains.

Then came the time the Supreme Court struck down her black-majority congressional district on grounds that is was unconstitutionally gerrymandered. She immediately charged the Supreme Court with racism. And following a bid to beg money from Saudi Arabia following the 9/11 attacks Rep. McKinney submitted an op-ed in which she wrote, "I believe that when it comes to major foreign policy issues, many prefer to have black people seen and not heard."

Excuse me, Mrs. McKinney, but have you ever heard of Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice? I believe Secretaries of State have at least some influence on foreign policy.

With all this to consider she may have topped even her own ineptitude during a segment on KFPA radio out of Berkeley, California. She patently charged the Bush White House of knowing about the 9/11 attacks ahead of time and allowing it to happen. She questioned, "Why did they not warn the innocent people of New York who were needlessly murdered?"

If and when the time comes that Rep. McKinney has a legitimate gripe about mistreatment or racism no right-minded person will believe her.

McKinney's elitist attitude is indicative of the overall air of superiority commonly promoted by liberals. She's too special to be stopped. She's too important not to be recognized. She's too busy to be inconvenienced in such a manner. She's so grand, in her mind, that everyone knows her on sight; it must be racism that she was subjected to such abuse. Hogwash!<