Johnson's lack of foresight can galvanize Charlotte's charitable spirit: A billionaire NBA owner is losing money and it's your fault. Now you can help. (664)

California court assaults education, parental rights and freedom: Government schools become indoctrination centers when "loyalty to the state" is their prime purpose. (634)

Since Bernard Madoff's $50 billion investment fraud was exposed Ponzi scheme has become the word of the day. No, better make that the word of the month. That's fine; for it certainly fits. Madoff indeed orchestrated the classic Ponzi scheme.

Charles Ponzi, an Italian immigrant, made famous the scam that bears his name 89 years ago. Ponzi promised his investors huge returns. He then used subsequent investor's money to pay the small number of people who withdrew their earnings. Most investors continued in Ponzi's swindle because the profits appeared substantial.

Madoff's con is analogous. He was able to show his clients a substantial return, on paper, even during down markets. It follows that investors--elated by flourishing balance statements--recommended Madoff to their friends and business associates. Funds then became available to pay the few clients who cashed-out. The rest gleefully coasted on Madoff's reputation and the façade of his performance.

Everything was fine at Madoff Securities until the sub-prime meltdown sent clients scurrying toward hard cash instead of paper profits. Madoff couldn't pay and his fraud was exposed.

Observers now blame Bernard Madoff for perpetrating the biggest Ponzi scheme in history. But he can't claim that title just yet, not as long as the federal government is in the retirement business. Let's remember that a Ponzi scheme is a rob-Peter-to-pay-Paul proposition. Today's inflow is used to pay yesterday's investors. It sounds quite like Social Security.

According to the Heritage Foundation, Social Security is a complex and incomprehensible bureaucratic maze. There is no “lock box,” no actual funds squirreled away to pay future benefits. Instead, Social Security's balance sheets are chock full of IOUs from a federal government that's mortgaged to the hilt. If that prospect fills you with confidence you should take a step back toward reality.

Everyone knows--though few will admit--that no personal or business entity can perpetually attain more debits than credits and expect to remain solvent. With 77 million baby boomers beginning to retire, that is Social Security's future. Since today's benefits are being paid with today's payroll taxes and the current excess is used for other government spending . . . well, you get the picture.

We've been told that no one envisioned Bernard Madoff's collapse. That's not true; financial experts and traders voiced concern about Madoff's activities as early as 2001, to scant attention. The same red flags are waving for Social Security and we continue on in blissful ignorance.

Estimates of the Social Security gap vary. But economists, think tank researchers and the Treasury Department place it somewhere between $13.9 trillion and $44 trillion. Social Security outlays will exceed income as early as 2018 and the program will be completely broke in less than 40 years, and those grim numbers may be optimistic.

At least Madoff admitted his fraud. Government leaders deny or ignore Social Security's looming problems. They're perfectly willing to use today's payroll taxes to pay for yesterday's commitments. It is a Ponzi scheme, only worse. No one was forced to invest with Madoff. However, you have no choice but to participate in Social Security and no input about when you call in your returns. Your employer or pensioner would be arrested for such a plan, as was Bernard Madoff.

Social Security has become at best a welfare program. At worst, it is an egregious example of robbing Peter to pay Paul, and it dwarfs Bernard Madoff. Maybe it's time Charles Ponzi got a break when it comes to describing fraud and deception. Roosevelt scheme, now there's a descriptive term.

Opening an old wound is never a pleasant task. Yet it is often the only way to reveal the infection that lies beneath. For Democrats, that wound is the 2000 Florida presidential election.

George Bush stole the presidency that year, if you'll recall, which means he stole it in 2004 also. Bush won by a razor-thin margin on Election Day and in each subsequent recount. But that wasn't enough to placate the Gore team or the conspiracy theorists.

Al Gore's campaign concluded that incomplete ballots were actually votes for Al Gore. Instantly, hanging chads became a household term. Democrats claimed the right to determine a voter's intent and that any ballot properly-even if mistakenly-marked for Pat Buchanan was really meant for Gore.

Democrats called for an endless stream of recounts and came up short each time. Party operatives piously demanded that every vote count, then worked overtime to ensure that absentee ballots from military personnel serving overseas be disallowed. Finally, considering all that had occurred Democrats managed the nerve to charge fraud and disenfranchisement.

The 2000 election was an odd circumstance wherein the popular vote loser won the Electoral College. But George Bush was-for better or worse-elected and inaugurated according to Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution. While Democrat activists publicly cried fraud it was they who were attempting to subvert the process.

It didn't work then, but the Democrats learned from their mistakes. Their keep-counting-until-the-numbers-are-favorable strategy placed their candidate in the Washington Governor's mansion in 2004.

Republican Dino Rossi defeated Democrat Christine Gregoire in the initial vote and the subsequent recount. But twice wasn't the charm for Rossi. The Democrats paid for a hand recount, which would eventually include previously rejected ballots from a heavily Democratic county. Guess what! Gregoire came out on top. Once the Democrat took the lead the vote was certified and Gregoire became Governor. Votes were counted until the Democrat held the advantage then everything was just fine. It's exactly what the Gore campaign tried to do in Florida.

A similar scenario is unfolding in Minnesota's Senate race, only far worse. Republican Norm Coleman led Democrat Al Franken by 725 votes on election night. Before a recount could even commence Coleman's lead had dwindled to just 221, with nearly all of the “new” votes coming from heavily Democratic precincts. And that's just the beginning.

A Franken campaign worker has served as a nonpartisan recount volunteer. Franken has claimed votes where the voter was too stupid to properly mark their ballot. Sounds a lot like Palm Beach County in 2000, doesn't it? He's approached the Democrat-led Senate for help in gaining the seat and demanded the admission of ballots that were improperly handled and transported, and thus open to manipulation.

In count after count the caustic and loopy Franken has come up short even while insisting that he's ahead. Finally, when Sen. Coleman called for a temporary halt to the recount insanity--proposed so procedures could be properly outlined and observed--the Franken camp played the disenfranchisement card.

These aren't America's first experiences with unusual elections. The Kennedy-Nixon election is still dogged by tampering allegations. Candidates who lost the popular vote have won the presidency four times. Twice, when no candidate won an Electoral College majority, the House of Representatives chose the president. Such occurrences were once considered peculiar. But it seems that peculiarity is fast becoming the norm.

If either major party has tainted electoral politics it is the Democrats. The only close elections they deem legitimate are the ones that they win, and how they win is inconsequential. A Republican lead in a close election is fraudulent, flawed and disenfranchising.

During a bleak period in the American Revolution Thomas Paine wrote of a time that tried men's souls. Today's problems are mild by comparison and may not try our souls, but politicians should certainly test our patience.

Senate Leader Harry Reid thinks we stink, literally. When the Capital Visitors Center opened Reid said congressional representatives would no longer be subjected to the visiting taxpayer's gaminess. Ignoring pleas for silence Reid continued, “You could literally smell the tourists coming into the Capital.”

Senator, a humid Washington afternoon may not leave us peons smelling like roses. But any odor we bring into the Capital Building is nothing compared to the stench you and your henchmen send out.

This pomposity extends to the auto bailout hearings. “Congress is trying to save Detroit,” Sen. Reid proclaimed. Actually, Congress is trying to sink its claws deeper into the auto industry. If this “bailout” becomes reality, the federal government will take part ownership of the Big Three and an active role in their management. It's quasi-nationalization; the mortgage crisis revisited.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi--during an incoherent rambling that proves Haight Ashbury was a genuine event--said everyone involved with the auto industry's shortcomings should be “getting a haircut” from her congressional “barbershop.” Everyone, that is, except Pelosi's Congress, which will continue to squander trillions of dollars each year. Congress can't manage its own business. Why should we believe it can build cars?

Ford lost $2.7 billion and General Motors $38.7 billion in 2007. In 2008's third quarter alone Ford dropped $129 million, GM $2.5 billion and Chrysler $3 billion. That's $47 billion, enough to make millionaires out of 47,000 Americans. But it's nothing compared to the federal government's $161 billion deficit in 2007, its $458 billion deficit in 2008, or its projected $1 trillion deficit next year.

If that's not enough, try Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich on for size. It's his duty to appoint Barak Obama's Senate replacement. But does that duty include a right to sell a Senate seat? Blagojevich's expletive-laced tirades promised to do just that, even up to appointing himself Illinois' Senator if his price wasn't met.

It's easy to dismiss the Reid/Pelosi/Blagojevich episodes as stupid, ignorant, or crazy. Some pundits are, in fact, questioning Blagojevich's sanity. However, a far better explanation for their attitudes and actions is plain old arrogance.

These three politicians are exemplary of today's political crass, and no, that's not a typo. Government leaders are crass beyond belief, considering themselves superior to both the law and us fools, whom they contemptuously rule. At least Blagojevich was arrested. Reid, Pelosi, and like-minded hucksters remain free to create more mischief.

They'll continue to amass trillions of dollars in additional debt while condemning private industry for fiscal failures produced in large part by Congress' inane mandates and nightmarish regulations.

Proper government exists to secure our individual liberty, not to meet our individual need. Proper government doesn't exercise power over us; it derives just power through our consent. Government is failing these rightful functions. So, how do we stop this nonsense? Thomas Jefferson gave us one option.

Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence, “Whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, . . .”

It's not time for a second American Revolution just yet. We can abolish old and institute new government with each election cycle. However, if we don't stop buying pigs in pokes during the later option, Jefferson's alternative may be the only one we have left.

I'm a firm believer in free market capitalism. Therefore I see nothing sinister about businesses seeking profits or running after Thanksgiving sales for that purpose. It's the attitudes of bargain hunting shoppers that I could do without.

Not that there's anything wrong with consumer's seeking a good deal. Finding the best value for one's money--a little give and take on price--is a characteristic of capitalism, and capitalism is the economic system that has aided the unparalleled blessings America enjoys. However, the opportunity to take 50-percent off the going rate on Chia Pets, Clappers and other must-have gifts is no excuse to act like animals.

Many shoppers unleashed those base animalistic traits on Black Friday, traits that are better left repressed. It was they, not the “greedy” merchants, who best personified Ebenezer Scrooge's holiday spirit.

“When the doors opened, all hell broke loose,” a Long Island police spokesman told the New York Post, describing the scene at a Wal-Mart store where some 2000 shoppers rushed the door. By the time order was restored four people required hospitalization and a 34-year-old employee was dead. How's that for Christmas spirit?

The only difference between the scene in New York and a buffalo stampede on the Western Frontier is that the victim in this case was stomped into the concrete floor of a modern shopping center rather than Wyoming's prairie sod.

At another retailer customers scuffled, fought, bit and clawed over the Xbox 360. When the popular video gaming systems hit the floor shoppers reacted like a pride of lions scrapping over the last bite of a wildebeest. It was a disgraceful display, and thoroughly sickening. If this is the Sprit of Christmas Present, what does it portend for the Spirit of Christmas Future?

Yes, I'm aware that scuffles between shoppers aren't exactly uncharted waters. There are examples of this boorish behavior each and every Thanksgiving Friday, and today's uncertain economic prospects surely lit shopper's already short fuses. Furthermore, shoppers who behaved graciously--or at least controlled their emotions--far outnumbered those who should be caged. So, we've been down this path before and human decency is not necessarily extinct.

However, although violently selfish consumers were the minority, their actions weave a sad tale of a glorious season sacrificed to egotistical materialism. As for me, I'll pay a few dollars more for my gifts, avoid the Black Friday hassles and adopt the Spirit of Christmas Past. The sight of our fellow man behaving like rabid wolves should prompt an epiphany in each of us, reacquainting us with the reason Christmas is a holiday.

We don't celebrate because retailers see their red books and they want to paint them black. It's not an excuse to get gassed at the company party and paw the receptionist. Christmas isn't about buying the perfect gift for your third cousin twice removed, nor is it cause to brag to friends about how much stuff Santa left under your tree.

Christmas has a purpose that far exceeds personal gratification and corporate balance sheets, a meaning the Spirit of Christmas Past recognized and celebrated. It represents a significance the shopping mall lunacy of Christmas Present has either rejected or never understood. “For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.” All else is at best seasonal trimmings, at worst an obfuscation.

Perhaps if we placed greater focus on He whose birth Christmas celebrates, as did previous generations, there would be “on earth peace, good will toward men.” Maybe we could reform the Spirit of Christmas Present, and in the process ensure that the Spirit of Christmas Future bears a greater resemblance to the Spirit of Christmas Past.

Don't be ashamed if the name Igor Panarin isn't familiar. He's a Russian professor and political analyst at the Diplomatic Academy Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Moscow. Frankly, there's no reason to be familiar with Prof. Panarin, save one. For the last ten years he's been predicting the United State's decline.

Now, when Prof. Panarin predicts demise he doesn't mean a mere recession or depression. He means total demise, a collapse so thorough that it will make the Confederacy's secession seem like national unity. He says the US will splinter into six new and distinct nations.

It's easy to dismiss the worst of Panarin's dire predictions as a propaganda campaign intended to sow seeds of self-doubt in the American psyche. He lives in Russia, a nation that is becoming increasingly assertive at home and abroad. Witness the recent naval exercises off Venezuela's cost and the Georgian conflict. Plus, it's easy to think that America cannot fail, as did the Soviet Union.

But as incredible as Panarin's assertions may sound, don't dismiss him as a crackpot relic of the Cold War era just yet. The reasons he gives for America's disintegration aren't that far off base. In fact, they're undeniably true.

Panarin argues that “the dollar is not secured by anything.” That's difficult to dispute. The dollar's value is no longer tied to a tangible asset, such as gold or silver. Instead, its stated value is backed by the full faith and credit of the United States government. Ask yourself what that's worth these days? To accentuate the point let's look at another of Panarin's indictments.

“Foreign debt has grown like an avalanche . . .” says Panarin, who points out that the United States was virtually debt-free 30 years ago. Our national debt is now approaching $11 trillion dollars, and Congress is adding more to that total each day. In fact, we're now projecting a single year budget deficit of over $1 trillion next year alone.

If that's not bad enough, the very Congress that amassed such incomprehensible liabilities is criticizing private business for unsound management and fiscal irresponsibility. Talk about arrogance! Keep that in mind the next time your representative opens his or her mouth.

Talk of fiscal disarray brings up Panarin's next condemnation, banking problems. Panarin says that our largest and oldest banks are either bankrupt or teetering on the brink. In truth, several noted financial giants have disappeared. Seen anything of Bear Stearns or Lehman Brothers lately? Wachovia can no longer stand on its own and Citibank is wobbling like Otis Campbell coming through the door of Mayberry's courthouse.

The banks aren't alone. Other troubled industries are lining up, hat in hand, to beg Congress for subsidies. Now for the most obvious of questions. How can a government that's so deep in the hole guarantee another entity's financial solvency? It's a senseless proposition.

I doubt that Igor Panarin's grim prediction of America's disintegration is imminent. However, just because a conclusion seems outrageous doesn't mean that the underlying facts are invalid. Congress has based decades of fiscal policy on the rob Peter to pay Paul principle. On that subject Panarin is absolutely correct.

Congress has disregarded its duty to manage our currency and the public treasury responsibly. Businesses and citizens are sacrificing economic and personal liberty to the government's false promise of security. It's not a pattern that can continue ad infinitum.

At present the collapse of the Great American Experiment isn't as certain as Prof. Panarin suggests. There remains much good about America, more good than any other country on earth. But we'll continue ignoring his underlying accusations to our peril. Ultimately our apathy could prove Igor Panarin a prophet of Biblical accuracy.

Occasionally there's a story that seems to prove the theories of natural selection and the survival of the fittest. Basically, these ideas hold that weak, inflexible, or unintelligent species must adapt or disappear. When it comes to humans we have many examples of the latter trait, yet we're still here. Perhaps in our case, thinning the herd is a more fitting theoretical explanation.

This thought came to me after reading a story about a panda attacking a student. The student was bitten on the arms and legs after crawling into the panda exhibit at a China zoo. He had hoped to hug the animal.

My first mental image was of a young boy who had snuck away from his grade school field trip, enticed by the panda's endearing appearance. Anyone with a heart for humanity sympathizes for the child who receives so harsh a lesson in reality.

But when I discovered that the victim wasn't a child but a 20-year-old college student I realized that incredulity, not sympathy, was the proper response. "Yang Yang was so cute and I just wanted to cuddle him. I didn't expect he would attack," explained the victim.

Hey Einstein, pandas are kept behind fences for a reason. They are bears, wild bears, and fairly big bears at that. Pandas grow as large as the American Black Bear. They stand up to three feet tall on all fours and measure six feet long, weighing up to 250 pounds in the wild. They have exceptionally developed jaw muscles and large teeth.

The point is that panda bear exhibits aren't petting zoos and pandas aren't the cuddly puppy found under the tree on Christmas Day. They are large, strong, dangerous and wild animals, even in a controlled environment. I can understand a child lacking such forethought. But shouldn't an adult have better sense?

This isn't the first instance of the loveable panda attacking the foolish idiot who ventured into their pens. It happened at a Beijing zoo in 2006 and again in 2007, once while the bear was eating. Now, jumping in a cage with a feeding bear, there's a Rhodes Scholar for you.

Believe it or not, there's a worse example of such lunacy than occurred with the pandas. I recall a story in the American Hunter magazine a few years ago. A group of hunters were in grizzly country when they encountered a small party of novice wildlife photographers. When the hunters informed them that they were in bear country and inquired about their being armed against confrontation, the response was negative.

The photographers said if they encountered a grizzly the bear would feel the love they had for it and wouldn't attack. After a few sideways glances the hunters thought it a good idea to follow these neophytes on their trek. Good thing, for sure enough they were cornered by a big grizzly who apparently wasn't feeling the love.

These instances are shining examples of how mankind has lost touch with reality. We see wild animals on television, the Internet, or in magazines and judge them to be the cute, snuggly fuzz balls they appear to be. We don't seem to comprehend that wild animals are, well, wild.

Dangerous animals are generally bigger, stronger and quicker than man, with sharper claws and teeth. When cornered or provoked they instinctively respond aggressively, not rationally. It's hard to sympathize with adults who can't make that connection.

Whenever I read about people who are so oblivious to the obvious it makes me think that a dose of natural selection, a little thinning of the herd, would markedly improve mankind's future.

Various states of victimization are quickly compartmentalizing humanity. Frivolous litigation, judicial activists plucking rights from thin air and increased categories of protected disabilities are transforming sheltered classes into a majority while the numbers of those charged with accommodating their demands dwindles.

This transformation of formerly able individuals into a world of sufferers begs an obvious but unasked question. When everyone becomes a victim, who will be left to bear the blame?

Canada's Supreme Court, airline industry and obese travelers provide the latest example of this phenomenon. Canada's highest court has declared obesity a disability against which airlines routinely discriminate. To rectify that sin the airlines must provide additional seats to obese fliers, cost-free of course.

"This is going to make a huge difference for those people," said David Baker, the oppressed traveler's lawyer. "They are going to be able to travel now. . . .”

Of course, overweight Canadians could travel before this ruling came down. It's just that they had to pay for the space they needed. How can that be discriminatory? Under the new judicial arrangement large people get two seats for the price of one. Thin passengers, who pay full price for one seat, will now subsidize the obese passenger's ticket price. That's discriminatory.

This ruling will, however, make a huge difference for the airlines. A judicial ruling has effectively confiscated their property, meaning seats. What would happen if overweight passengers, who receive two seats for the price of one, booked half the seats on a particular flight. The airline would be forced to grant a de facto 50-percent discount on the entire departure. Would they not then be deprived of the revenue the aircraft was purchased to generate?

For example, claustrophobics can't tolerate cramped quarters. If you've ever flown commercial you know that the oft-cramped seating arrangements bode poor for the don't-fence-me-in flier. Isn't it then reasonable for claustrophobic passengers to demand the seats on either side of them, as well as the one directly in front, at no additional charge?

We can take this in the opposite direction, too. Airlines consider an aircraft's space and weight capacity when determining fares. Thin or petite passengers require less of both than do passengers of average or greater size. Thus the cost to transport them is lower. Since anorexia is as much a disability as obesity, shouldn't thin customers receive their passage at half fare?

Airlines argue that accommodating obese passengers as the court demands is costly. Estimates, on the other hand, indicate the cost is but a small percentage of an airline's annual passenger revenue. But arguing cost misses the point entirely. Canadian airlines hadn't denied the obese access to flight. They simply charged them for the space their transport required. Nothing could be more reasonable.

“An obese person's weight problem isn't their fault,” you argue. Maybe so, at least in certain cases. But it's not the airline's fault in any case. We return to the question of why an airline should bear the cost of a heavy person's problem. Even when obesity is the product of a medical condition, and not a moral one, it remains the individual's problem.

Little good can come from holding the party of the second part accountable for the party of the first part's situation. We simply continue a societal slide in which class-action lawsuits and victimhood perpetually expand. It appears it will continue until we've exhausted our supply of litigable scapegoats.

Bipartisan. What a magical word! Political elites evoke bipartisan and its various forms ad nauseam. We've been told that bipartisan cooperation, bipartisan legislation and bipartisan effort are essential to “the good of the country.”

To hear pundits gush over bipartisanship you'd think it alone holds the key to realizing world peace, eliminating world hunger, curing disease and ending teen pregnancy. But what does this magic bullet of a word really mean?

Bipartisan is a combination of the Old Latin word “bi” meaning two or twice, and “partisan” meaning to take part with another supporter. Partisan dates to the 16th Century and was first tied to politics around the mid-1800s. Bipartisan arrived on the scene in the early 20th Century and describes an act that includes members of two parties or factions.

Now that the campaigning is over and the election is complete, at least in large part, will we walk the yellow brick road of bipartisanship in the 111th Congress? If you expect such a “smile on your brother” approach you're living in the Land of Oz already. What will pass for “bipartisan” politics will depend on which politicians, parties, or factions can most easily be labeled as obstructionists.

When we consider partisan organizations or political action committees it's likely that the powerful National Rifle Association will come to mind. We've become conditioned to believe that such conservative groups are the natural extension of the Republican Party and, therefore, incapable of thought or action beyond the party line. Let's see if that perception can survive examination.

The NRA endorsed 101 North Carolina candidates for state and federal legislative office. Republicans received 69 of those endorsements. Democrats gained 32. The Concerned Women of America, another conservative group, endorsed six candidates for North Carolina's U.S. House delegation. Five of those six were Republicans.

The National Organization of Women, a leftist group if ever there was one, made 42 endorsements for North Carolina's state and federal offices. Would you believe that 39 of those candidates were Democrats, and the three exceptions were judges who ran against Republicans? Furthermore, a little research indicated a left-of-center ideology for each of those “unaffiliated” judicial aspirants.

Planned Parenthood displayed an equally “bipartisan” approach to rating candidates. Every Republican in North Carolina's congressional delegation received a 0-percent rating. The only representatives to receive a positive rating from Planned Parenthood voted their way 100-percent of the time. Talk about partisan and narrow-minded.

Planned Parenthood is one of the most hardcore organizations the left-wing has to offer, and is solidly aligned with the Democratic Party. How can allies of such a “my way or the highway” organization criticize anyone for being uncompromising?

Unions fare no better at bipartisan cooperation. A partial list of AFL-CIO and UAW endorsements in North and South Carolina promoted 64 candidates. You'd have a better chance of discovering a parallel universe than of finding a Republican who received the union's backing.

Since labor unions, abortion providers and feminists gave their support exclusively to Democrat candidates the NRA is looking more and more like the bipartisan model the experts would have us emulate.

Based on the facts in evidence, the earlier definition of bipartisan is antiquated. Bipartisan no longer means finding common ground where possible. In today's climate, it means leftists get what they want when they want it, and conservatives abandon core principles to help it happen.

I, for one, am sick of hearing partisan leftists charge partisan politics on the increasingly rare instances that Republicans promote conservatism. Leftist politicians and organizations are the most fiercely partisan groups on the American political landscape. It's time we stopped allowing them to pretend that they aren't.

Bipartisanship is now hailed as a great virtue while standing for one's principles is demagogued ad nauseam. Thus I've sought an area on which all Americans can agree: slavery is a vile and rapacious institution. I'm confident that no living American thinks it proper to enslave their fellow man.

Slavery describes a condition where one person is forced to produce for another's benefit. The slave is thus deprived of the fruits of their time, effort, skill and labor while a separate individual or group benefits from the slave's work, which has been stolen.

Most Americans think slavery ended with the Emancipation Proclamation. But slavery still exists, and not only in the metaphorical sense. We often deem drug addicts or alcoholics the slave of their vice. Or we may consider adult actresses enslaved to the porn industry. While these are less than preferable situations, such people made conscious choices that produced their circumstances. Their “servitude” is voluntary.

Yet true slavery remains, wherein people are forcibly taken and sold into various states of bondage. In fact, slave trafficking remains acceptable--if not entirely legal--in parts of Asia and sub-Saharan Africa. What's truly surprising is that a form of slavery still exists in the United States.

Have you heard the term “wealth redistribution” tossed about lately? It has been practiced in this country for years. Wealth redistribution means that one person's production is confiscated and given to someone else, who then benefits from the producer's skill, labor and time. Remember that definition of slavery?

Advocates of the welfare state--most notably politicians--employ flowery phrases and glowing words to portray such redistribution as charity. But charity doesn't exist in an involuntary act, and the fact remains that one person's time, work, and production is forcibly taken for another's benefit. The producer has become servant to the recipient just as surely as if they were bound and shackled.

It's quite possible that we'll see this practice expand into other areas over the next few years, and in a more sinister form. You may recall Sen. Tony Rand's “community service” bill introduced in the North Carolina Senate earlier this year. If passed, it would've forced college students to mentor teenagers in order to receive their degree. It's an idea based on forced servitude and it could go nationwide.

“Community service” has found a sympathetic ear with President-elect Obama. The Obama administration's transition website (change.gov) features an abundance of such programs. Some of them, if restricted to a volunteer basis, are innocuous or even constructive. But in regard to school children “Obama and Biden will set a goal that all middle and high school students do 50 hours of community service a year.”

There's plenty wrong with it. Community service is a sentence given to convicts whose crimes aren't serious enough for prison. Now we're going to consider this a virtuous pursuit, so much so that we'll allow our children to become slaves of the State?

Let that sink in for a minute. Your children and mine will become servants of the State. Their talent, time and effort can be commandeered for a purpose the State has deemed the greater good. That's a frightening proposition.

The 13th Amendment prohibits slavery and involuntary servitude within any jurisdiction of the placecountry-regionUnited States. Yet the productivity of one American is routinely seized for the benefit of another. Now we may see our children become physically enslaved within the school system so the State's misguided definition of charity can be served. For children raised under the false notion that such servitude is virtuous, a lifetime of enslavement is the predictable outcome.

Basic human rights are being trampled, our Constitution is disregarded and a form of slavery remains alive and well in 21st Century America. It just comes wrapped in a pretty package.

Following a loss, a good football coach will study his team's failure. Faulty game planning and player mistakes are discovered, analyzed and corrected before the next game. Whining and blaming officials only compounds the problem, solving nothing. Barak Obama will become president in two months and Republicans should follow that coaching formula.

Were there some “blown calls” in this election; were there some irregularities? Sure. There were cases of fraud and intimidation, and there was ACORN's phony voter registration. But none of that is new. Chicago didn't get its ballot-stuffing reputation by accident.

Barak Obama won a clear electoral majority. He is constitutionally elected and that is reality. Republicans can sit in the corner, whine, pout, suck our thumbs and complain about socialism. Or, we can plan for the next election. We can assess our failures and chart a course that offers voters a clear alternative in the future.

Make no mistake; Obama is a socialist. His promises, his plans and his past associations scream it from the mountaintops. But you're in denial if you think socialism isn't already a part of America's economy. Socialism has been creeping into our markets since FDR, if not earlier. Therefore, claiming that Obama will usher in socialism is an empty argument. He'll expand it to be sure, but he can't start what has already begun.

Americans do not embrace socialism. We don't accept the notion that the fruits of the industrious should fill the needs of the lethargic. So, why didn't the socialist charge stick to Obama? Look at what's happening around us.

How can we expect voters to accept that Obama is a dangerous socialist when a Republican administration is buying insurance companies, bank stock and mortgage loans, deciding if faltering businesses should survive or fail, and fielding a candidate who is promising more of the same? With such an inexplicable and illogical argument it's a wonder we received any votes at all.

We know Barak Obama has played the class envy card. We know he plans to redistribute wealth. We know taxes will someday increase under his administration despite promises to the contrary. We know Obama and a Democratic congress will silence critics and stifle opposition whenever possible. This isn't new. Democrats have governed this way throughout my lifetime. To expect anything different is nonsensical and unrealistic.

Given a choice between a cup of hot, robust coffee and cold, watered-down coffee, the hot cup wins hands down. The reason Republicans are now losing, whereas we were winning a short time ago, is because we've abandoned our core principles.

I've agreed with President Bush on many points, far more than I agree with President-elect Obama. But the current brand of compassionate conservatism has transformed Republicans into Democrats light. Once in power our party grew government, created bureaucracy, spent exponentially and shunned the reforms that led to our victories.

The GOP became that cold, weak cup of coffee. We offered voters a slower descent into the socialism that Democrats have pursued for nearly a century, and we were rightly poured down the drain. It should serve as a wake-up call.

Republicans are successful when we maintain conservative principles. Ronald Reagan wasn't afraid to be conservative, no matter the criticism he faced. In two elections he won 93 of 102 states (D.C. included) and 1014 of a possible 1076 electoral votes. The 1994 Republican Revolution was born in conservatism. Smaller government, lower taxes, individual liberty and responsibility drove that movement. Voters embraced those messages enthusiastically.

Conservative issues are winning issues. Offering a lukewarm version of Democratic policies is a loser, and rightfully so. The time for change in the Republican Party has indeed arrived. It's time to return to our conservative roots. Time's a wasting. I say we begin right now.

“The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun,” wrote the teacher in Ecclesiastes 1:9.

Those words do not render invention and innovation unachievable. However, the forces that drive them--necessity, convenience, and discovery--are repetitive. They are the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. In other words, although products and designs may be unique, mankind operates in circles.

Last summer's gasoline crisis is a prime example of the teacher's wisdom. Politicians and pundits billed the situation as uncharted waters, even though we had sailed those waters previously.

Remember the 1973 Arab oil embargo? Crude prices rose exponentially, which naturally meant rising gasoline prices. Soon the gas-guzzling muscle car gave way to the Vega, Pinto, and Japanese import.

The situation last summer bore a striking resemblance to the mid-70s. High fuel prices meant auto dealers faced difficulty selling today's SUVs and three-quarter ton pickups, just as they did the muscle cars back then.

As fuel prices escalated consumers were inundated with advice for saving fuel. Experts warned us to tune our engines and to change our oil and fuel filters. We were told to keep our tires properly inflated. The more this advice was offered the more it was treated as if it were unique in human history. But, in keeping with the teacher's point, none of it was new.

We hear the same things every time gasoline takes an extra bite out of the family budget. And once again, when prices began to decline public outrage waned and the demand for domestic oil production and refining capacity dissipated like steam.

Nothing we experienced last summer was extraordinary. The next surge in fuel prices won't be exceptional either. If you're thinking we've learned our lesson and will take steps to avoid the full brunt of the next oil supply disruption, you're fooling yourself. History will repeat yet again. Prices will rise, consumers will gripe, politicians will pander, and there will be nothing new under the sun.

What we can and should do is expand our oil producing and refining capability. The additional product will keep supply in line with demand, thus maintaining price at a level the market can accept and support. Relaxing unwarranted government regulations will make oil production attractive, even at the current low crude price. But oil is only part of the solution.

Environmentalists often accuse conservatives of being hostile toward new fuel sources. This, too, is nothing new. It's also untrue. However, conservatives do believe in unfettered markets, which are more conducive to invention than contrived markets. This naturally extends to “alternative” fuels, too.

Removing obstacles to business development will, in due time, lead to new energy sources that are both efficient and affordable. Such moves could even result in a replacement for the internal combustion engine. Remember, convenience and economy can drive invention just as readily as need, perhaps even more.

Automobiles didn't replace the horse and buggy because there was a shortage of horses and buggies. The auto was more efficient and convenient. Furthermore, it didn't require a government mandate to find its place in the market, for market demand is more powerful than government fiat.

Fuel prices are now declining; for how long is anyone's guess. With that decline the demand for increased oil production is waning. We are, therefore, ensuring a future repeat of last summer's price spikes. The teacher's wisdom will be proven yet again.

The teacher's writing speaks not to products and inventions but to the habits and attitudes of man. The situations we face we will face again, and the things we do we will do again. We are an obstinate breed.

It seems that the entire nation is abuzz over Sen. Elizabeth Dole's “godless” ad. The ad states that senatorial challenger Kay Hagen attended a fundraising event hosted by a prominent member of the Godless Americans Political Action Committee. The fact is, Kay Hagan did attend the meeting and received campaign contributions from the group, either directly or indirectly. The Dole ad is based in fact.

The problem is the way the advertisement ended. A shrill, unidentified female voice closes the commercial with the declaration, “There is no God.” That voice doesn't belong to Kay Hagan's mouth. But you just know the Dole camp won't be disappointed if voters conclude that it does.

The North Carolina Senate campaign has been one of nastiest in the nation and the “godless” ad is where the fuse meets the powder keg. Pundits have jumped on Sen. Elizabeth Dole and critics of “dirty politics” have descended on her campaign with the fervor of vultures on carrion. Hagan has even filed a defamation suit against Dole. However, she should be careful who she accuses of stretching the truth.

While the ending of the Dole ad is somewhat misleading--and perhaps a bit trashy--the gist of the claim is true. The same can't be said for a claim in the latest ad from the Hagan camp.

Kay Hagan's most recent campaign advertisement claims that she received a “B” rating from the National Rifle Association and that she's committed to the Second Amendment. The same claim and position is repeated on her website. But the rating is, shall we say, inaccurate.

Candidate ratings were published in the November issue of the NRA's American Hunter magazine and Kay Hagan received nowhere near a “B” rating. In fact, the NRA Political Victory Fund gave Hagan an “F”, the lowest grade available.

According to the magazine, Hagan spoke at a Million Mom March in North Carolina in 2000 and worked to restrict gun show operators. The NRA also says that Kay Hagan supports reinstating the infamous and widely discredited Clinton Gun Ban, which took many semi-automatic rifles and high capacity magazines (holding more than ten rounds) off the market.

Her claim of a “B” rating could be a simple mistake drawn from a past rating she received from the NRA while a state Senator, or even before taking state office. In a gesture of fairness to Hagan I contacted the NRA. Their representative thoroughly disputed Hagan's claim, promising to pass her disinformation to the organization's state lobbyists.

According to Angus McClellan of the NRA Institute for Legislative Action, Hagan never received better than a “D” rating, which identifies a solidly anti-Second Amendment legislative agenda. Mrs. Hagan's campaign has been caught, shall we say, stretching the truth.

Hagan's political associations, even the embarrassing ones, are fair game. The same goes for Elizabeth Dole's alliances. However, Dole has every right to expose the campaign contribution Hagan received from the Godless Americans PAC. Her greatest sin was including an easily misconstrued comment at the advertisement's end. Other than that, the Dole camp can stand behind the ad, for it's based in reality.

The Hagan camp, on the other hand, has been caught in a lie. Her husband may indeed teach hunter safety courses and her family may have a long heritage of hunting. But the Second Amendment isn't about hunting. The NRA has identified Hagan as hostile toward the God-given and time-honored right to bear arms, and they have said as much in their political ratings.

There are many ways to define an expert. The technical definition is someone with advanced understanding of a subject or mastery of a specific discipline. But we may want to add another, such as being unafraid to be publicly wrong on a grand scale. Let's look at some examples.

Summer oil prices surged to a record $147 per barrel and gasoline exceeded $4 a gallon. Experts warned that crude would top $200 and gasoline would reach $6 or higher. In fact, experts predicted crude would remain well above $100 per barrel until at least 2011.

Rising crude costs also produced dire forecasts for home heating oil prices. In early September experts predicted heating oil bills nearly 20-percent higher than last winter. Precisely the opposite is happening on all accounts.

Crude has dropped 57-percent from last summer's high and the average gas price dipped from $4.10 in July to $2.65 on October 27. The near-certain $200 barrel of oil now costs less than $70. Heating oil and propane are in decline, too, according to the Energy Information Administration's October 22nd report. The experts couldn't have been more wrong.

For the last several years we've been inundated with talk of the economic recession. But by definition a recession has yet to occur. At least that seems to be the case. Economic experts don't agree on what, exactly, characterizes a recession.

Is it two consecutive quarters of negative GDP, the commonly held definition? Is a recession determined by several months of significant economic decline, as the National Bureau of Economic Research declares? Perhaps it's a growth rate of less than 2-percent, even though growth--however slight--means the economy is expanding, not contracting.

Regardless of the experts, one thing is certain. If Americans continue to believe that a recession is present or imminent we'll have one whether or not conditions warrant. The same goes for the depression that other experts are forecasting.

Health experts don't get a free pass, either. Numerous health risks have been attributed to coffee and caffeine. Among them are stomach problems, irregular heartbeats and bone deterioration. A 1981 study published in the New England Journal of Medicine blamed coffee for half of America's pancreatic cancer cases. However, by 2000 not even a casual link between coffee and cancer was accepted.

Coffee is now credited with reducing the risk of Type 2 diabetes, colon cancer, gallstones, Parkinson's, and asthma. That's not a bad resume for a beverage that experts had equated with drinking arsenic only a quarter century ago.

Remember when tumors in laboratory rats made saccharine the carcinogen du jour? We later learned that the rats had consumed saccharine at a rate equal to a human drinking 800 diet sodas daily, about 1.8 per minute. At that rate a human would need to worry more about drowning than cancer. In 1981 saccharine was a listed carcinogen, according to experts. Today it carries no warning label at all.

Experts were even more wrong about Alar. Politicians, media pundits, and other know-it-alls declared Alar a horrific carcinogen responsible for poisoning children. Demagoguery silenced opposing views and a mass panic ensued. Apple crops were destroyed and the industry lost millions. A mere three years later Surgeon General C. Everett Koop said, “Alar never did pose a health hazard.”

Election Day 2004 exit polling showed John Kerry leading most battleground states. “Expert” political analysis had him all but inaugurated. When the votes were actually tabulated Bush won re-election and Kerry was back in the Senate. Are you beginning to get the picture?

Not all expert assessment should be summarily dismissed. Everyone can use instruction from more learned sources. But “expert” opinion should cause us to reconsider cynicism, accepting it as more virtue than vice. Considering the track record of expert opinion, skepticism may be the greatest wisdom of all.

I'm sympathetic toward Joe the Plumber. Yes, he's receiving his 15 minutes of fame and has become a household name. But the fact is that he's just a regular guy with dreams and faults who's been tarred and feathered by a media and a political party that claims to protect the “working man.”

Joe Wurzelbacher has received a first-rate inquisition. We now know that he isn't a licensed plumber--lacking an official government document from some 10-cent bureaucrat--nor is he a member of a plumber's union.

We've also learned that Joe is behind on his property taxes and doesn't yet own the plumbing business where he works. Furthermore, he has yet to transcend that magical $250,000 income threshold that would qualify him for membership in the “greedy rich” club.

Reporters have dredged up more on Joe Wurzelbacher than anyone wanted to know. Worse still, they aren't alone. Left-wing bloggers--smelling chum in the water--took a bite, too.

Democratic Underground members painted Wurzelbacher as a gullible stooge and an ignorant, pathetic liar. Each insult was carefully hidden behind the glorious anonymity of a pseudonym that masked the identity of brilliant pundit. One post even accused Wurzelbacher of operating a meth lab from his plumber's van.

Despite the blogger's vitriol, it is our dutiful media that's been most thorough in assailing Joe's character and credibility. However, they forgot one minor detail; Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher isn't running for president.

Wurzelbacher is a private individual with miniscule influence on public policy. He's one man with one vote, that's all. His transgression lies not in his present words or past deeds. His fault was the embarrassing and revealing response he elicited from the media's chosen one, Barak Obama.

In responding to Joe's concern about taxation Obama said, “I think that when we spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody.” Let's see, it seems I've heard a similar line somewhere else. Oh yes; Karl Marx, “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” There is a similarity.

Isn't it odd that the media has gone to such great lengths to vet a plumber who will be forgotten in six months, but pays scant attention at best to Obama's checkered associations?

If the “mainstream media” took the role of liberty's guardian seriously, reporters would be more aggressive in determining Obama's relationship to Bill Ayers, who is a socialist revolutionary and sixties radical. Instead, Obama's minimal explanation was accepted at face value and the Ayers relationship was treated as a non-story. The same is true for his association with ACORN and for a pending lawsuit filed by a Pennsylvania Democrat that questions his constitutional qualifications for the presidency.

The media could've investigated the glowing endorsement Obama received from Joelle Fishman, who thinks Obama will move America in a better direction. So, who is Joelle Fishman? Oh, she just helped draft the platform for the Communist Party USA (CPUSA), that's all. She also chairs the CPUSA PAC and the Connecticut Communist Party.

The Fishman and Ayers connections don't necessarily mean Obama is a pink-o commie of the old Soviet order. But they do indicate that he'll accelerate America's slog toward socialism into a headlong run.

There's also the deafening silence surrounding Sen. Joe Biden's latest foot-in-mouth episode. The Delaware Senator promised that Obama will be tested within six months of taking office. “Watch,” said Biden, “we're going to have an international crisis . . . to test the mettle of this guy.” This wasn't the opinion of Rush Limbaugh but of Obama's running mate, and the national press barely took notice.

It seems that the Fourth Estate would perform a more useful function if it pursued questions about a man who wants to be our president rather than a man who wants to unclog our drains.

Can there truly be free exchange-and therefore free markets-when coercive tactics compel the involved parties to behave in a certain manner? There can. At least that's the opinion of media pundits and assorted experts who defend the role Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Community Reinvestment Act played in the mortgage meltdown.

This is so typical of “Big Media.” National outlets, in general, have deteriorated into little more than an American version of Pravda or TASS, parroting the State's message at every opportunity. Capitalism is derided and the State is praised, especially when pursuing the ambiguous notion of social justice.

At issue in this case is predatory lending, which is lamented as yet another example of the rich getting richer on the backs of the poor. Funny thing, no one bothers to explain how such a scenario is possible. Before we accept the premise of predatory lending and capitalist greed let's ask a few questions.

Would a bank loan money if it had no expectation of repayment? Why, then, would a bank extend mortgages to borrowers who obviously couldn't satisfy the obligation? No lender worthy of their fiduciary responsibilities would make such a loan in a truly free market. Thus there must be an entity to remove the risky loan from the lender's hand. Enter the government sponsored enterprise, or GSE.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac-both old organizations-filled that need. Those entities purchased the sub-prime mortgages, bundled them, and sold the packages to other financial institutions. With the risk removed for the originating institutions, writing sub-prime loans became a profitable endeavor. Had the GSE's not removed that risk the bad loans likely wouldn't have been made, borrowers wouldn't be saddled with foreclosure and ruined credit ratings, and the mortgage industry might not be upside-down.

This was done in the name of affordable housing, one of the social justices that drive liberalism. In fact, it is part of Fannie Mae's mission statement. But affordable housing has become a red herring. There's no bargain in an activity that leaves the alleged beneficiary high and dry, all for the purpose of allowing government bean-counters to pat each other on the back.

While Fannie and Freddie supporters were praising the organizations for achieving housing goals, the GSE's continued to buy, bundle and sell bad debt. The mortgage industry morphed into the classic pyramid scheme. As long as you were in on the front side everything was fine. But, as is true of all pyramid scams, someone was eventually left holding the bag. In this case, it appears to be the taxpayer.

Certainly there's plenty of blame to go around. Banks that ignored the fiduciary responsibility owed to depositors and stockholders can and should be held accountable. However, blaming free market capitalism for failures spawned by government manipulation is short-sighted and foolish.

Now the same government that laid the foundation for the mortgage crisis is charging to the rescue, waving its hammer and sickle. Government is proposing to buy bad debt, pay off mortgages and buy stock in banks. The Wall Street Journal called the latter move, “designed to destigmatize government investment.” That should send a chill down everyone's spine.

Whether or not government bears sole responsibility for this conflagration is debatable. But it did usurp free market lending practices for the purposes of social engineering. Government lit this fire and left the gas can sitting beside the flames. The same government that thwarted market capitalism in the mortgage industry is now managing the crisis, and leading us down a Marxist path. I'm not much for conspiracies, but it's almost as if it were planned from the outset.

Everyone likes to think they possess at least nominal intelligence. We like to think we're too smart to fall for a scam or allow a con artist to take advantage of us. None of us wants to be someone else's sucker.

Thus far I've managed to avoid some of the more common scams. I haven't provided personal information to the endless stream of international lottery prize notifications that inundate my inbox. I've also avoided hundreds of attempts to deposit $20 million into my bank account, all of them made by some benevolent South African billionaire who has nothing better to do with his money than give it to a stranger in a foreign country.

Also to my credit I've resisted all invitations to buy tractor-trailer loads of Viagra from unknown Canadian pharmacies at the bargain basement price of ten cents a pill. However, despite my wary and reluctant nature I must admit that I'm a sucker. Before you finish this column you might have to acknowledge club membership, too.

Financial institutions--goaded by government bean-counters--threw money into bad loans to unqualified borrowers in risky areas. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac purchased and traded those loans by the billions of dollars. The money flowed like wine, until the bubble burst.

Homebuyers, too, contributed to the problem. Buyers purchased on the basis of the monthly payment. Terms and conditions were disregarded, as was the fact that an adjustable rate mortgage would, well, adjust. Consumers loaded credit cards with gratuitous debt, desperately pursuing unaffordable luxuries. When the piper demands payment, consumers and lenders look to government for a bailout. Others simply walk away from their obligations.

I go to work each day, God willing. I pay my mortgage, utilities, and other required expenditures, mostly on time. I insisted on a fixed-rate mortgage and I avoid unaffordable purchases. When my money loses buying power, I cut back. I don't lobby government to make my problems go away. That makes me a sucker.

Homes are constructed where hurricanes, earthquakes, and wildfires are common. Entire cities are built on flood plains, below sea level, and in areas prone to mudslides. When the predictable becomes reality, government aids reconstruction in the same hazardous areas that made the structures vulnerable to begin with. Furthermore, government regulates insurance underwriting, thereby ensuring that rates do not adequately reflect the perils inherent to risky locations.

I avoided such perils to the greatest extent possible. Therefore, if I suffer loss it won't be an exploitable story. Politicians will pay me no mind, for my miseries won't deliver the vote on Election Day. I'll rebuild, God willing, the best way I can.

In Chicago, a 23-year-old single mother of two draws $312 a month in food stamps. There's no mention of a husband, father, job, or responsible behavior of any kind, only that the allotment is insufficient. What would you bet that this woman lives in public housing, draws other government welfare subsidies, and rides on public transportation?

My family spends a comparable amount per month on groceries. We also pay school cafeteria bills while half the student population eats free or reduced lunches. We both have jobs, and we don't ride to work on public transportation. And no, we're certainly not among the “greedy rich.” We're suckers. S-U-C-K-E-R-S, suckers!

Don't get the wrong impression. I thank God for my family's blessings, and I don't want people miserable and destitute. But it seems that a lack of accountability and foresight are praised and rewarded more and more, largely through government programs paid for by Americans who try to plan ahead and live responsibly. It leaves me feeling like a grade-A sucker. I'll bet I'm not the club's sole member.

A man enters a brain store and scans the inventory. There are engineer, doctor, and corporate executive brains available for purchase. Prices range from three to five dollars an ounce. Then he notices that lawyer brains sell for $1000 an ounce.

I know a few lawyers and have met several others. They are intelligent, honorable, dedicated and capable practitioners. Of course, there will always be the ambulance chaser, and the defense attorney who gains acquittal for a serial killer because the key witness can't remember which shoe he tied first on the morning of the crime. However, the law profession's chief black eye at the moment is John Edwards.

It's bad enough that Edwards made a political career of politicizing poverty. It's bad enough that he condemned everyone who opposed his plans as thoughtless and uncaring. It's bad enough that he rebuked everyone else's greed while driving home to his gated, palatial estate near Chapel Hill, NC.

It's bad enough that Edwards amassed a fortune “defending the little guy,” who actually received next to nothing in the class action settlements. Now he's gone a step farther, proving himself to be an opportunist, a liar, a philanderer, a chauvinist, and an all-around selfish pig.

When Elizabeth Edwards was diagnosed with cancer John played the “stand by your woman” hand for all it was worth. He increased his political popularity and gained a boost in public opinion polls, all based on his devotion to his ailing wife. Edwards used his wife's illness to boost his political ambitions. He played the supportive husband publicly while privately he was . . . well, what suckers we were.

Edwards' word is worthless. As allegations of marital infidelity began to surface Edwards vehemently denied the rumors, even when he was caught leaving a hotel where the alleged mistress happened to be staying. Then, when obfuscation proved futile he reluctantly admitted what he'd previously denied, proving that honesty will not hinder John Edwards' attempts to save face.

Mr. Edwards is the worst kind of philanderer. Adultery's bad enough, but cheating on a wife who's battling terminal cancer is repugnant. What kind of selfish egomaniac must he be to place more emphasis on satisfying his lusts than on his wife's declining health, especially considering his place in the public eye? Yet he will lecture the country about the immorality of his “two Americas.”

To make matters worse, he claimed the affair meant nothing because he didn't love the mistress, Rielle Hunter. What a sexist! His indiscretions told his wife that both she and the vows he made to her are meaningless. They told his mistress that she's a piece of disposable flesh to be used for his pleasure. Isn't this what feminists decry in a man? Where is their outrage?

No one is perfect; that I know. But when a person's ambitions are based on contrasting everyone's greed and irresponsibility with their own purity, that person better keep their nose clean. John Edwards has joined noted lawyer/philanders Ted Kennedy and Bill Clinton, rooting around in the bottom of the barrel.

Lawyers--for right or wrong--are the subject of abuse. They are the butt of jokes and the target of scorn. Trial lawyers especially are considered unsightly, opportunistic parasites. Some of the derision is undeserved; some is due to the individual lawyer's arrogance and condescension.

A few weeks ago I wrote a column analyzing the Supreme Court's decision in the District of Columbia vs. Heller and the political rhetoric that followed. Essentially, the Court's ruling affirmed what most Americans already know: the Second Amendment acknowledges an individual right to bear arms. It was a welcome ruling.

However, my optimism was tempered by the Court's 5-4 majority, which alerted me to the fragility of our freedom. D.C.'s city council has wasted little time in proving my concerns well-founded.

In a press release dated July 14th, Councilmember Phil Mendelson said, “I wish we were not forced to lift our ban on handguns in the District. . . .” To validate that point he expressed his willingness to work with Washington's Mayor, Attorney General, and Police Chief to draft more gun control legislation.

Councilman Marion Barry condemned the Heller decision, too. His press release stressed his desire for “strict policy” and “zero tolerance,” and bemoaned the “theft of legal guns.” Each point is crafted to provide the Councilman with a tough on crime façade. Those words may strike a lofty tone, but they are utterly meaningless.

Mr. Barry went so far as to declare that a person's ability to defend their home “sends the wrong message to criminals.” Such a statement would be astonishing if it weren't coming from a politician's mouth. Would Mr. Barry prefer for the District's decent people to put out a welcome mat for Washington's notorious criminal element?

Here's a news flash for Councilman Barry. D.C.'s gun ban never worked as advertised. Washington has consistently produced one of the nation's highest homicide rates. All Councilman Barry has “zero tolerance” for is liberty, the Constitution and common sense.

Not to be outdone, Councilmember Kwame Brown added his two cents. While expressing respect for the Court's authority with one side of his mouth, he promised to do everything in his power to circumvent its decision with the other. His press release showed disdain for his constituent's ability to defend life and property while praising trendy, but nonsensical, gun elimination schemes.

Predictably, the attitudes of the tyrants controlling Washington, D.C.'s local affairs produced the city's latest assault on liberty, the Firearms Control Emergency Amendment Act of 2008.

True, the bill does require the District to issue weapons permits. But it also demands registration and ballistic identification of legal handguns. No doubt criminals will rush to their local police station to comply. It also stipulates that firearms be unloaded and locked away unless there's a “reasonably perceived threat of immediate harm,” a measure Heller specifically declared unconstitutional.

Should we conclude that the Council's idea of self-defense is for a homeowner to call timeout during a burglary? The intruder--undoubtedly an honorable but misunderstood sort--will surely wait patiently while the homeowner unlocks and loads their legal weapon, at which time the burglary can continue and the imminent threat can be addressed accordingly. That is the definition of self-defense that D.C.'s “common sense” gun law would have us accept.

For all practical purposes the D.C. City Council has told the Supreme Court to take a flying leap. Although Justice Scalia's decision clearly identified an individual right in the Second Amendment--a right that is inherent in humanity, not a benevolent gift from government--D.C.'s politburo will continue to make it difficult for lawful residents to exercise that right. Of course, street gangs, dope dealers, and assorted other thugs can persist in using weapons the same way they've used them for the last thirty years.

Yet, somehow, activists will hail the council's efforts as “sensible” gun control. That should tell us all we need to know about the tyrannical mind, and how governments become unmanageable, unresponsive, and hostile toward individual liberty.

It's a pitiful thing, seeing children suffer. That's especially true when you see them suffering on a playground, which is supposed to be a happy place. Yet that's what has happened in New York City.

The padded mats beneath playground equipment, installed to prevent injuries when children fall, get very hot in the summer sun. Barefoot children are being burned when their feet touch the mats. In turn, angry parents are blaming the New York Parks Commission for not posting warning signs so playground visitors will know that sunlight heats outdoor material.

You just have to wonder if warning signs will, or even can, make a difference. Kids likely to use playgrounds either can't or won't read the signs, no matter where they're posted. And if a parent is too dense to realize that playground equipment gets hot in the sun, it's probable that they can't read the signs either.

A park commissioner offered a simple solution. Parents should make their kids wear shoes on the playground. However, parents say it's not that simple. But what part of that suggestion is complicated? Kids either wear their shoes or their parents take them home. If they give their parents lip, they get their tails dusted. What's so problematic about the commissioner's suggestion?

Obviously, the complaining parents can't be expected to ensure their children's well-being. In modern society, that sort of thing has become someone else's responsibility. So, whoever that someone may be must be held accountable, and the best way to do that is to sue. Heaven knows we've become a litigious society. But who should be sued? That's the $64 question.

The obvious target is the New York City Parks Commission. That department chose and installed the offensive padding. Shouldn't they have realized that black absorbs more heat than lighter colors? You may counter that parents, too, should realize that black padding is likely to be hot, and that parents should take appropriate action to protect their kids. If so, you're missing the point. No fault or blame can rest on the parents. Therefore it must lie elsewhere.

But how can they sue the parks commission? It is an arm of government; and government is our protector, our benefactor. Government is our friend and provider. Yet blame must be placed and personal responsibility must be shifted. To where, or toward whom, remains the quandary.

I have it! It's the playground equipment manufacturer that must bear this cross. Placing profits above people is all too common for such evil, greedy, corporate entities. We all know that businesses exist for the sole purpose of harming the innocent. Why think that this company is different?

I'll bet that the equipment maker purposely designed this product to inflict severe harm and pain upon innocent children. The business owners undoubtedly wanted the offspring of these trusting parents to fry like bacon on a hot skillet. Thus they intentionally chose the material that would absorb the most heat and transfer it to a child's unprotected skin. Then they laughed all the way to the bank.

Yes sir, there's the culprit. That company should be sued. It should be sued because parents are too stupid to check the temperature of a surface that has been baking in 90-degree heat prior to allowing their kids access to the playground equipment. It should be sued because it's too much trouble for parents to make kids wear shoes.

The fact that these parents would accuse the playground equipment company of negligence if there were no padding, and would sue if their child were hurt on an unpadded playground, doesn't enter the equation at all. This company must bear the responsibility for protecting children because it's become too much of a burden for parents to do so.

The minimum wage has increased and we can expect politicians to play it for every vote it can yield. However, the entire concept of a minimum wage isn't such a great idea. In fact, it has detrimental effects that far outweigh its slight increase in buying power.

Economists argue that an artificial wage floor actually harms the people it's supposed to benefit. Younger workers, who are generally inexperienced and untrained, become less attractive to employers. The same can be said for older workers who, due to a lack of skills or education, become unattractive to employers when wages increase artificially.

This doesn't prevent proponents from crowing about how people deserve a “living wage.” But the funny thing is that they never bother to define the term. Does $6.55 an hour, the new federal minimum, constitute a “living wage?” Can the head of a household provide food, shelter and clothing for a family on $262.00 per week? If not, shouldn't the federal minimum wage be $10 an hour, or $15 an hour, or even $20 an hour?

Why stop at providing a “living wage?” Why not make the lives of such workers extend beyond simply making a living? Why not provide them with some luxury, too? If $6.55 an hour is a minimum wage--and $10, $15, or $20 an hour is a “living wage”--then $30, $40, or $50 an hour would surely provide the worker with a living plus some gratifying perks.

Proposing such changes in the wage law will prompt even the staunchest minimum wage advocates (except, perhaps, for Sen. Obama) to declare it unworkable. This raises an obvious but pertinent question: if an artificial wage is detrimental at the higher rates, why is it praiseworthy at the current rate? What's more, it highlights the inherent problems with having Congress regulate earnings, especially when it has no constitutional authority to do so.

The fact is that each of us would like to make more money. Another fact is that most people believe that everyone else earns too much while they earn too little. A third fact--and one most people find difficult to accept--is that we make exactly what we're worth at the moment.

Here's a shocking piece of news; wages aren't determined by how hard someone works or by what a third party arbitrarily decides the worker should receive. Wages are determined by a worker's efficiency and productivity. Workers are compensated according to their value to their employers or clients.

For example, suppose a man is a master with a shovel and can dig a ditch to perfection. What's more, this man works extremely hard. He's a real go-getter, digging more ditch in a day than a man can reasonably be expected to dig. He works hard and he's good at what he does.

There's another man who digs ditches, too. In fact, he digs them nearly as well as the first man. However, he uses a backhoe instead of a shovel, enabling him to dig five ditches before the man with the shovel can finish one. Which man will make more money? If you said the man with the backhoe, take a gold star.

He doesn't work any harder than the first man, and his ditches are of comparable quality. But his efficiency allows him to provide more value, in the form of a higher number of quality ditches, to his fellow man. His compensation is a direct reflection of his greater contribution.

This relationship between contribution to society and return of wages is lost on minimum wage (i.e. wage control) advocates. Also lost is the idea that earning a higher wage should rest on a person's ability and motivation to provide greater value to others, not an ability to influence congressional representatives.

A wise person will avoid certain subjects, with race being at the top of the list. But since the “n-word” reared its head on a recent airing of ABC's The View--spurred by Jesse Jackson's use no less--I just couldn't let it pass without tossing in my two cents.

According to The View's black co-hosts, Whoopi Goldberg and Sherri Shepherd, the “n-word” should never be used by a white person to address a black person. Alright, fair enough; I can certainly appreciate that position. All but the most virulent white supremacist will avoid such usage like they would the Bubonic Plague. However, Goldberg and Shepherd contend that a black person can direct the slur toward another black person and all's well. Shepherd even said, “I can use it as a term of endearment.”

That seems more than a little odd. How can a word with over 200 years of negative history be considered endearing? If the “n-word” can have dual meanings, and as such dual usage, shouldn't the user's intent, not their race, determine the level of offence? Yet a white person can't even identify the word without the risk of being branded a racist.

The “n-word” has in fact transcended offense to become perhaps the most politically-charged word in the English language. Even using a similar sounding word--such as niggardly, which means to act in a miserly or stingy manner--can destroy a person's career and tarnish their reputation. Now we're taught that the “n-word” is fine for blacks to use, but it's unutterable for whites even when there's obviously no racial implication attached. That's not logical.

During the televised exchange Whoopi promised to explain this seeming contradiction. She went on to say next to nothing, which is about par for Whoopi. Yet she did offer one nugget of useful wisdom. She said the “n-word” has meaning only when it's allowed to have meaning. Let's look at it.

There will always be people who will disparage others to boost their own sense of importance. Invariably, the disparaging person is quickly revealed to be the greater fool. However, if the target allows the fool the satisfaction of offending, then the target has granted the fool an undeserved legitimacy. Perhaps it reveals a weak constitution on the part of the target, or a low sense of self worth. Why else would someone grant defining authority to a fool's opinion?

It's ironic that the “n-word” is now accepted within the black race. A term so steeped in slavery, Jim Crow and government enforced segregation must be derogatory even when used by one black person toward another. This raises an interesting point.

If blacks insist on referring to each other with defamatory language, how can they claim outrage if other races relate to them according to the terms they have defined? When blacks refer to other blacks as “niggers”, they squander the respect and credibility that previous generations suffered to achieve. It's like a group of young women openly calling each other “slut” and “whore,” then becoming gravely offended when young men treat them that way.

Does this mean that I believe other races are free to label blacks with the slurs and epithets of yesteryear, the ones they've now adopted? Certainly not, and blacks are free to call each other whatever names they choose. But when blacks so degrade each other while claiming that “black hole” and “devil's food cake” are racist terms--as two black county commissioners from Dallas, Texas recently did--it becomes difficult to take genuine racial problems seriously.

No person, regardless of race, can expect others to grant them greater respect than they will grant to themselves. If blacks expect macro-society to move past the “n-word”, it should become unacceptable in their micro-society as well.

There's very little on which the left and right can agree. If they agreed, there be no left or right. Those in the middle--the oft-praised moderates--believe that both the left and right are both right and wrong. In short, they're noncommittal.

Perhaps no other international issue highlights these divisions like Iran's nuclear program. The debate turned hotter still with Iran's announced missile test. Iranian TV broadcast the launch, which included a missile capable of reaching U.S. forces in Iraq and Bahrain as well as the hated, evil, Zionist dogs in Israel. Such a test is provocative without Iran's typical rhetoric. Then, right on cue, the rhetoric flowed, too.

Iran has vowed reprisals should the U.S. or Israel attack their nuclear facilities. Iranian General Hossein Salami said, “Our hands are always on the trigger and our missiles are ready for launch.” Those are forceful words, General. But may I remind you that we have missiles, too? Furthermore, ours work. Maybe that knowledge can help our nations avoid conflict.

It turns out that Iran's missile test contained more hot air than a desert wind. Despite the initial worldwide alarm, it appears that Iran launched no new missile capable of striking Israel or our Middle East bases. The video itself was doctored to conceal the failure of at least one missile, with even Al Jazeera reporting the fraud.

What now? If Iran's grandstanding reflected a genuine capability it would fuel the argument for military action. But, since their eye-opening claims appear to be a snooze-inducing lie, is Iran no longer a threat? Hardly.

The doctored images could've been a poorly executed bluff intended to make the world think Iran possesses advanced missile technology. It's also possible that Iran wanted the fakery exposed. What better smokescreen for a developing nuclear weapons program than public failure? But conspiracy theories aside, Iran's hostile intentions have long been clear.

President Ahmadinejad has openly called for a world without Israel and the United States. What's more, he believes that goal is achievable. Last year Iran seized 15 British sailors in international waters. This year, Iranian boats threatened U.S. warships in the Persian Gulf. Their open antagonism dates to the Iran Hostage Crisis in 1979. Not a threat? How can we logically consider Iran otherwise?

So, should we go to war? The timing couldn't be worse. Activists were so successful in demonizing the Iraq War that it's hard to envision support for attacking Iran. America's attention span simply won't focus on another war front. We're too concerned with gas prices, economic uncertainty, and “bad news” from Iraq. Any operation would be deemed a failure unless it revealed an Iranian countryside littered with nuclear missiles.

For the leftist doves, we simply leave Iran's nuclear program alone and hold unilateral talks with their radical leaders. But, those private talks will adopt a hawkish attitude.

We let Iran know that they are responsible for any electron, neutron, or proton that we find offensive. As little as one split atom for the glory of Allah will result in Iran's total, unrestrained and indiscriminate annihilation, no excuses accepted.

The left is happy. Iran's been left to their own devices and we've established dialogue with an adversary. And if Iran or an affiliate nukes an American city, leftists can consider it just compensation for our past imperialist aggressions.

The right is happy, too. If the predictable becomes reality, we fulfill our promise and we're rid of this backward nation of rug weavers. Even Iran is happy. With modern civilization obliterated the surviving Ayatollahs and Imams can blissfully live in the Seventh Century, which they seem to prefer.

A lot of time goes into writing these columns. Research is required, and each source commands documentation. A filing system is necessary for retrieving sources as needed. These things are imperative. Unless I can substantiate my positions they have lost whatever influence they may have.

Research is certainly rewarding, and can be interesting. There's nothing quite like discovering a study or statistic that validates what common logic has long held to be true. Still, the constant review of websites, newspapers, wire services and media archives borders on the mundane. But piling through judicial decisions, with their cited precedents and legalese, is the worst of all. I'd just as soon cut my lawn with a pair of tweezers.

However, perseverance being beneficial, the tedium of research has granted me a bit of knowledge and insight. Mostly, I've become more cognizant of my ignorance. As the lyrics from an old rock song state, “And if I claim to be a wise man, it surely means that I don't know.”

Inevitably, I've asked questions to which I've found no answers. Some of them are serious; some are undeniably silly. Others may be funny, foolish, odd, or irrelevant. This is where you come in. Help me answer my questions. And don't fear being wrong; any answer you provide will beat what I've come up with. Here goes.

Why do people who think that foreign spies and illegal aliens are innocent until proven guilty see no problem with the IRS considering native-born Americans guilty until proven innocent?

Why does the phrase “state-run television” conjure images of gulags and propaganda ministers while “public broadcasting” sounds innocent, non-threatening and pure?

Are people who celebrate diversity really celebrating diversity? Or, has the term become cover for people who obscure fact, logic, common sense, and tradition with vapid, emotional rhetoric?

Why shouldn't I take the American Federation of Government Employees' endorsement of Barak Obama to indicate that Obama plans to grow government exponentially?

How can anti-poverty activists justify the forced redistribution of wealth on the basis that we should do unto others as we would have them do unto us?

How can government demand that private malfeasances (such as football's “spy gate” and baseball's steroids scandal) be investigated by outside sources, yet retain the right to investigate itself on all internal matters?

If Democrat Hillary Clinton figures out a way to steal the Democratic presidential nomination from Democrat Barak Obama at the Democratic Convention in heavily Democratic Denver, how will it be President Bush's fault?

What article of the Constitution authorizes Congress to determine which Americans constitute “the rich” and what their “fair share” ought to be?

If slavery is the engine that drove America's economic prosperity, why was the Confederacy poorer than the Union? Furthermore, why did wealth increase dramatically during the 20th Century, long after slavery was abolished?

Why do people who distrust President Bush's government seem willing to trust that same government to manage their retirement, healthcare, medicine, food, housing, job, fuel, etc., if the administration has a “D” beside its name instead of an “R”?

Why is it that a man who notices an attractive woman in the presence of his wife lands in hot water? But, if the wife comments on the pretty woman and the husband simply agrees, he's in the clear?

Maybe you can shed light on a few of these dark areas. Maybe you're scratching your head, your confusion as profound as my own. But why not ponder these questions for a while? You could solve a riddle that has plagued mankind for years. And it's a better use of your time than watching American Idol, or the Gong Show for that matter.

With the news of Jesse Helms passing came the predictable, made-for-the-media commentaries. Political allies and adversaries spoke glowingly of the former Senator, even the ones who disliked both Helms and his conservative philosophy. It seemed odd to hear liberals publicly praising Helms' legacy, so I decided to look where liberals would air their views uncensored.

Ever hear of Democratic Underground? It's a website dedicated to liberal discussion, liberal ideas, and liberal politicians. In fact, posting conservative content on the site can result in your account being suspended. How's that for the free exchange of ideas that we hear liberals crow about? As you may expect, members of Democratic Underground had some interesting takes on Sen. Helms and his death.

“Mad_Dem_X” wrote, “One should only speak good of the dead. He's dead. Good!” “Badgervan” chimed in, “Damn, I've hated this cretin for many decades. Hope he's enjoying face time with his boss, Lucifer.” “Dankira” posted, “Hopefully his death was slow and painful. . . We are all much richer for having lost him.” These are but a few of the heartfelt eulogies marking Helms' passing at Democratic Underground.

Publicly, Helms' most strident adversaries chose to speak politely of his passing. But considering his passion for frankness and straight answers he may have preferred the toxic reactions of his far left “mourners”. Especially if the stories are true that Helms faithfully collected virulent anti-Helms editorial cartoons and displayed them prominently on his office wall.

That thick skin endeared Helms to his constituents. No matter your opinion of him or his politics, you knew he would stand firm for his beliefs. He never wavered and he didn't compromise his principles. If you didn't want to know what Jesse thought of an issue you were better off not asking.

Jesse Helms was a consummate conservative, tirelessly fighting against high taxes, bureaucracy, and overbearing regulators. Although he was a part of the federal government for 30 years, he always maintained that people could better manage their affairs than could a Washington agency.

Long before the “no fear” attitude came into vogue, Helms had embraced it with gusto. He didn't consider it his place to please the New York Times or the Washington Post. Making nice with Dan Rather wasn't high on his list either. Even when called a bigot, he abandoned neither his Christian beliefs nor his moral principles. And charges of racism didn't derail his opposition to affirmative action, which he rightly identified as the same government sanctioned discrimination aimed in a new direction.

Both allies and opponents could deal with Senator Helms. They knew what he thought, and they knew he wouldn't be swayed by trendy policies or avant-garde notions. Therefore, he commanded respect if not agreement. He wasn't perfect; no one is. But he gave the Senate guts, transparency, and candidness, qualities that are rare in that chamber these days.

“Just another conservative praising Helms,” you say. Not so fast. I agreed with Jesse Helms, and unashamedly so. But there are Democrats I respect too, for the same reasons I respect Helms. Daniel Patrick Moynihan is one. Joseph Lieberman is another. I don't agree with them. But, like Helms, I seldom had to guess about their positions.

Whether you loved or hated Helms, you always received the genuine article. His views weren't poll-driven, media-indulging, or focus-grouped. And they weren't tossed aside the morning after Election Day.

Jesse Helms was Jesse Helms 100-percent of the time. He tempered his forceful opinions with a genuine warmth and Southern politeness that is disappearing all too rapidly from our culture. Furthermore, you could always count on him giving you a clear choice on Election Day.

The Supreme Court has confirmed what a majority of Americans already knew; the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess firearms. The decision recognizes, in part, the Founding Father's vision.

“A well regulated militia” is the nail upon which gun control advocates hang their misguided agenda. But the Founder's considered the militia to include everyone, and everyone is an all-inclusive pronoun. George Mason defined the militia as “the whole people.” James Madison concurred. And Thomas Jefferson said, “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”

To enjoy freedom we must have a way to protect it. Armies and navies can fill that job against external threats. However, any military force--including our own, for which I have great respect--can be unleashed against the internal population. What then?

If we are to remain free there must exist some mechanism to resist enslavement and defend liberty. Hence the right of a free people to keep and bear arms in defense of self and freedom. Minus the means to forcibly resist tyranny, our liberty is--at best--an arbitrary privilege.

In the District of Columbia vs. Heller, the Supreme Court upheld the individual right to bear arms apart from active militia service. Justice Scalia's opinion recognized the Founder's fear of government and that private arms are the ultimate check against government abuses. However, the fact that the ruling was 5-4 and not 9-0 underscores the contemporary necessity of the right to bear arms and the perpetual threat government poses to liberty.

Justice Stevens wrote in dissent that the Second Amendment holds no interest in limiting government regulation of private arms. He added that the right to bear arms applies only to military service and the use of arms for military purposes. So, Justice Stevens would submit that a free people can possess arms to defend government against citizens but not citizens against government? Such an attitude is precisely why a free people must be armed.

Justice Breyer wrote that there's no constitutional right to keep and bear arms in your home, not even in “crime-ridden urban areas.” Therefore, Breyer would render you at the mercy of the violent predators that he and his judicial ilk routinely return to the streets.

D.C. politicians, from the current mayor and police chief to the crack-smoking former mayor Marion Berry, vowed to circumvent the ruling. District Attorney Peter Nickles promised to continue the city's trigger lock requirement in direct disregard for page 64 of Scalia's majority opinion, which holds that rendering firearms inoperable for immediate self-defense is unconstitutional.

FBI Director Robert Mueller said the ruling could turn colleges and towns into “potential incubators of terrorism.” Mr. Mueller, gun bans (including D.C.'s) have been in effect from the time of the Iran Hostage Crisis through 9/11 to today. How well, Mr. Mueller, have gun bans worked in preventing terrorism? Yet, if Americans retain their right to bear arms, they are the potential terrorists.

Such are the arguments of tyrants and the accepted creed of slaves. From Justice Breyer to D.C.'s political “leaders” to Robert Mueller, they are tyrants one and all. If you accept their positions you can readily see the category into which you fall.

Heller is a boon not just to the Second Amendment but to liberty itself. Yet its aftermath highlights the hostility toward freedom that exists throughout modern American culture, as well as the subservient nature common to many of our countrymen.

The reaction of opponents to Heller should forever prove why the Second Amendment's individual interpretation is essential to personal liberty. However, that jubilation should be marked with an asterisk. The slim majority ruling and its political aftermath proves that the fight for liberty, which began 233 years ago at Lexington and Concord, is far from over.

Happy Birthday, America! Someone need convey that wish, for it seems fewer and fewer people can spare the time. Maybe we've become ignorant of the Fourth of July's significance. Perhaps we're complacent, or simply too busy to care.

Most Americans will celebrate the Fourth of July in some way, be it a family cookout, a ballgame, or a vacation. But why bother celebrating the Fourth of July if you're only celebrating the Fourth of July?

There's a July 4th in Canada. England too, although it's significantly less meaningful than it should be here. In fact, there is a July 4th in any culture that follows the Gregorian calendar. The date itself is insignificant without an associated event.

Let's look at it this way. Do you give 25th of December presents to your family and friends? Do you gather at grandma's house for a turkey and dressing dinner in honor of November's fourth Thursday? Does our society--shaped by Christian history whether the ACLU likes it or not--celebrate the first Sunday following the first full moon of the vernal equinox?

Most of us quickly realize that we celebrate Christmas, Thanksgiving, and Easter, not the dates on which they fall. Doesn't July 4th deserve honor for what it represents? It's not just a date on the calendar and it's far more than a day off from work or an excuse for grilling burgers. The Fourth of July is Independence Day and it should be recognized as such.

It is the day when our Founding Fathers formally pledged to each other--and to a fledgling nation--their lives, fortunes and sacred honor. At the moment John Hancock applied his artistic signature to Thomas Jefferson's inspired Declaration of Independence the colonies became a sovereign nation, no longer subject to King George's crown.

More than 10,500 Americans were killed or wounded to preserve that sovereignty. All told, over 2.6 million of our countrymen have been killed or wounded to preserve American autonomy. To their memory we recognize Independence Day as if it were only a date on the calendar?

But perhaps there are reasons we no longer hold independence in the same esteem our forebears did. Daniel Webster once said that subsequent generations should celebrate Independence Day “with bonfires and illuminations.” That might also include celebratory gunfire.

However, many purported lovers of liberty within our government would ban the private ownership of firearms given half a chance, recent Supreme Court rulings notwithstanding. And how many governments have decided that fireworks--a form of illumination--are too dangerous to be used safely? Our paternalistic government guardians must fear that we'll put out an eye.

No doubt that unlimbering grandpa's old double-barreled shotgun or firing skyrockets in an urban environment isn't the best idea. But the point is that we've become far too complacent, subservient, and sheepish to celebrate our nation's birth for what it was and is--independence from outside rule.

We aren't celebrating the Fourth of July. That date came and went before our Founding Fathers made it special. Why not return to the spirit of Daniel Webster's oration if not the absolute letter?

Celebrate your sovereignty, America! Celebrate your republic. Celebrate your Independence Day. We are not bound to the United Nations or to a thus far unrealized North American Union. We are an emancipated people, fully capable of self-government. Let us not become Pavlov's dog, conditioned to quietly accept our destruction.

The Fourth of July is far more than a date on a calendar and a day off from work. It is our Independence Day, the day on which our Founders told the greatest empire on the face of the earth to take a hike.

If we cannot undertake to celebrate Independence Day for what it is, no wonder we're squeamish when called to defend the freedom and sovereignty it represents.

Every now and then there's a happy ending. This one began when Jodie Percival decided to abort her pregnancy. She feared that her child would inherit a potentially fatal, hereditary kidney disorder, and her fears were grounded in reality. She had experienced the death of one son due to the condition. A second son is living, but with only one kidney.

Why Jodie thought that ending the pregnancy was the compassionate option is anyone's guess. Either way the child would likely die. But a funny thing happened on the way to the bio-waste container. The abortion didn't take.

Jodie's son, Finley, was born premature and with minor kidney damage. Otherwise he's fine and expected to live a normal life. Jodie is now thrilled with her son and grateful that the abortion failed. Finley can't yet offer his assessment of the situation. But you have to assume the outcome pleases him, too.

The only people who are likely to be upset are Planned Parenthood staffers--and NARAL Pro-Choice America activists--who never seem to meet an abortion they don't think is necessary. Why should Jodie or Finley care what they think anyway?

No one can predict what the future holds for Finley. His kidneys could yet fail and he could die young. He may take the wrong path and spend his life in prison. Or, he could live a long and productive life, possibly becoming a national hero. We just don't know.

The point is that Finley will have those opportunities. He will get the chance to live, to make the decisions that will determine his worth. Far too many babies are deprived of that opportunity. They are deprived of the blessing of birth, all for the sake of their parent's convenience.

“Doesn't a woman have a choice in pregnancy?” you ask. She sure does, and she makes that choice when she decides to lie with a man. If she doesn't want to accept the responsibility that comes with sexual activity--i.e.: becoming pregnant--she should abstain. The least she can do is take preventative measures. But it's the mother and father who bear responsibility if those measures fail, not the predictable result of their union.

Please refrain from offering the tired, old “what about rape and incest” argument. If those crimes were the source behind every abortion performed legally in America there'd be about 10,000 abortions annually, not an estimated 1 million.

We have surpassed the 50 million mark in legal abortions since 1973, a dubious milestone at best. Although abortions are declining, it's too late for the lives already discarded. Have you ever wondered what the unseen consequences of 35 years of abortion on demand might be?

We bemoan the lack of cures for deadly cancers. What if the physician who would've found a remedy for one or more lethal cancers was aborted by his or her mother? What if the child who would've cured Lou Gehrig's Disease, AIDS, or the common cold was aborted?

Perhaps the scientist who could've developed a cheap, clean, renewable fuel source and the industrialist who would've invented the replacement for the internal combustion engine were discarded at an abortion clinic.

The leader who could've returned our nation to its constitutional roots may never have drawn a breath. He or she was just too inconvenient for the mother. The evangelist who was intended to lead the next Great Awakening may never have seen the light of day.

Can I prove any of these scenarios? Of course not. But abortion activists can't disprove them either. In a control group of 50 million-plus aborted babies we've undoubtedly missed out on some potentially world-changing lives.

One of the great protections Americans enjoy is the presumption of innocence. Our courts never declare a defendant “innocent” of an alleged crime. Being found “innocent” implies that guilt existed beforehand. Instead, an exonerated American is declared “not guilty”, a verdict which is consistent with innocence until guilt is proven.

This basic right of a free and respectful people protects individuals from wrongful, politically-motivated convictions. While railroading and wrongful conviction remains possible, assumed innocence provides a vital check against miscarriages of justice. What a shame it is that politically-driven pundits apply that assumption selectively.

In November, 2005, a roadside bomb killed Lance Corporal Miguel Terrazas, a Marine on patrol in Haditha, Iraq. The blast's aftermath left 24 Iraqis dead, most of the world wondering what had happened, and the American left criticizing the Marines like they were Nazi storm troopers.

In a 2006 letter to the Los Angeles Times, one reader said the Haditha Massacre represented our soldier's actions throughout the Iraq War and that our Marines had exacted vengeance “on the nearest defenseless Iraqis.” Another wrote that we have blood on our hands for justifying murder.

New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd used the incident to lament the lack of ethics, values and decency in our troops. Apparently, she fully believes that US Marines kill women and children for kicks, resurrecting the “baby-killer” label that was unfairly pinned on our Vietnam soldiers.

Marjorie Cohn--writing for truthout.org in May, 2006--summarily dismissed the Marine Corps' account of the Haditha firefight. Conversely, she readily accepted the idea that American troops are cold-blooded murderers while referring to our enemies as “resistance fighters.” She drew her conclusions based on unidentified sources, locals who may have been in league with the enemy, and conspiracy theories.

Each and every accusation was lodged before the investigation was complete or a trial had begun. It's a good thing the military courts have more respect for presumptive innocence. Had these “compassionate” leftists had their way, our Marines would've been convicted and punished two years ago, without benefit of trial.

Lt. Andrew Grayson was recently found not guilty on all charges related to Haditha. He is unique in being the first Marine tried in the case, but the sixth to be exonerated. How's that possible? It seems there was insufficient evidence to bring charges against the first five defendants.

Only squad leader Frank Wuterich awaits trial for direct involvement in the incident, and he's charged with manslaughter, not murder. He doesn't deny that civilians died at Haditha. In fact, no one has denied that civilians died at Haditha. But he maintains that his actions and orders were based on the situation as it existed. I'll bet he's exonerated, too.

Most of us will never experience those circumstances--thank God--and can't imagine what Sgt. Wuterich faced. That includes the agenda-driven media pundits who were so eager to pronounce our Marines guilty.

Military victories can be glamorous and heroic. But war itself is dirty and ugly at best. It's not unusual for civilians as well as soldiers to die. In fact, it is rather common. I'm confident that our Marines were fired upon in Haditha. I also realize that they could've erred and raided the wrong house, with catastrophic results. But left-wing pundits and activists couldn't get past their unfounded biases long enough to consider such possibilities.

From Maureen Dowd to Marjorie Cohn to the readers of the L.A. Times, leftists were unable to hide their disdain for our military. They rushed to condemn our troops without the benefit of trial, all the while defending the rights of captured terrorists. Along the way they trampled a basic tenet of American justice.

Wouldn't it be refreshing if leftist pundits would grant our soldiers the same presumption of innocence that they so readily bestow upon Islamic radicals?

Maybe it doesn't matter much now. The North Carolina primary is over. Hillary Clinton lost and has since dropped her presidential ambitions, at least for 2008. However, I was amazed when Gov. Mike Easley endorsed her candidacy.

Oh, I wasn't surprised that he endorsed a Democrat. Easley himself is a Democrat, a big government Democrat. And both Hillary and Obama are big government Democrats, as alike as two peas in a pod. So it's wasn't at all surprising that he endorsed one of the two. What was surprising, and a bit unnerving, was the reaction of the audience when he made the announcement.

They shouted. They screamed. They acted as if their favorite team had just won the Super Bowl, or like they were attending a Jeremiah Wright sermon at the Trinity Divided Church of Christ. They did everything but cut flips. It's sad to think that anyone's mind is so vapid, and their existence so inconsequential, that a rather predictable announcement can propel them into a frenzy.

As the prophet Hosea wrote, “But even if we had a king, what could he do for us? They make many promises, take false oaths and make agreements; . . .” Why trust your happiness to such hands?

My friend, no politician can make your life better through government programs. It doesn't matter if it's Barak Obama with his ambiguous hope and change, Hillary Clinton with her clearly defined class envy and socialism, or John McCain's maverick moderation. It can be Fred Thompson, or Mitt Romney, or Ron Paul, or Mike Gravel, or whoever. No one person can make your life better by sitting in the Oval Office.

The greatest president in this nation's history could occupy the White House for the next four years. That president could restore this republic to its constitutional principles. He or she, white or black, could rein in the bloated federal bureaucracy, cut every wasteful government program and eliminate each department or agency that is beyond Washington's constitutional authority. That president can open the floodgates of capitalism, creating an economy that grows exponentially. Yet, if you refuse to participate it will do you no good whatsoever.

One person, however, can harm your life from the Oval Office. If a president implements policies that drain the economy, increase government regulation, expand the scope of government and stoke the federal bureaucracy's insatiable appetite for taxation, that person can thwart your hard work. They can leave you in worse shape than before.

Isn't it time to realize that it's each individual American who makes this country work? It's not representatives in statehouses. It's not governors. It's not district representatives or Senators in Congress, nor is it the President. It's not bureaucrats implementing volume upon dusty volume of burdensome regulations that even they don't understand. It is not government!

You should realize that your efforts make this country thrive. Whether your collar is white or blue, professional or trade, you make America work. You make it wealthy. You drive America's gross domestic product and you need not feel threatened or intimidated by anyone who claims otherwise. And you're the one with the God-given ability to ensure constitutional government and unbridled prosperity for this nation.

You're not beholden to politicians. They are beholden to you, the voter. For without you they have no power; they have no authority. Therefore, to see emancipated Americans stand and shout at a political endorsement as if that candidate can single-handedly make their lives better is depressing.

If such attitudes represent the thought process that will determine the course of government we are diving headlong into an empty pool. There remains but one conclusion. No matter who wins the White House this November, no matter their party affiliation or who controls Congress, we will get exactly what we deserve.

A bad government program is one thing. We've seen enough bad government programs so that they've become old hat. But when a bad government program is sold on the basis of social betterment it should send up a red flag. Therefore, Sen. Tony Rand's S-2079--filed May 28th in the North Carolina Senate--should have North Carolinians waving red flags from Johnsonville to Knotts Island.

Rest assured that this immoral bill is filled with lofty platitudes and pretentious goals. Sen. Rand claims that his sanctimoniously-titled Eve Carson/Abhijit Mahato Community Service Program will grow the economy, lower crime, ease racial tensions and alleviate gang activity. This will all be accomplished when college students mentor at-risk teenagers for at least 20-hours per semester.

“What's wrong with that?” you ask. Plenty! In fact, there's so much wrong with it that it cannot be adequately addressed in this limited space. Even long-standing champions of social engineering--who think Sen. Rand's sentiment is laudable--questioned his approach to the problem. I say both the approach and sentiment are dubious.

Sen. Rand has displayed a total contempt for freedom, a lack of respect for people and a colossal ignorance of volunteerism. Worse yet, he acts under the assumption that you and I are too stupid to see his bill for what it is.

The proposal's text refers repeatedly to volunteerism. However, a volunteer gives freely. A volunteer may donate time, money, or property. But a voluntary act cannot be made under duress. Students will have no choice if Sen. Rand gets his way.

Section 1 of S-2079 reads, “Participation in this program shall be a requirement for any baccalaureate degree awarded after January 1, 2012.” If this bill becomes law no college student can receive their bachelor's degree without having passed through Rand's “community service program”. This is student volunteerism? A more apt definition is that they're being conscripted or shanghaied.

Sen. Rand considers college students--your sons and daughters--to be state property. He will force them to serve other people's needs regardless of their desire or qualifications to do so. And he'll withhold the degree they've earned, and that you or they have paid for, if they don't do his bidding. Worse yet, Sen. Rand doesn't even have the cover of war to legitimize his version of the draft.

Maybe it's time to remind Sen. Rand that the 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution abolished “involuntary servitude” within the United States. And make no mistake; this bill is the 21st Century descendant of 19th Century slavery.

Even the name is offensive. You remember Eve Carson and Abhijit Mahato as the UNC and Duke students who were murdered earlier this year. Their murders were perpetrated by the very demographic Sen. Rand would've forced them to serve. That's not to say that all “at-risk” teens are capable of killing their mentors. But it does prove that Sen. Rand has no qualms with forcing your kids to enter into a possibly dangerous situation against their will.

This legislation has no redeeming qualifications whatsoever. It assumes the false notion of compulsory volunteerism. A segment of society--college students--is deemed state property. It capitalizes on the emotional connection to the Carson and Mahato murders to create support. Worst of all, it grants government the authority to force one human being to serve another, against their will. If that is not slavery, and it meets the definition pretty well, it is at least tyranny.

The Eve Carson/Abhijit Mahato Community Service Program, while unlikely to become law, should never have seen the light of day to begin with. What's more, the bill's text indicates a legislator, Senator Tony Rand, who is so hostile toward freedom and self-government that he should be removed from office.

Life can be summarized as the continual pursuit of milestones. Some milestones lead toward greater accomplishment. Others are reached and soon forgotten. Without regard to their overall importance, milestones open new doors.

Your first accomplishments, or milestones, were walking and talking. These were reached at a young age and aren't likely remembered. You can, however, remember your first day of school. It was your first milestone moment, and it opened the door to more accomplishments in later years.

Sometime following your first day of school you brought home an “A” on your report card. You scored your first run, touchdown, or goal. You completed elementary school and became a teenager. Not long after came the first boy or girl who made you sweat more than an oral book report.

At some point during your childhood you began to anticipate your 16th birthday. Since birthdays are somewhat a milestone themselves, what made that one special? I'm betting that it wasn't high school algebra. When you turned 16 you were able to drive, and it was a time you'll never forget.

However, like every important moment since the first day of school, driving was more a rite of passage than a milestone. Nearly anyone can get a driver's license, and if you don't believe it just try driving in rush hour traffic. You took driver's education, passed your test, and you were on your way. There are far more important achievements.

For you, Graduate, a true milestone is at hand. The culmination of 12 years of classes, homework, book reports, club meetings and ball practices are here. Thousands of you will receive your high school diploma. This is more than a rite of passage. It is a monumental event that opens a new chapter in your life, drawing you to higher accomplishments.

It's true that your diploma doesn't guarantee your success. However, it does mark a significant transformation. As Paul wrote to the Corinthians, “When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man (or woman), I put childish ways behind me.” You're now an adult, and it's time to act like one.

Prayers and advice will accompany the cards, gifts and letters from family and friends. Many of them will encourage you to hold fast to your dreams. They mean well; they really do. But their advice is inadequate. Far better for you to establish goals, then pursue them doggedly.

No effort is required to dream. Anyone can dream, for dreams demand neither plan nor action. Dreamers too often become wishers, hoping for an outcome they haven't pursued. It is a recipe for frustration and failure.

I don't suggest that you hold onto dreams. Instead I urge you to change dreams into goals, becoming more than a dreamer. Goals compel you to act, for they won't attain themselves. Define your goals, aiming higher than you think you can reach. Then, even if you fall short, you will have accomplished more than otherwise possible. And when you reach a goal, set a new one. To be content is to be thankful; to be satisfied is to be stagnant.

Pursue all ends with honor and integrity. And despite the best efforts of political correctness, the Ten Commandments are both valid and viable. Discover God's purpose for you and ground your life on that knowledge. When you're knocked down-and you will be, more than once-get up. Self-pity produces nothing. And never, ever, listen to people who say you can't.

The door is opening and it's time to step through. Transform those little boy and girl dreams into mature man and woman goals. If you rely on dreams you will someday look back and wonder why you've accomplished nothing. Establish goals and you'll look back with amazement at how far you've come.

Memorial Day just passed. Between cookouts and ballgames I hope you found a moment to recall the millions of Americans who've died in wars or who passed away sometime after their military service. Now I hope you'll consider the new definition of “hero”.

Matthew Chiroux is the new face of military heroism to a vocal segment of America's population. He served six years in the Army, some of that time in Afghanistan. But when Chiroux's unit received deployment orders to Iraq, he decided he wouldn't go. Sgt. Chiroux said, “"My decision is based on my desire to no longer continue violating my core values to support an illegal and unconstitutional occupation…”

The legality and constitutionality of the Iraq War has been questioned ad nauseam. Yet there've been few explanations for the charge. Has Sgt. Chiroux acted heroically by refusing an illegal order? Let's look at it.

In 2002 Congress passed the Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq. That resolution outlined Congress' reasons for authorizing military force and granted power to the President to use force as he deemed appropriate. The result of that action is a close as the nearest news outlet.

If you've read my previous thoughts on Iraq you know that I support the effort. My reasons go back farther than 9/11 and extend beyond terrorism and WMDs. I also recognized some good arguments against the invasion. However, legal and constitutional matters weren't among them.

The aforementioned resolutions may not have “declared war” in so many words. But Congress did empower the commander-in-chief to use force in Iraq at his discretion. Therefore, it's hard to declare the Iraq War illegal or unconstitutional regardless of a person's current view of the war or its progress.

“But Bush manipulated evidence and misled Congress,” you say. If so, you must also indict the prior administration as well as Members of Congress from both parties, for those parties accepted the intelligence reports about Iraq's activities even before 9/11. You can argue Iraq's successes and failures. You can argue tactics and plans. You can even argue Scott McClellan. But Congress authorized Bush to take military action against Iraq.

No soldier is obligated to follow blatantly illegal orders. The “just following orders” defense went out with the Nuremburg Trials. Even so, Sgt. Chiroux has no defense based on his deployment being unconstitutional and, therefore, an illegal order.

Still, Chiroux has become a hero to people who consider the current administration illegitimate and the Iraq War unconstitutional and illegal. If the traditional image of a military hero fit the Matthew Chiroux mold, I doubt that our nation would be here today.

While Sgt. Chiroux was making his “heroic” declaration at a Capitol Hill press conference, Spc. Ross McGinnis' family was preparing for a ceremony in which their late son will be awarded the Medal of Honor. It is our nation's highest military decoration, and all too often presented to the surviving family of a soldier who sacrificed their life to save others.

Then Pfc. Ross McGinnis was on patrol when an Iraqi insurgent tossed a grenade into his Humvee. He was in the gunner's hatch, a position from which he could've escape with his life. Instead he ducked into the vehicle and dove on the grenade, sacrificing his life so his friends could live. It sounds like a scene from Saving Private Ryan. But it was very real to Ross McGinnis. It will be forever real to his family.

We now have contrasting images of a military hero. Sgt. Matthew Chiroux, who will likely face desertion charges, represents the contemporary version. The traditional role is played to perfection by Medal of Honor recipient, Spc. Ross McGinnis, God rest his soul. You must decide which man better fits the definition of “hero”. For my money, the traditional way works pretty well.

President Bush is a lame duck. Very little that he says or does over the next seven months is likely to cause a stir. But he sure got the Democrat's attention when he referred to them as the party of appeasers.

There exists the idea that America should reach out to hostile leaders. It's as if good intentions and diplomatic dialogue will alter a tyrant's lust for power and conquest. Bush contradicted that position saying, “We have an obligation to call this what it is--the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."

Sen. Barak Obama and Democratic Party leaders were quick to take offense. However, since President Bush never mentioned Obama by name, the question becomes whether or not his assessment is accurate.

During the 1970s the United States pursued a philosophy of détente with the Soviet Union. It began with a Republican administration and escalated greatly under a Democratic one. The idea was based on both superpowers being morally equivalent. But that basis was flawed, for Soviet communism had respect for neither humanity nor freedom. By 1980 we had fallen behind the USSR in terms of nuclear weapons and military preparedness. We had bartered away our areas of superiority, such as the B-1 bomber and decreased trajectory missiles.

When North Korea's nuclear ambitions became known in 1993, a Democrat met with Kim Jong Il. The parties struck a deal in which North Korea would shut down plutonium producing reactors in exchange for economic and energy concessions. The world praised the agreement with a collective sigh of relief. But the North had violated the pact before the ink had dried.

By 2002 North Korea had expelled nuclear inspectors and withdrawn from the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. While Kim Jong Il's nuclear capability remained questionable, it was plain that he had double-crossed his negotiating partner and appeasement had failed.

Hezbollah guerillas entered Israel in the summer of 2006. They kidnapped Israeli soldiers and rocketed Israeli towns, then scurried back to their holes in Lebanon do hide among the civilian population. When Israel retaliated, Democrats blamed the Jewish state for the rising civilian death toll.

There was nary a peep about Hezbollah launching raids and rockets from Lebanese towns and using residents as human shields. Today, Hezbollah is on the verge of taking Lebanon outright, creating an unquestionable puppet state for Syria and Iran. Democrats see no problem and appeasement has failed yet again.

We dealt with Saddam Hussein via diplomacy and negotiation for ten years. In return, Iraqi forces fired on US planes in the no-fly zone, thwarted weapons inspectors, violated arms control agreements, and established a lucrative money laundering scheme otherwise known as the U.N.'s Oil-for-Food program. We've offered similar olive branches to Syria, Iran and Hamas. And Obama himself has promised unconditional negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program. Remember the North Korea agreement?

I'm not advocating war against every country or entity with which we disagree. However, I don't advocate legitimizing thuggish regimes by groveling at their feet, either. Ask Czechoslovakians how well appeasing a dictator worked in 1938. Chamberlain legitimized Hitler's ambitions, which resulted in 55 million deaths, untold human suffering, and Czechoslovakians living under communism for 45 years.

President Bush accused Democrats of practicing appeasement. And in recent history, Democrats have led the charge in snuggling brutish regimes and organizations. But Bush mentioned no one by name, including Senator Obama. Yet Obama was quick to claim offense. Doesn't that seem odd?

“The hungry he leaves empty and from the thirsty he withholds water. The scoundrel's methods are wicked, he makes up evil schemes to destroy the poor with lies, even when the plea of the needy is just.” Isaiah 32:6, 7.

Isaiah's words are prophetic indeed. Keep them in mind as you consider the Burmese government's response to cyclone relief efforts. What little bit of food and aid Burma's dictatorial leaders have allowed into the storm-ravaged nation has been immediately impounded by government officials. Their callous attitude has prompted shock and outrage around the world. But we shouldn't be surprised at all.

All government--yes, even legitimate government--exists to control their populations to a certain degree. It isn't government's natural tendency to ensure the protection of human rights or to ease human suffering. It is government's natural tendency to protect itself. No wonder Thomas Paine referred to government as, at best, “a necessary evil.”

The Burmese government has faced unrest within its population and will take no chance that its authority will be challenged. Therefore, it shouldn't surprise us that all humanitarian assistance entering Burma would be subject to government confiscation and inspection. Burma's dictators won't take the risk, however slim, that weapons could be smuggled into the country along with the aid packages, weapons that could prompt an oppressed and desperate population to armed rebellion.

The Burmese military junta would rather see millions of its own people starve to death than risk the slightest threat to its totalitarian control. Does that sound harsh and incomprehensible? You bet it does. But it is the natural progression of government. We've seen it too often not to believe it. Governments starved, killed, executed and enslaved their citizens by the millions throughout the 20th Century.

The Soviet Union persecuted people at the drop of a hat, even to the point of a contrived famine in Ukraine. Josef Stalin imposed grain quotas on collective farms that couldn't be achieved. Since the government received the first fruits of all collective farm production, there was little left for the collective farmers themselves, who went hungry. People who refused to relinquish the grain were often shot. Stalin's forced famine, which killed between six and seven million Ukrainians, was proclaimed a great success.

When Cambodians welcomed communist forces at the end of the Vietnam War, their acquiescence was rewarded with death and hardship. People were forced from their urban homes, marched for days on end with little food and water, and forced to build new towns in jungle wastelands while communist party leaders and soldiers lived in their former cities. People who couldn't keep pace with the forced marches were shot or left to die by the side of the road.

Hitler used his brown-shirted thugs to establish Nazism in Germany, and then killed them when they were no longer useful. Nazis burned and looted Jewish homes and stores. Nazis dragged Jews to concentration camps where they were overworked, beaten, starved and gassed. Anyone found disloyal to Der Fuehrer earned a trip to the grave.

The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) used peasants to overthrow landlords, “workers” to overthrow capitalism, and brute force to control each oppressive action. The CCP stifled religion, using violence and oppression to establish communism as the only true faith, and executing people who didn't renounce their religious beliefs. The Great Leap Forward, a policy based on unrealistic promises and outright lies, produced a famine that killed millions. And the Cultural Revolution, orchestrated primarily by the “benevolent” Chairman Mao, resulted in at least seven million “unnatural deaths” in the late 1960s.

There are other examples: North Korea, Cuba, Iran, Sudan, Somalia, and any government where collectivism or centralization is or was considered superior to individual liberty. With so many examples, you'd think we'd have learned this lesson by now.

Looking beyond the storm clouds to find a silver lining or a single ray of sunshine can be a daunting task. According to a Gallup poll, 86-percent of Americans are having a tough time finding a ray of sun in the current economic storm. Fuel prices are rising. Food prices are rising. Fact is, nearly all prices are rising. That stands to reason, since nearly all commodities travel via some form of motorized conveyance.

Alternative fuels have been billed as the savior of all things green. However, the quasi-worship of bio-fuels has contributed to a very real food shortage in much of the world. Here in America we are still the land of plenty. But we may not remain so if we continue to turn our efficient foods into inefficient fuels.

Ethanol, which is a corn derivative, is all the rage in environmental circles. But if ethanol didn't receive government subsidies it would cost more per gallon than gasoline. It also produces less power than gasoline, meaning more ethanol is required to propel your car the same distance at the same speed. And some European scientists now claim that bio-fuels pose a more detrimental long-term environmental affect than current fuels.

Ethanol can't travel via pipeline due to contamination concerns. Therefore it must travel by truck or rail, increasing expense. In short, ethanol couldn't survive in a free market. Its main benefit thus far is helping drive the aforementioned food shortages that have led to riots in third world countries. Trendy though it may be, ethanol isn't a ray of sunshine.

Yes, the economic clouds are thick, and the doomsayers claim that the sky is falling, America's declining, and civilization is ending. With all the gloom that exists, perhaps we should take another look for that sunbeam. It's possible that economic uncertainty will produce some much needed financial reprioritization. Maybe we'll realize that certain “must have” items aren't so indispensable after all.

Cell phones are a business and personal convenience, and an absolute blessing when your car breaks down. But are cell phones that play games, access the Internet, snap photos and record movies a necessity or a luxury? And do teenagers really need unlimited text messaging so they can keep in contact with friends they see throughout the day? Satellite and cable television are enjoyable. I like to watch certain programs and events as much as anyone. But are 250-plus channels a need or a pleasure?

Don't think I'm down on consumerism per se. I'm all for people buying items and services that they believe will make life easier or more satisfying, as long as they can afford them. But if rising prices make us focus on essentials first and frills second, they may be the ray of sunshine we're seeking.

Americans don't mind spending money. The problem is that many Americans want to spend their money only on fun, convenience, status, or trends. We'll shoulder repressive debt for an unaffordable home, a fancy car, a boat, a motorcycle, or an RV. We'll shell out thousands to be the first to own the latest video gaming system, or a cell phone that will call the International Space Station.

We'll exhaust our credit limits so our kids can wear $150 shoes and $80 jeans. Then we'll bark and whine about the cost of things we really need, such as gasoline, food, and routine medical care. We assume that these things should be cheap, or free, so we can spend our earnings on fun and entertainment.

Our spending philosophy has come to mirror that of the federal government, which has taught people that it's perfectly fine to live at their neighbor's expense. If higher prices cause us to reassess our responsibilities and priorities, we've found our ray of sunshine.

Two shark attacks near California and Mexico have left two swimmers dead. Other swimmers have been injured in shark attacks off Florida's coast. This year alone, four people worldwide have died from shark attacks, compared to only one in all of 2007. While four fatalities is a relatively small number, it causes you to wonder why attacks have risen.

According to Dr. George Burgess of Florida University, human activity has much to do with the increase. That's sensible. The earth's population is growing in both number and affluence; therefore more people are visiting beaches. Increased interaction between sharks and humans means more attacks are likely. Other reasons include an abundance of seals near populated areas and a disruption of the food chain due to overfishing. But there's another explanation, and it is agenda driven.

Now, what is the cause du jour for every calamity that befalls mankind? If you said global warming or its ugly sister climate change, take a gold star. Yes, man-made global warming is responsible for the increase in fatal shark attacks, just as it is blamed for every catastrophe we experience. In theory global warming is driving sea temperatures up, which in turn drives sharks into areas they wouldn't otherwise be found.

However, a Great White shark attacked the swimmer off California's coast, and a Tiger shark was blamed for the attack in Mexican waters. Blacktip, Tiger and Bull sharks are responsible for most Florida attacks. These predators, while not natural man-eaters, are common to the waters in which the attacks occurred and known to bite people either from curiosity or mistaken identity.

Finding this information is not advanced science. You don't need a doctorate in marine biology to learn that the shark species blamed for these attacks were in their native waters. All you need is access to the National Geographic and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration websites. Yet, that doesn't stop alarmists from blaming global warming for the presence of sharks in their natural habitat.

Shamelessly, shark attacks aren't the only catastrophe that climate change prophets are using to spread their hysteria. It didn't take long for Al Gore to blame global warming for the devastating cyclone that struck Burma. The death toll is at least 20,000 with another 40,000 missing. Some analysts say those numbers could rise above 100,000. That's unimaginable. But what's even more unimaginable is that Al Gore would use this disaster to promote his environmental agenda.

Gore claimed that Cyclone Nargis, a similar storm in Bangladesh last autumn, and Typhoon Saomia--China's strongest cyclone since 1949--are all the result of global warming. But man-made global warming wasn't an issue 50 years ago. So, what caused the storm that Gore used for a comparison? And if it wasn't caused by man's assault on the environment, why can't the latest storm be attributed to natural phenomena as well?

Following Hurricane Katrina, global warming activists claimed such storms would increase in frequency and violence. Forecasters boldly predicted massive hurricane seasons in 2006 and 2007, with several major storms hitting America's eastern shores. However, there were few major storms and none of them made landfall in the United States. And yet we're supposed to believe that forecasters can accurately predict the global temperature in 2100.

As far as scientific consensus goes, consensus isn't necessarily synonymous with reality. Scientific consensus once held that the world was flat and that the sun orbited the Earth. When incontrovertible evidence was uncovered to the contrary, those unanimities were proven false.

Shark attacks catch the public's attention, and natural calamities elicit our sympathies. Yet for Al Gore and the prophets of doom to use such misery and death to further an unproven hypothesis deserves neither sympathy nor attention, only condemnation.

It's not uncommon to hear people quote the Bible to prove a point. Thus it's not altogether surprising for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) to quote the Old Testament in an Earth Day press release. Pelosi's statement read, “To minister to the needs of God's creation is an act of worship. To ignore those needs is to dishonor the God who made us.”

How refreshing it is to hear a leftist like Rep. Pelosi quote the Bible and acknowledge our Supreme Creator. However, I'm somewhat familiar with the Holy Scriptures and I've never read or heard anything similar to Pelosi's passage. So, with the help of the Internet I searched for it in five popular Bible translations. Guess what? I couldn't find that passage, or anything resembling it.

The only verse I could find that is remotely similar is Romans 1:25, which teaches us that we err when we worship the created more than the Creator. That seems to directly contradict Rep. Pelosi's application. But, then, I'm not a theological authority.

Fortunately, a little further digging revealed several authentic Biblical scholars. John Collins of Yale Divinity School is one. Claude Mariottini of Northern Baptist Theological Seminary is another. Rev. Andreas Hock of Denver's St. John Vianney Seminary is a third. Not one of these men is familiar with Pelosi's passage. Mariottini called it “fictional”. Unfortunately for Pelosi, she can't claim to have misspoken. She has used this “verse” to promote her political ideologies on at least five separate occasions.

Even when Ms. Pelosi quotes the Bible accurately she misses the point just as certainly as if she'd made it up. In an apparent attempt to lend Biblical legitimacy to social welfare programs, Pelosi once quoted Jesus from Matthew 25:35, “For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, . . .”

Surely we are to be generous with our blessings. But Christ meant for us to give of our blessings voluntarily, not to give of our neighbor's blessings via governmental force. Also, in Matthew 25:8-9 Jesus clearly teaches that the foolish and the unprepared will suffer consequences. And Paul wrote in II Thessalonians 3:10, “that if any would not work, neither should he eat.” So it would appear that Pelosi can utilize neither genuine nor counterfeit passages with clarity.

I'm sure you'll find me misinterpreting and misapplying Scripture from time to time, and failing to live up to its teachings most of the time. But you'll not find me deliberately misusing God's words, and definitely not pulling them from thin air. Pelosi has no qualms with either practice and enthusiastically opposes valid Scriptural teachings, which makes her Earth Day “quote” all the more egregious.

Rep. Pelosi is staunchly pro-abortion, receiving a 100-percent voting record from NARAL Pro-Choice America. In a press release opposing a ban on partial-birth abortion Pelosi stated that “politicians should not be making medical decisions.” If only she'd apply that thought to the socialized medicine schemes she actively supports. And if only she'd apply actual Biblical text--such as Psalms 139:16, Isaiah 44:24, or Jeremiah 1:5--to abortion as readily as she applies fabricated passages to environmentalism.

Pelosi's also a solid supporter of gay rights dogma. Again she ignores actual Biblical passages that contradict her position, such as Romans 1:26-27, I Corinthians 6:9 and Leviticus 18:22. Therefore, to say that Nancy Pelosi's use of the Bible is self-serving and selective is as obvious as declaring Hitler a scourge upon Europe.

There's one last verse with which Pelosi should become acquainted, Revelation 22:18. It reads, “If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book.” Perhaps that warning applies only to the Book of Revelation. But considering Madame Speaker's flippant and fabricated use of God's Word, it could mean that she is quite literally playing with fire.

Congress has again used rising gasoline prices and Big Oil profits to grandstand for the voters. This time our alleged representatives assembled the CEOs of ExxonMobil, BP, Shell, Chevron and ConocoPhillips for their self-serving witch hunt.

“On April Fool's Day, the biggest joke of all is being played on American families by Big Oil,” quipped Rep. Edward Markey (D-MA). The obvious intent is to depict oil companies as evil, faceless, inhuman entities under the rule of greedy, corrupt robber-barons bent on sticking it to the American people. When a Big Oil representative pointed out that oil companies must maximize their profits during up cycles to remain viable during down cycles, Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO) opined that the current up cycle has gone on too long.

In reality, both Rep. Markey and Rep. Cleaver are correct. The American people are being played for fools and the up cycle has gone on too long. Only it's not Big Oil that is the greedy culprit. It's Big Gov. Government has been on an up cycle since Roosevelt instituted the Raw Deal. That growth accelerated exponentially during Johnson's Not-So-Great Society. As of now, 2008, the era of big government has raged on for 75 years with no end or deceleration in sight. It's Big Gov that's playing “the biggest joke of all” on the American people, and it's not a bit funny.

I know gasoline is a necessity and that its high price hurts. But we do have some options. We can buy different brands from different stores, seeking the best price available. We can combine trips to maximize our fuel efficiency. We can drive less. We can carpool. We can trade our large vehicles for smaller ones. All of these options and others are available in the marketplace. Those choices may not be preferable to $1.50 a gallon gasoline, but at least we have alternatives of some sort.

When dealing with government we have no options. When the price of government becomes too high we can't seek government services from another outlet. We can't combine government services, nor can we use less of them. Well, perhaps we can use fewer government services, but you can bet the farm we'll still pay full price. We can't trade in our lumbering, inefficient government services for smaller, more economical ones. In short, we're stuck.

No one is happy about $3.50 per gallon gasoline. But there are factors in the escalating fuel prices that are beyond the control of Big Oil. A barrel of crude has nearly doubled since last May. Refineries are operating at less than capacity due in part to the formulation of government-mandated summer blends.

What's more, domestic refineries must bid against international competition for the supply of crude. When more bidders are chasing an existing supply, the product's price will increase. Yet, failing to attain crude now will mean future shortages that will drive gasoline prices higher still.

Government doesn't respect such market forces in regard to its services. When a government service is underused it merely receives an influx of taxpayer provided subsidies and goes on its merry way. Furthermore, if we refuse to buy from Exxon or Shell they're out of luck. Big Oil cannot force us to purchase its product. Just try that with Big Gov. Refuse to pay the portion of our taxes that funds a service we neither want nor use and we could wind up on the wrong end of a gun barrel.

For politicians to moan about gasoline prices while they preside over an ever-expanding, unresponsive, and overpriced government machine that dwarf's Big Oil in terms of excess takes gall beyond measure. Maybe voters should demand hearings on Big Gov's “price-gouging” practices.

Have you noticed that the more “mainstream” the global warming theory becomes the more outrageous the claims made by its proponents? Ted Turner is the latest to up the ante on climate change hysteria, and he upped that ante exponentially.

Turner offered his views on climate change during an interview with PBS's Charlie Rose. According to Turner the global temperature will increase 8-degrees in as little as 30 years. Crops will cease to grow and most people will die. Civilization will crumble and the few remaining people will be cannibals.

To what evil does Turner credit our planet's impending doom? Why will the climate change so drastically in so short a time? Turner says we're overpopulated, that there are too many people doing too much stuff. But, mankind can be saved if people will limit their reproduction to a maximum of two children. There's only one hitch in Turner's hypothesis; it isn't true.

Earth isn't overpopulated. The world's population density, not counting the land mass of uninhabitable Antarctica, is 115 people per square mile. Each square mile contains 640 acres, meaning there is one person living on each 5.57 acres of land. Not only are we not overpopulated but we have a good bit of elbow room. Furthermore, we're producing more food than ever. Unfortunately, we're turning more and more of that efficient food into inefficient fuels, all because of climate change.

Turner acknowledged his propensity for outlandish comments. But, he added that it's been a long time since anyone caught him saying something stupid. Ted should have taken the Fifth and kept that record intact. He is wholly misinformed on overpopulation and his comments on climate change are, at best, exaggerated.

The roughly 1-degree increase in temperature over the last century may be heading in the other direction. Jennifer Marohasy of Australia's Institute for Public Affairs says temperatures have cooled over the last ten years. She also points out that carbon dioxide emissions, the scapegoat in man-caused global warming, have increased over that period. If carbon dioxide indeed caused the previous warming period, why hasn't the warming continued over the last decade, wonders Marohasy? What's more, she says NASA's Aqua satellite is compiling data that contradicts the doom-saying climate change models. In deference to objectivity, she's only partially correct.

According to NASA official Claire Parkinson, the conflicting data is actually from NASA's Terra satellite project. And although it's premature to form an absolute conclusion on climate change computer models, those models are undoubtedly imperfect. Ms. Parkinson added that current knowledge is too limited to affirm or deny climate change, especially considering that the earth has experienced periods far warmer and cooler than today.

If global warming science seems tough to defend in warm climates like Australia, it should be impossible to uphold in colder areas. Take Minnesota, where up to 32 inches of snow fell over the April 6th weekend with more expected. And in 2007 snowstorms struck western North Dakota and Alberta, Canada as late as Memorial Day. Canada's storm broke a 96-year-old snowfall record for May 28th.

Not even the global warming community can come to a consensus. Bio-fuels, such as ethanol, are all the rage these days. But even environmentalists say these fuels may be worse for the environment than oil due to the deforestation necessary to grow sufficient quantities of the base products. While some scientists are predicting a cataclysmic and consuming climatic event in less than a hundred years, other scientists are contemplating the effect the sun's impending explosion will have on Earth and its inhabitants five billion years from now.

There are many such events that question man's role in altering the climate; these are but a few. No wonder John Coleman, founder of the Weather Channel, calls man-made climate change “the greatest scam in history.”

Charlotte Bobcats owner and billionaire Bob Johnson has issued a compelling appeal to the area fan base and business community. He blames you for his team's economic woes. Now it's time for you to do something about it.

Mr. Johnson said Charlotte businesses haven't invested enough money in the team to ensure its success. You aren't buying enough tax-deductible tickets. You aren't buying enough tax-deductible luxury suites. You fans aren't coming to the games in sufficient numbers to insure the Bobcat's profitability either. Shame on you all!

Although Mr. Johnson isn't a member of the Forbes 400, he is a billionaire. He is a successful businessman and founder of Black Entertainment Television (BET). As such, you would expect him to know that a little market research is in order before making an investment decision. For example, a little research might reveal that choosing Harlem as the site for the Museum of Confederate History is a bad idea. You have to wonder if Mr. Johnson researched the area's NBA market before bringing a franchise to Charlotte.

The former Charlotte Hornets were once the toast of the town. But that image soured like aging cabbage until the franchise moved to New Orleans following the 2002 season. Owner George Shinn alienated the fans. He and cohort Ray Wooldridge demanded a new coliseum on the premise that the Hornets couldn't compete in a facility that was barely 15-years-old. Then he was involved in “presidential politics” with a girl young enough to be his daughter, or even his granddaughter. Shinn was acquitted of the sexual assault charges. But it was obvious that some shenanigans had taken place.

If it's possible to stay away in droves, Hornets fans did so. The fans who attended voiced their displeasure with Shinn and Wooldridge and the Hornets eventually bolted for New Orleans.

Despite the fact that Charlotte voters soundly rejected a referendum to construct a new coliseum in 2001, a new arena was built uptown. The city's mood was soured against the NBA and with good reason. Most businessmen would've seen the situation for the potential financial disaster it has turned out to be. Why didn't Bob Johnson notice? And who is he to blame fans and area businesses for his lack of foresight?

However, in the spirit of community and reconciliation, I have an idea to help Mr. Johnson. A local radio station has launched “Bob Aid” to help this ailing billionaire recoup his lost revenue. It has succeeded beyond the wildest of imaginations, collecting over $55 thus far. I suggest that the station expand upon another of its charitable ventures, the Ride for the Kids, to further help this struggling billionaire. We can call it the Ride for the Bob.

Concerned citizens can solicit pledges from their friends and neighbors based on the distance they plan to ride. Perhaps a penny per mile is a good starting point. Then, on the day of the event (NBA Draft Day might be appropriate), all participants will gather at the Bobcats Arena in uptown Charlotte to peddle tricycles around the building. There can be no more fitting way to honor Mr. Johnson's respect for Charlotte's taxpayers and businesses. Maybe we can even set up jars so attendees can contribute to Mayor McCrory's gubernatorial campaign.

We won't forget our participants either. Everyone who straddles a tricycle will receive a free sports bottle courtesy of Gerber Products, filled with your favorite flavor of Enfamil. The Bobcats logo will be proudly emblazoned on the bottle along with the slogan, “I rode for the Bob.”

If the team starts winning this franchise/community animosity may become a moot point. In the meantime, Charlotte, show your community spirit. Make the Ride for the Bob a reality. Band together to save Mr. Johnson from the losses he's incurred--through no fault of his own mind you--before his fortune dwindles to a paltry $900 million. It's the least you can do.

I wonder what Americans would've thought if Herbert Hoover, the only former president still alive during World War II, had traveled to the Eagle's Nest to meet with Adolf Hitler? What if he had insisted that a lasting European peace must include Nazi Germany? I also wonder what the reaction would've been if Harry Truman had traveled to Hanoi in 1966 to snuggle and coo with Ho Chi Minh.

Although the Vietnam War would soon become unpopular, most people would've considered Truman's conciliatory visit with the Vietcong pathetic or treacherous, if not traitorous. During World War II Hoover most certainly would've been charged with treason and more than a few Americans would have called for his head.

Even if the folks at home were willing to give Hoover and Truman a pass, their actions would've had a demoralizing affect on our combat troops. How could it not? Our soldiers were half a world away killing and being killed on foreign soil to preserve our Constitution while men once sworn to uphold that document were cuddling their enemy. Of course, both Hoover and Truman were loyal to their country, respectful of their successors and possessed basic common sense. If only Jimmy Carter were likewise.

Our 39th president has done exactly what Hoover and Truman would never have considered. Not only has he met with a radical Islamic terrorist organization--Hamas--but he's apparently proud of it. Carter said, “I feel quite at ease doing this.” He added that the only way to establish a lasting peace in the Middle East is to include Hamas in the process. This is typical Jimmy Carter. Yet again his idea of peace is to surrender to a ruthless and bloodthirsty enemy.

Yes, peace is a precious and desirable commodity. But true peace transcends the mere absence of war. We could have “peace” with militants like Hamas in a matter of days. All we have to do is annihilate Israel, install Sharia law in America and live in a state of dhimmitude. There would then be no more war with Islamic fanatics. Whether you could equate this state of servitude with peace is another matter entirely. And there's the near certainly that Muslims would soon begin fighting amongst themselves.

Hamas is not an organization devoted to even the slightest peace. It has been, is now, and will continue to be a militant, despotic organization. This group has claimed responsibility for, or has been linked to, at least 90 terror attacks against Israel since the 1993 Oslo Accords brought “peace” to Israel and Palestine. And that number doesn't account for attacks in which Hamas claimed no responsibility or was never identified, nor does it account for the rocket fire routinely directed toward Israeli civilians from Gaza.

There is no reason for Hamas to talk peace unless they receive everything they demand and more. Hamas isn't interested in gentlemanly agreements. Hamas isn't interested in playing by the rules. Their members aren't brave. Their organization isn't revolutionary. The entire group is evil personified, and it has earned no seat at a civilized table. Therefore, Jimmy Carter's meeting with Hamas is wholly unjustifiable. And the thought that Hamas is the key to a sustainable peace would be laughable if it weren't so dangerous.

Mr. Carter isn't stupid nor is he ignorant. But his incessant offering of olive branches to violent enemies displays a lack of wisdom that is beyond belief. Jimmy Carter isn't a man of peace; he's a man of capitulation and he's infinitely embarrassing. If he is more at ease discussing policy with radical thugs in terror-sponsoring states than with his own country, then maybe it's time he packed his bags and moved.

Barak Obama has two new endorsements. If he goes on record as appreciating either one it should cause even his most ardent supporters to question both his judgment and intelligence, perhaps even his sanity.

The first endorsement is from Jane Fonda. Yes, old Hanoi Jane herself; an actress who is famous more for being Henry Fonda's daughter than any actual on-screen performance. Oh wait, I forgot. She's famous for something else, too. She's famous--infamous is a better term--for manning a North Vietnamese anti-aircraft gun in 1972. That was during the Vietnam War by the way. Sure, you remember now, that time when our nation was at war with the North Vietnamese.

Just to put this in further perspective, Fonda's actions are akin to a Hollywood actress manning a position along the Nazi's famed Atlantic Wall on June 5, 1944. Furthermore, she propagandized on behalf of the communist North Vietnamese government, branding our soldiers as war criminals and accusing them of torturing NVA prisoners. She called American POW's claims of torture “laughable”, referring to our soldiers as hypocrites, liars and professional killers.

While our POWs basked in the glory of their five-star accommodations awaiting further luxury from their benevolent NVA jailers, Jane Fonda jetted back to the states to strip naked for soft-porn sex scenes in B-grade movies. Sure, she offered a quasi-apology a few years back. But she remains the poster child for Lenin's useful idiots.

The second endorsement isn't as straightforward as Jane's, but telling nonetheless. It comes in the figure of former President Jimmy Carter; absolutely the worst president of the 20th Century, perhaps in our country's history. If you're dismayed by today's economic conditions you should recall the Carter administration.

Interest rates were over 20-percent and inflation topped out near 15-percent. The Soviet Union was stockpiling weapons and breaking treaties while we employed détente, a suicidal foreign policy. Rhodesia fell to Robert Mugabe's dictatorship and Iran to Ayatollah Khomeini's. Things were so bad that America's mood was measured not by consumer confidence but a misery index.

Supporters like Fonda and Carter are the last thing Barak Obama needs. He has done a masterful job of concealing his true positions thus far. However, upon inspection his campaign for hope and change reveals a propensity for more of the hopeless same. An association with Fonda and Carter will only mean that his beliefs will be further scrutinized.

Obama openly supports socialized medicine, tax increases and wealth redistribution. And his ascension to the pinnacle of liberalism has followed a steady path. The National Journal rated Obama the Senate's 16th most liberal member in 2005. By 2007 he was ranked number one.

Furthermore, according to research conducted by the Club for Growth, Obama supports wasteful government pork and a $50 billion fund for “clean technology”, whatever that might be. He supports the minimum wage and price controls on prescription drugs even though such measures are counterproductive and purely symbolic. In good liberal fashion he opposes any Social Security reform that includes you deciding how to manage your money and the prospect of domestic oil exploration.

Obama's record belies his association with hope or change. In fact, his proposals seek to perpetuate the status quo. Considering his tired policy positions, his racist ex-pastor and his inability to drive the Wicked Witch of Chappaqua-that being Hillary Clinton-from the race, the last thing he needed was another distraction. Now he has two.

He has won the endorsement of America's most notorious traitor since Benedict Arnold and that of a former president whose work made the Millard Fillmore administration seem wildly successful. If Obama is scratching his head wondering what he did to deserve such attention from Fonda and Carter, it could be that he makes eloquent speeches without uttering a meaningful word or revealing a discernable truth. Liberals adore that sort of thing.

Conservatives from the nationally known to the corner barber shop are upset with Republican nominee John McCain. The $64 question is why that angst exists? The primary reasons are numerous and well-documented.

Let's start the ball rolling with the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform act, which is a blatant affront to free speech. Then there's the McCain-Lieberman effort to impose a domestic version of the Kyoto Accords. McCain also opposed tax cuts in 2001 and 2003. Of course, he now supports tax cuts and dismisses the mere suggestion of tax hikes as out of the question. And who's forgotten McCain's effort to grant amnesty to millions of illegal aliens under the guise of immigration reform.

If that isn't enough to explain why conservatives are dissatisfied with the McCain nomination consider that he nearly bolted to the Democratic Party in 2001 and toyed with the idea of joining John Kerry presidential ticket. But these drawbacks are only part of the problem, barely scratching the surface of conservative disillusionment. Basically, conservatives are sick of the GOP fielding candidates that are nothing more than the lesser of two evils. Isn't it time Republicans had a candidate that elicited genuine passion?

I was of voting age in 1984 and I enthusiastically supported President Reagan. I haven't been so energized about my party's nominee since. Each election I have voted not to lose more so than to win and it's becoming tiresome. Don't misunderstand, I'm not expecting a perfect candidate, and there was only one Reagan. But the Republican Party has largely abandoned his message, paying lip service to limited government and fiscal responsibility. The result has been a 20-year run of candidates with just enough conservative credentials to make conservatives say, “Well, he's better than the alternative.”

In 1992 conservatives such as I overlooked President George H.W. Bush's “read my lips” debacle. We forgave him for squandering his Gulf War approval ratings and supported him against Bill Clinton. We did the same in 1996, pulling the lever for “the great compromiser” Bob Dole. To make matters worse our party tossed Newt Gingrich--the architect of the first Republican congressional majority in my lifetime--under the bus at the first opportunity.

When 2000 rolled around we were treated to a candidate preaching a new brand of “compassionate” conservatism. The very term is degrading to conservatives, for conservatism is the essence of compassion and respect when practiced properly. Once again we sucked it up and played for the tie, unwilling to sacrifice the nation to Al “Captain Planet” Gore. It was the same old song in 2004.

That's not to say that President Bush has no worthwhile accomplishments. The Supreme Court is heading in the right direction and we haven't run and hid from Islamic fanatics. But even those achievements are tainted. Harriet Myers comes to mind, and the initial “shock and awe” we were promised in Iraq never really materialized. Now our party has nominated John McCain, for whom even President Bush's watered-down conservatism is too far right.

The GOP was once the party of deregulation, lower taxation, smaller government, and fiscal sanity. But the elected Republican leadership has instead expanded the federal government, increased spending and eliminated no significant federal agencies, having at best only slowed the regulatory burden. The looming insolvencies in Social Security and Medicare received only lip service. We have methodically plodded toward socialism, the governmental form that Democrats have been running toward full tilt for at least 40 years.

John McCain now has two options. First, he can revert to the more conservative positions he once held. Second, he can continue on the regressive path he's followed the last ten years, hoping that we conservatives will continue to hold our collective noses in the voting booth.

Hillary Clinton is quite a woman. Not only did she serve eight years as First Lady and co-president with husband Bill, but she became a hero during the Bosnian War, facing situations that were too dangerous for the elected president.

Hillary's 1996 trip to Tuzla, Bosnia must've been a harrowing experience. Her plane had to take evasive actions to avoid sniper fire during the landing. Once on the tarmac, the First Lady was whisked away from enemy fire. It was a heroic act and worthy of great respect and admiration. Well, it would've been if it were true. Unfortunately for Mrs. Clinton, she's the only one who remembered the visit that way.

When cornered on the issue earlier this month, New York's junior Senator explained that she'd simply misspoke. That's a possible and plausible excuse, once. But how can she explain having said the same thing in Waco, Texas in late February and in Dubuque, Iowa in late December?

Further testimony to her dishonesty is found in her explanation. Sen. Clinton says she speaks millions of words each day and messed up only this once. Since millions is plural Mrs. Clinton must speak a monumental two million words or more per day. No doubt her daily utterances dwarf those of the average American, with most of them coming from both sides of her mouth. But millions? Let's do the math.

We can all agree that there are 24 hours in a day, not accounting for the small daily deviation that produces Leap Year. Therefore, simple multiplication proves there are 1,440 minutes and 86,440 seconds in a 24-hour period. For Mrs. Clinton to speak the minimum of two million words a day she would have to say 23.15 words each and every second. However, let's be fair to Mrs. Clinton and assume that she simply misspoke yet again.

Suppose Mrs. Clinton meant to say she utters only a million words per day. Granted the campaign trail proceeds at a hectic pace and she maintains a full schedule. Even so, there must be time for sleep--say, five hours daily--leaving Mrs. Clinton with 19 hours to campaign. Under these circumstances she would have to speak 14.62 words per second to reach one million per day.

The average person can speak 125 words each minute, just over two per second. But Mrs. Clinton isn't average, is she? The world record holder can speak just over 10 words per second. Thus, Hillary Rodham Clinton exceeds the world record by 4.5 words each second for 19 hours of every day. Isn't she amazing? Not only is she the world's smartest woman, but she's the world's fastest talker to boot. Or course, the latter has been evident for quite some time.

Mrs. Clinton would do well to learn a simple lesson from this self-created setback. When people speak the truth they will always have the truth on their side. When people speak an informed opinion they could be proven wrong. Yet they can still claim to have made an honest effort. There'll be no need to hang their head. The errant person need only realize their fault and learn from it. But a lie, that's another matter altogether.

When people lie they must invariably cover it with another lie. Sooner or later the truth is no longer familiar and the lie becomes the mind's reality. Hillary Clinton told the Bosnia lie so often that it became the truth in her own mind. Then, when facts cornered her, she attempted to play everything off with the outrageous claim that she misspoke only once among the “millions” of words she speaks daily.

Sen. Hillary Clinton's pathological infatuation with lying is pathetic, almost sad. But it's hard to sympathize when such an arrogant and condescending politician becomes entangled in the webs of deceit that she herself has spun.

Modern America has come to praise democracy as if it were a messiah, nailed to a cross to save our eternal souls. We protect and defend democracy like a female bear does her cubs. We gauge the value of each political speech and every legislative proposal according to how it could affect democracy's future. Even President Bush--who is supposedly a Republican--champions democracy. But, is democracy as advantageous as we've been led to believe?

There are several versions of democracy. In some ways, the current perceptions of a democracy resemble historical republics. But there are key differences. Even in a representative democracy the people can use the power of the political majority to relieve their neighbor of the basic, Divine rights of man. Neither the people nor their elected representatives are bound by a set standard that clearly defines government's authority. A representative democracy can be used to the same ends as a direct democracy, but under the legitimizing cover of representation. Mob rule applies in principal and practicality, which isn't conducive to a civil society or personal liberty. Let's explore democracy in action and see where we land.

There are more low and mid level achievers than there are high level achievers. Thus there are more votes in the low and middle income brackets than in the higher income brackets. How then can a high achiever defend self and property in a democracy? Lesser achieving groups can band together to take wealth or property from high achievers either through democratically enacted legislation or direct vote.

“But no one would use their vote to take another person's property,” you argue. Oh really? Then why does class envy play so well during elections years? Why are politicians who pledge to make “the rich” pay their “fair share” routinely elected and reelected? Let's examine a more outrageous scenario.

America's 2006 population was 73.9-percent white and 12.4-percent black according to US Census Bureau estimates. Suppose that 50-percent plus one of whites voted to strip blacks of the right to vote, to own property, or to peacefully assemble? Suppose that same number voted to return to government enforced segregation, Jim Crow, or to exterminate the black race altogether? Would this be acceptable, simply because a majority had voted in favor? Why not? The matter was decided through the purest democratic form.

Now, doesn't that sound ridiculous? I certainly hope so. However, it's also ridiculous to praise a government form that could benefit from class envy. It's ludicrous to hail a government form that could resurrect past injustices via the whim of a popular vote. For these reasons, among others, a truly free nation must reject the mob rule, democratic form.

In the Federalist Papers, republic is mentioned 6.5 times more than is democracy, and invariably in the superlative sense. James Madison wrote in Federalist 10 that a democracy holds “nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker individual or an obnoxious person,” and, “have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property.” Democracy is not mentioned once in the Constitution, but republic is. Article 4, section 4 reads, “The United States shall guarantee to every state in this Union a Republican Form of Government . . .”

Economist Walter E. Williams touched on this subject in a brilliant column in January, 2005. According to Prof. Williams, the law in a democracy is what the government claims it to be, relying not on reason but on power. Restraint is upon the individual, not government, and rights are but privileges of which government is the sole arbiter.

Under the terms outlined by Prof. Williams, and verified by history, America has too often operated as a democracy. But that doesn't mean it's a preferable government form or compatible with our Founders' original intent.

If you were to conduct a street corner survey asking parents who cares the most about their children's future, the overwhelming response should be, “I do!” Some parents care so much that they forego careers and material goodies to homeschool their kids. Such self-sacrificing parents could soon become outlaws in California.

A California appeals court has ruled that homeschool parents who lack teaching credentials are neglecting their children's education. The kids--166,000 of them--are possibly truants and the parents can be prosecuted, subjected to heavy fines and possibly lose their children.

If the old adage “as goes California so goes the country” holds true, there's an ominous storm brewing for homeschoolers. But why? Is a home education inferior to a government education? Is the education of homeschool students sub-par, leaving them unprepared for life? According to Dr. Brian Ray's studies that isn't the case at all.

Dr. Ray found that homeschoolers average 30 percentile points higher than public school students on standardized achievement tests and that the achievement disparities that exist between races in pubic schools weren't prevalent among homeschoolers. The Fraser Institute also discovered that homeschooling is more cost efficient, averaging less than $4000 per homeschool household annually while government schools spend $9644 per child. So, a lack of funds isn't the key issue in government education's lower scores, although a thorough audit may be in order.

If that isn't enough, consider that homeschooled kids learn to interact with adults as well as with adolescent friends, receive more individual attention and mature quicker. Government school children often adapt to the disruptive and disrespectful habits of their peers, for which Ritalin is the preferred prescription.

Who could possibly be pleased with a judicial ruling that undercuts the apparently successful homeschool movement? Lloyd Proctor, a director with the California Teacher's Association (CAT), for one. Proctor thinks all students--whether homeschooled or in government or private schools--should be taught by credentialed teachers. And why not? A credentialed teacher in California means a dues-paying unionist 87-percent of the time. You decide whose interests CAT has made its top priority.

In fairness, this ruling doesn't ban homeschooling outright. However, it does mean that all students must be taught by credentialed teachers regardless of the class setting, which is a de facto injunction against homeschoolers. But even more fearful are the words of ruling Justice Walter Croskey who wrote, “A primary purpose of the educational system is to train school children in good citizenship, patriotism and loyalty to the state. . . .”

Loyalty to “the state”? Not loyalty to our founding principles, our Constitution, our liberty, or our republic, but loyalty to “the state”. Friends, “the state” is impersonal and inconsistent at best, and not always praiseworthy. Soviet schoolchildren were also taught loyalty to “the state”. Now, where is the ACLU? Why aren't they concerned that a judge has openly declared the government school system's function to be indoctrination?

Foolish me! I thought schools existed to teach reading, writing, math, history, and other such quaint notions. Most teachers that I know personally--public, private, or homeschool, credentialed or not--share that thought. My kids have attended both private and public schools and have had both good and poor teachers. Thus, I'm not questioning the teaching profession's overall credibility, nor am I endorsing homeschooling as the end-all solution. However, the educational bureaucracy, teacher's unions, and the motives of both are highly questionable.

California has determined that the interests of government schools rank higher than the interests of the students they allegedly serve. This ruling, whether based in law or activism, grants the government-student relationship dominion over the parent-child relationship. It emphasizes loyalty to government bureaucracy above the principles of representative governance. Those attitudes, neighbors, are more than an injustice; they're downright chilling.

Chris Burke is quite a story. He was born with Down Syndrome in 1965. The doctors said that Chris was unlikely to read, write, walk, or talk and suggested that his parents place him in an institution. Throughout his life Chris Burke has proved the experts wrong, a fact that warms my heart considerably.

Not only did Burke learn to walk and talk, he starred in the television series Life Goes On and made guest appearances on several other shows. He now does appearances for the National Down Syndrome Society. Not only did Burke learn to read and write, but he's authored a book and become a musician in a band that has released four CDs. Chris Burke is heroic. He should inspire everyone. Except, perhaps, UNC-Chapel Hill professor Albert Harris, who doesn't think people like Burke should be born.

Prof. Harris instructs his biology students that the moral thing for pregnant women to do is check their babies for Down Syndrome and abort children that test positive. In Prof. Harris' version of human compassion, Chris Burke wouldn't be an actor, an author, or a musician. Chris Burke wouldn't be alive. And Harris didn't misspeak; he's made the statement before.

“I know somebody who had a child like this, and it ruined their life,” Harris told the Raleigh News and Observer. That statement is the entire abortion argument in a nutshell. It's purely a matter of personal convenience.

An Allan Guttmacher Institute survey from 2004 found that the overwhelming majority of abortions were performed to avoid the lifestyle, financial, or relationship changes pregnancies can produce. Aborting a Down Syndrome child would certainly fit all three categories. If we accept Prof. Harris' position, where will it end?

Would Prof. Harris spare pregnancies that could produce a deaf child, but not a blind one? Is the greater morality found in aborting a baby with a physical defect, like deformed arms or legs, or a single kidney? Opening Prof. Harris' version of Pandora's Box would lead us into areas better left alone.

In defending his position Prof. Harris claimed that his intent was to indicate that aborting Down Syndrome children is a matter of personal opinion. In reality, nothing could be farther from the truth. No one has the right to end an innocent life simply because its existence interferes with their personal desires. Any contrary viewpoint is in error.

I doubt Prof. Harris would praise the genocidal actions of Stalin, Hitler, or Pol Pot. But, each of those murderous tyrants killed people not because they had committed treason, murder, or insurrection, but because they were deemed inconvenient and unworthy. That is exactly what Prof. Harris has proposed.

Sadly, Prof. Harris' attitude reflects a greater societal deficiency, one that is self-indulgent and unwilling to face adversity. Anything that interferes with us, or causes inconvenience, must be pushed aside. Yet the most frightening aspect of Harris' opinion goes far beyond his words.

If we were discussing the ideas of an unread fool it could be dismissed as pure idiocy. But a person doesn't become a professor of embryology at a major university by wearing the dunce cap. Professor Harris isn't stupid; he's just plain wrong. But his credentials can legitimize his mad scientist attitude in the young minds under his tutelage.

Biology is based on fact. Malleable minds could accept Prof. Harris' personal views as settled fact, cementing the fallacious notion that personal convenience settles the matter of aborting Down Syndrome pregnancies. That prospect--meaning the widespread devaluation of human life--is far more worrisome than the misguided sanctimony of one college professor.

It might surprise Chris Burke to learn that his productive and inspiring life hasn't been worth living. The fact is that his life is worthwhile. I'm not so sure about Prof. Harris'.

Islamic radicalism has ceased and peace reigns in the Middle East. Israel's Ehud Olmert and Hezbollah's Hassan Nasrallah are meeting for tea and bagels each afternoon at four, and Hamas has decided that their axe is sufficiently ground.

Iran has abandoned the quest for nuclear weapons. They continue to enrich uranium, but it's for verifiably peaceful purposes. To prove Iran's good will Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has granted American atomic scientists unfettered access to the program. Ahmadinejad has even invited the Southern Baptist Convention to establish a missionary presence in Tehran, proving that the Iranian Ayatollahs are dedicated to the free and open exchange of religious doctrines.

Pakistan's uncertainty has dissipated. Recent elections have left Pervez Musharraf, a semi-useful dictator, hanging by a thread. But the winning parties--loyal to former prime ministers Nawaz Sharif and Benazir Bhutto, who was assassinated in December--have pledged to instill Jeffersonian reforms. They've even adopted our constitution as their own. And why not? We don't seem to have any use for it.

To prove their good will, the followers of Bhutto and Sharif have corroborated to find and kill Osama bin Laden. Thus Americans need not fear that Pakistan's nuclear arsenal will fall into the hands of the Saudi Sultan and his merry band of suicidal jihadists.

The newly independent nation of Kosovo is secure. Even thought it's in the Balkan region where the fuse for the Great War was lit and its current population is largely Muslim, there's no cause for concern. Kosovo will not become a breeding ground for al-Qaeda and its minions.

Don't concern yourself with China trade problems, whether they're real or perceived, for all have been eliminated. The quasi-capitalist, quasi-communist nation has corrected their poison toy problems, properly valued their currency, and instituted a quality control program that ensures their products will soon rise from the level of absolute trash to just plain junk. Russian bombers did fly over the U.S.S. Nimitz, but their intentions were honorable. The bombers were equipped with loudspeakers that played Why Can't We be Friends to the American sailors. And Hugo Chavez has lost his voice.

All's quiet on the domestic front, too. Social Security and Medicare are no longer locked in a mad race to see which program can be first to insolvency. Every American has decided to pull their weight. Thus federal dependency programs, such as welfare and food stamps, will soon join other bad ideas in history's dustbin. We're drilling our own oil, constructing new refineries, and gasoline is $1.50 a gallon. Corporations have shunned subsidies and bailouts, favoring instead the just rule of free markets over government favoritism.

Yes friends, our problems are solved. What; you missed the big news? Don't fret, so did I. So did every American. But it must be a fact for Congress can find nothing better to do than investigate juiced ballplayers and spying football teams. Shouldn't Congress have bigger fish to fry than Roger Clemens and Bill Belichick?

Antitrust laws may figure into the equation. But all the while Congress is bemoaning the shadowy dealings of professional sports it holds reign on government, the most unchecked monopoly of them all. Furthermore, if Clemens lied to Congress, Congress is receiving only due recompense. Each member took an oath to support the Constitution. Yet Congress defies that document at every turn, expanding government into unauthorized areas and crushing the founding principles of our republic.

Baseball's steroids and football's spying are nothing. Our representatives and Senators have more important matters to address. Wasting their time and our money on such nonsense is unfathomable. At least it would be, had they not already solved the aforementioned world and national problems.

Here we go again. For the second time in less than a year some crackpot has chosen college students as the target for a homicidal rampage. Six people are dead not counting the murderer, whose name I'll not glorify. Sixteen others were wounded. It's irrational and nonsensical. Yet, for some reason, we'll try to make sense from the senseless and attempt to explain logically what can only be attributed to the existence of evil.

Already there are calls for more gun control, promoted by activists whose only answer to maniacal cowards is to curtail liberty. However, the Northern Illinois shooting spree only highlights gun control's futility. This murderer had no criminal record and purchased his guns from a federally licensed dealer. Despite questions about his mental state ten years ago he attained Illinois' state-issued firearms owner I.D. card. Furthermore, he was a good student, somewhat well-liked, and his actions shocked everyone who knew him. His background didn't portend homicide.

Oh, and with NIU being a gun-free zone, it was illegal to bring the firearms on campus. Did the gun-free designation stop the murderer? Not at all; it gave him confidence, knowing that his victims could not resist. But the underlying lesson of NIU goes far deeper than the tired, illogical calls for more gun control.

Frankly, the carnage at Northern Illinois, Virginia Tech, or anywhere else shouldn't surprise us at all. Our society has spent the last 35 years cheapening life at every turn, and now we feign outrage when life is treated cheaply. Give me a break!

According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, a close ally of Planned Parenthood, Americans aborted more than 48 million babies between 1973 and 2003, the 30-year period following the infamous Roe v. Wade decision. Remember Jack Kevorkian? People lined up to praise the “compassion” of the sinister Dr. Death. Furthermore, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Oregon's physician-assisted suicide law with a 6-3 ruling in 2006, and a little research will reveal parents who've filed wrongful birth lawsuits against doctors for delivering live children.

The cheapening of life is readily apparent in Western nations that have socialized healthcare systems, too. We're told that we should follow the model systems currently providing such wonderful healthcare to Britons and Canadians. What we aren't told is that healthcare rationing is common in the UK and getting worse by the day. One million Brits are on waiting lists for treatment, including emergency treatment. Others sit in ambulances outside hospital emergency rooms for hours on end, just so their admittance won't louse up the government's treatment statistics. Similar transgressions are common in Canada's government-managed network. If we fall for such a boondoggle how can we argue that we've done anything less than cheapen life further still?

Considering that we've degraded innocent life while elevating the rights of murderers, terrorists and animals, we have no moral basis to be surprised or outraged when life is devalued.

I was taught to respect human life and to properly use a firearm. My father took me hunting and I learned firsthand what a firearm could do. In fact, I held the result of a successful hunt in my hand on many occasions. But, somewhere along the way honorable character fell by the wayside. We haven't taught morality, respect, or the sanctity of innocent life. We've become far too enlightened for such archaic notions, sacrificing them on the altar of political correctness. Instead we have taught--nay, celebrated--irresponsibility, incivility, envy, selfishness, and permissiveness.

We have stripped life of its intrinsic value. Thus, our surprise at the NIU slaughter is laughable and our outrage is hypocritical. We're fortunate that such violence isn't more common. I would suggest that we beg God's mercy, but we'll be hard-pressed giving Him a reason to show it.

I love examples and scenarios. They're a great way to make a point and an even better way to demonstrate absurdity. So, if you'll bear with me, I'd like to provide you with such an illustration.

Let's suppose you left for a vacation, or simply went out for the evening. Upon your return you find that someone has entered your home and helped themselves to a share of your valuables. Before you can call the police to begin the investigation you receive a phone call. An unfamiliar voice admits to have taken your property and offers to return a small portion. Call it a burglary rebate. Should you express gratitude to that person for offering to return only a part of the property that is yours to begin with?

Something we have yet to realize--or have chosen to ignore--is that government produces nothing. Government has no product and very few services that people will purchase voluntarily. So, in order for government to give to Americans it must first take from Americans. The economic stimulus package does just that, and it provides a way for politicians to acquire your favor by giving your property back to you, just like the burglar in our example.

The fact that Congress and the White House are playing a shell game with our money is only one part of the problem. Some politicians attempted to transform the stimulus package into a de facto welfare program, promising tax rebates to people who paid no tax at all or rebates in excess of whatever tax was paid. But the most inexplicable amendment to the stimulus package would have increased unemployment benefits. Leave it to politicians to determine that paying people not to work will stimulate the economy.

Another problem is the intended use of the rebate checks. Politicians want you to spend the money as soon as it arrives in the mailbox. Suppose you use that money to purchase a $1200 television set. Next year this time you'll have a television set worth about $900. However, if you were to invest the $1200--earning a 10-percent return--you'd have $1320. In which scenario has the economy experienced true growth?

Of course, the retailer or electronics manufacturer may use the profit from the television set to grow the economy. But that growth is due to their investment in new technologies, research, or construction. It is investment that encourages growth. Consumerism is an exchange of value; a lateral move. Your purchase will not grow the economy significantly, providing at best a very small ripple in a large pond.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi may have done more to miss the point than anyone else. Ms. Pelosi says that spending the rebates immediately will inject life into the economy and create jobs. If that's true, why stop at $1200 per couple? Why not $2400, or even $3600, injecting up to three times the economic jolt and creating three times the number of jobs?

I'd never suggest that you shouldn't accept your rebate check. Cash it and use it as you see fit. But don't let grandstanding politicians con you into praising them for merely returning the property they took from you in the first place. And don't be conned into the idea that government can and should manipulate the economy.

The tax rebates are an oblique admission that money in the hands of private individuals is preferable to money in the hands of government bureaucracy, begging the question of why so much of our money heads off to Washington. In the economic stimulus package it's not the rebate itself that is offensive; it's the political arrogance and lack of thought behind it.

The Supreme Court will soon tackle a subject it has largely ignored for 70 years. That subject is the right to bear arms, and the Court's interest stems from an appeals court's decision declaring the District of Columbia's gun ban unconstitutional. Among the issues to be decided is whose right the Second Amendment protects and why was that right was acknowledged?

The Second Amendment explicitly states, “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” “Infringed” is the first key, meaning to transgress, breach, encroach, or violate, and the Second Amendment is the only place it appears in the Constitution. Since the right is unassailable, we can conclude with surety that the right to bear arms is beyond Congress' legislative authority.

A second key word is “militia”. Article 1, Section 8 and Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution defines the authority granted to Congress and the President regarding the militia. But those articles don't define the militia itself. To determine who constitutes the militia requires a little digging. George Mason described the militia as “the whole people, except for a few public officials.” Thomas Jefferson noted, “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” James Madison expressed similar thoughts. The Founding Fathers obviously recognized and intended to protect the people's right to bear arms, a right necessary to securing liberty.

There is an equally compelling argument for the individual right nestled neatly in the Tenth Amendment. The Tenth Amendment draws a clear distinction between rights belonging to states--as some argue the Second Amendment applies--and rights belonging to people. If the right to bear arms was a collective right the Second Amendment might've read, “The right of states to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” It's inconceivable that such a carefully crafted document would've referred to a people's right when it meant a state's right.

There's ample evidence that the Founding Fathers recognized the right of free citizens to bear arms. But why would they so prize an armed population? Although hunting was common during Colonial times the Second Amendment wasn't drafted to protect the early American's squirrel rifle or fowling piece. A second misconception for the right to bear arms is self-defense.

We are indeed our first line of defense, with both the right and responsibility to protect our lives and the lives of others. Hunting and self-defense are both good reasons to buy a firearm, but they aren't the foundational purpose of the Second Amendment.

The privately owned firearm is the ultimate check in a system of checks and balances. An armed citizenry is indispensable to self-government, for government can rule an armed population only with the people's consent. Therefore, being armed is the foremost liberty and the bulwark of all rights. Furthermore, private gun ownership is a good barometer of a politician's agenda. Who is likely to respect liberty, someone who'll present their ideas to an armed constituency, or someone who would disarm us before revealing their true colors?

In light of the facts, it seems illogical to oppose the individual application of the Second Amendment in favor of the collective. But, for would-be tyrants it makes perfect sense to adopt the collectivist interpretation. Tyrants consider income a collective right. They consider property ownership, employment, health, speech, and education--nearly everything--collective rights. It only makes sense that they would view bearing arms likewise, no matter how wrong they are.

It's difficult to imagine the Supreme Court finding the Second Amendment as anything other than an individual freedom. However, should they err on the side of collectivism, it's worth remembering that we the people still possess nearly 200 million checks on the balance of power.

Change, change, everywhere a change! Politicians tell us to hope for a change and they tell us that change equals hope. But, if it doesn't make sense to you to place your hope in a change that is long on vagaries and short on specifics, you aren't alone. In fact, very little you're hearing from the presidential campaigns is clear or sensible.

Every Democratic candidate is preaching change, from the contending Obama and Clinton to the former pretender John Edwards. Hillary says she's the only candidate with the experience to implement change. Edwards claimed to have been the only person capable of bringing change to the working class. Obama has promised even more than his rivals, offering not only change but a hope that his change is worthwhile. But, when you strip away the spin, all three candidates are simply rehashing the failed big government mantra of Lyndon Johnson's not-so-Great Society.

On the Republican side it is John McCain waving the banner of change, and his idea of change is equally inexplicable. McCain opposed the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003. He vigorously promoted a blanket amnesty program for illegal aliens under the guise of immigration reform, siding with the ultra-liberal Ted Kennedy. He teamed with Democratic Senator Russell Feingold to “reform” campaign finance rules, prohibiting advocacy advertising in the 60 days prior to an election. And he appears ready to sacrifice our economy to the god of global warming.

McCain considers you too irresponsible to exercise free speech, believes that alien scofflaws should be rewarded with citizenship, and that government bureaucracy can manage your money better that you can. And this is change? Sounds like the status quo to me.

So it goes with change, for change is a nebulous term. The Random House Unabridged Dictionary provides 38 definitions for change. Its synonyms are alteration, modification, transformation and revolution. But nowhere in the dictionary or the thesaurus is change defined as, or synonymous with, benefit. Accepting undefined change often does more harm than good.

The Russian Czars were no picnic. They certainly weren't champions of freedom and representative government. Then, in October of 1917, change swept the czarist system away forever.

The Bolshevik Revolution ushered in communism and the Soviet Union. Subsequently, it gave birth to a regime with no respect for privacy, free speech, or religion, but with a fondness for gulags and Siberian exile. Some opponents of the state simply vanished, never to be seen or heard from again. Ultimately, this new direction produced a famine that forced Ukrainians to surrender their property to the state and produced the Katyn Woods Massacre, where 4500 Polish soldiers were slaughtered by Soviet secret police during World War II. Oh, the Bolshevik Revolution surely brought change, but to what end?

In March of 1933, the Enabling Act bestowed dictatorial powers on a would-be god with a cheesy moustache. From that point forward Adolf Hitler would kill enemies, Jews, and former allies, whatever quenched the bloodlust of the moment. Der Fuhrer's maniacal utterances were absolute law in Germany. Concentration camps were constructed, treaties were broken, nations were invaded, millions died, and it all sprung from a change.

Change isn't a magic word or a soothing balm that solves all problems and cures all ills. Change for the sake of change alone is like buying the proverbial pig in a poke. I'm not saying that John McCain, Barak Obama, or Hillary Clinton are capable of the apocalyptic changes that Vladimir Lenin or Adolf Hitler imposed upon their homelands, even upon the entire world. Yet one thing is certain; change doesn't necessarily equate to progress, opportunity, or individual liberty.

Exercise extreme caution when embracing a campaign of change, especially when the conditions are indeterminable. History suggests that such change can leave you holding the short end of the stick.

The primary season must be an exciting time for political pundits. They spend endless hours dissecting baloney; then they pretend to know what combination of meats constitute the mystery loaf. Next they predict the future as if they're the direct descendants of Isaiah or Nostradamus, only with results more akin to the Born Loser. The caucuses come and the primaries go, but the pundits words will stand forever.

Each time a candidate doesn't perform to the pundits expectations, that candidate's viability is debated. Will they survive to the next primary? Does the loss spell the end of their candidacy? The next state is invariably one candidate or another's must-win; else they are out of the picture.

Mitt Romney placed second in the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary. He won in Wyoming. The pundits, those all-seeing experts, quickly pronounced Michigan as his campaign's breaking point. If Romney failed to win Michigan his campaign would be--under the decree of the pundits--dead in the water.

The experts were so busy throwing dirt on Romney's grave that they failed to notice that Mitt led the GOP field in convention delegates heading into the Michigan contest. And convention delegates are the main prize in the nominating process, or at least they once were. Fred Thompson received the same treatment heading into South Carolina. As it turned out, the pundits got that one right.

It should be no surprise that no single Republican candidate has dominated the early states. Each of those states holds some form of an open primary. Voters can cast ballots in either party's primary, change their affiliation at the polls, or independents can choose which party election they'll participate in right up to primary day. We can spend the day debating the wisdom of having crossover or unaffiliated voters select delegates to a specific party's convention. But there's no debating the effect such voters can have.

John McCain became the Republican frontrunner on the strength of unaffiliated voters in open primary states. How will he fare in closed primary states, where Republican voters aren't watered down with fence-sitting moderates and liberals? Maybe the pundits should punt that around for a while. And this isn't unique to the Republican Party. When Hillary Clinton lost in Iowa some pundits wondered if she'd drop out of the race. Then, when she won slight victories in New Hampshire and Nevada, she again became the expert's anointed one despite the fact that Barack Obama won more delegates in those states than did she.

In fairness, there is some basis for pundits to write a losing candidate's epitaph. A poor primary showing can lead to sluggish and discouraged supporters. That lack of momentum and excitement drives supporters, with their much-needed donations, to other candidates. Such a candidate withers before reaching more favorable states. But, is a campaign that lacks the physical and financial resources to survive the early primaries and reach Super Tuesday a serious contender to begin with?

It's quite possible that your favorite candidate won't reach your state's primary. Mine didn't. But that doesn't mean you should abandon your choice at the first loss. Believe it or not, pundits often allow their personal agenda to influence their analysis. Liberals might consider McCain a vulnerable opponent next fall and attempt to convince supporters of other Republicans that their efforts are useless. Conversely, conservative pundits might try to spin Obama or Clinton as foundering because they consider the other's flaws more exploitable in the general election.

Polling numbers and pundit forecasts change faster than the weather in the Rocky Mountains. What you and I should remember is that each pundit can cast only one actual vote, meaning that their voice wields no more power than our own, until we allow them to influence our decisions.

On January 22, 1973 the Supreme Court plucked abortion rights from the 14th Amendment, where no such right previously existed. To commemorate this ominous anniversary let's briefly examine at a few aspects of Roe v. Wade.

Depending on the text's formatting, Justice Harry Blackmun's opinion covers some 28 pages. There are roughly 260 paragraphs, 1300 lines, and 17 thousand words. Therein lies numerous citations of past laws, judicial rulings, and legal precedents that read like Egyptian hieroglyphics. Thus it's doubtful that most Americans have read Blackmun's ruling, meaning it's been accepted without due consideration of its validity.

Abortion activists justify their position with the need to protect women's lives. But, did you know that the Texas statute that Roe v. Wade challenged contained language protecting abortion when necessary to save the mother's life? Furthermore, Texas adopted its first abortion law in 1854, a law that also provided the abortion option when the mother's life was endangered. And isn't it odd how a 119-year-old state law suddenly run afoul of the 105-year-old 14th Amendment?

Did you know that Jane Roe wasn't the sole plaintiff? Dr. James Hallford joined the suit after being arrested and charged with violating Texas' abortion statutes. John and Mary Doe, a childless couple, joined the suit on the premise that Mary could become pregnant and want to abort the child, which the Texas law could've prevented. To put this in perspective, the Doe's argument is equivalent to someone with a driver's license suing an automaker because they might someday buy a car and have an accident. Both the Hallford and Doe claims were dismissed by Blackmun's majority ruling, meaning that two of the three Roe v. Wade challenges failed.

Roe v. Wade continually references historical attitudes toward abortion, ranging from ancient Greece and Rome to the Hippocratic Oath and common law. But the court's reference to English statutory law is perhaps most pertinent to the problems the Roe decision created.

England had modified its abortion laws numerous times over the 170 years preceding Roe. Acts of Parliament, not litigation, changed those laws each time. The English people's representatives changed the abortion laws, not the judiciary, meaning the people had some influence in shaping their nation's attitudes toward abortion. In America, abortion laws were formed by judicial decree, bypassing the people's representatives altogether. When so ambiguous a matter is decided in such a dictatorial manner its no wonder abortion is so divisive.

Did Roe impose upon physicians and healthcare facilities the duty to provide abortions to patients? Not at all. According to Blackmun, no doctor or hospital can be compelled to perform abortions in violation of their moral principles. Therefore, when pro-choice activists argue that religious hospitals and physicians must accommodate this “women's right” they are contradicting their most sacred court ruling.

Texas defended its abortion statute by arguing that life began at conception and, thus, the state held an interest in protecting that life. Blackmun himself wrote that the court's knowledge was inadequate for determining when life begins. We're left to ponder why the court ruled on a matter that it recognized was beyond its expertise. Since the Constitution is dead silent on abortion the matter should have remained in the states where it belongs, a fact Justice William Rehnquist accurately noted in his dissent. Essentially, Roe v. Wade created an unconstitutional transfer of authority from the states to the federal government.

Whatever your position on abortion, Roe was a poor constitutional ruling. It made seven black-robed potentates the sole arbiters of liberty. It usurped the states' right to rule on powers not constitutionally assigned to the federal government. And it was certainly a poor ruling for the 48 million or so souls whose lives have ended prematurely since January 22, 1973.

A few short days ago, following the Iowa caucuses, pundits prematurely buzzed over the possibility that Hillary Clinton would end her presidential campaign. She needed an infusion of new blood, the experts said, to maintain her viability. Rumors circulated that Paul Begala and James Carville, the Clinton machine's WPDs (weapons of personal destruction) would climb aboard to salvage the remnants of Hillary Clinton.

Suddenly, Hillary tears up in front of a camera and all becomes right with the world. The polls were completely wrong and Clinton won the New Hampshire primary. What a coincidence, almost as if it were planned. Unfortunately, Mrs. Clinton's emotional breakdown was as stale and dry as the socialist, big government politics that fuel her insatiable lust for power. In fact, her tears held all the sincerity of the one night stand's promise to respect you in the morning. It was Clinton phoniness on parade, pure and simple.

Could her contrived tears have swayed the New Hampshire female voter, as pundits have claimed? If women can so easily be influenced by fabricated emotional displays, then the 19th Amendment was a bad idea. Of course, I say that in jest. But, if New Hampshire women are so easily converted by orchestrated displays of pseudo-emotion, then their infantile response should earn scorn from thinking woman everywhere, for they have set gender equality back 90 years.

Conversely, let's assume that Mrs. Clinton's misty eyes and cracking voice weren't counterfeit. Suppose she did break down under the campaign pressure and the realization that she isn't predestined to become president. What then? Is there presidential material in someone who folds like a pair of threes under the self-imposed burdens of running for the office?

What if another 9-11 happens during a Hillary Clinton administration? What if Iran actually fires on a U.S. warship, with all of the accompanying implications? What if Iran announces they have joined the nuclear club? What if radicals seize political power in Pakistan, and the nuclear arsenal that goes with it? Can such an emotionally fragile person be expected to act rationally when the heat is on?

Of course, the above scenarios depend on Hillary's emotion being genuine, which it isn't. No, this incident proves that Mrs. Clinton's manipulative talents are as sharp as ever. Those powers will be exercised with ruthless force unless she dominates the remaining primaries. However, just as one Iowa loss wasn't enough to write her nomination's obituary--as pleasurable a task as that may be--one slim New Hampshire victory isn't enough to plan her coronation.

Some theorists have speculated that the Clinton machine skewed the pre-primary polls, making it appear that Barack Obama held a lead and producing the illusion of a Clinton comeback. It's an intriguing conspiracy, for Mrs. Clinton needed the victory following her Iowa surprise. The problem with that theory is that polling from all political spectrums showed Obama with an advantage. It's hard to believe Republican pollsters would be party to such a Clintonesque trick. Furthermore, Clinton didn't overcome a deficit. Polls mean nothing until votes are cast.

The fact is that Mrs. Clinton won nothing of substance in New Hampshire. Winning that state, where she once “led” Obama by 23 percentage points, by such a small margin isn't cause for celebration. The primary nomination process is about delegates, not states. The winner of a state isn't awarded the sum total of its delegates, as is the case with electors in a general election. The fact is that Obama received the same number of delegates from New Hampshire--nine--as did Clinton.

Hillary Clinton's ascension to the throne hasn't followed the script. The lesson from New Hampshire is that she will stop at nothing to realize that ascension and claim victory however she can define it.

With the stroke of a pen Gov. Jon Corzine abolished the death penalty in New Jersey. Corzine said at the signing, “This is a day of progress for us . . . who reject the death penalty as a moral or practical response to the . . . crime of murder.” The Governor's euphoric declaration should be met with a collective “big deal” from death penalty supporters; New Jersey hasn't executed a convict in more than 45 years.

Corzine and New Jersey are within their authority to ban capital punishment, for it is and should always be a state issue. But they are outside the realm of common sense and public support--Americans support the death penalty by a 2 to 1 margin.

In the 25 years following the Supreme Court's reinstatement of the death penalty, 38 states have adopted capital punishment. However, despite claims of excessive use, only 34 of those states have actually executed a murderer. Six of those 34 have executed only one. Furthermore, only 9 states have averaged more than one execution per year since 1976, although it's a safe bet that the murder rate is more than one per year.

Overall, less than 1100 duly convicted murderers have been put to death over the last 30 years. And if murderers would realize that it's unwise to mess with Texas, that number would be 37-percent lower. So, despite the howls of protest from death penalty opponents, we aren't frying murderers with the regularity of scrambled eggs at the local diner, and there's no evidence that an innocent person has been executed.

Even if we have unwittingly put a wrongly-accused person to death it raises a moral dilemma that is never addressed. Is it more humane to sentence an innocent person to life without parole--where they would be subject to the daily confinement, violence and rape of prison life--or end that life quickly? If I am incarcerated with no hope for exoneration, please drop my appeals immediately.

Arguing that capital punishment doesn't have a deterrent affect rings hollow, too. There are several university studies that suggest it does just that, many written by professors opposed to the death penalty. An Emory University study says that each execution prevents 18 future murders and a University of Houston study claims that Illinois' 2000 moratorium produced 150 more murders over a four-year period than would've otherwise occurred. Isn't trading that many innocent lives for the life of a convicted killer a bit foolish?

You can expect these studies to be discredited regardless of their merits, for they fit not the proper political agenda. Yet, even if they are proven totally false it changes nothing, for capital punishment isn't about deterrence. It's about justice.

If someone willfully and maliciously takes a life, without due process, it's logical that they pay with their own. According to a Gallup poll, a consistent 69-percent of Americans agree, including 60-percent of liberals and Democrats. A similar number consider capital punishment a morally acceptable. Even Thomas Jefferson, perhaps the greatest libertarian in human history, recognized the legitimacy of the death penalty for murder and treason. Consider also that capital punishment was widely used when our Constitution was written and any 8th Amendment questions should be settled.

I'm not advocating a return to yesteryear, when defendants were impaled, boiled and burned for such crimes as stealing grapes, killing a chicken, or cutting down a tree. Furthermore, each state can adopt or reject capital punishment as they desire, as long as their decisions aren't used to establish a precedent that other states must follow. And whether the deterrent affect is real or perceived is irrelevant. Capital punishment is about justice; where duly convicted murderers make amends with the only commodity they possess of equal value to the one they stole.

Let us congratulate Vladimir Putin, Time Magazine's Person of the Year. He was chosen for having imposed stability in the midst of chaos and returning Russia to the status of a major player on the world stage. Yet Time's designation comes with a disclaimer; it isn't intended as an endorsement or an honor, only the recognition of influence. Good thing, for neither Putin nor stability for stability's sake are worthy of honor.

There is stability in Cuba. There is stability in North Korea, Venezuela, and Iran. Each and every day the citizens of those nations awake with the knowledge of a stable dictatorship, little freedom, no rights and nothing to say about their situation. It's not a pretty picture and calls into question the actual worth of stability. A stability in which government usurps personal liberty, private property and economic opportunity deserves neither respect nor merit. In fact, such stability--that which Putin has imposed--is the antithesis of a free nation.

Where would America be today had the Founding Fathers bought the fallacious notion that stability is preferable to liberty and independence? They knew stability beneath the British Crown. Each day brought predictability, order, and a tyrannical form of peace, if such a combination can coexist. Our ancestors wisely shunned such false stability for the uncertainties of revolution and begat the most prosperous and powerful nation in world history. Had they chosen stability over their ideals we may be part of the European Union today.

Stability for the sake of stability alone is self-canceling, like a double negative in English grammar. People who seek personal or economic stability may never realize catastrophic loss, but they'll never achieve unbridled and unimagined success either. It can be said that they have never lived, having traded their talents and potential for stability.

An unreasonable lust for stability squelches invention and innovation, thus depriving mankind of its innate pioneering spirit. Therefore, stability is an oxymoron that produces stagnation, which is strangling and wholly destabilizing.

Freedom isn't now nor has it ever been the result of stability; it is instead wrought from the chaos of instability, often via bloody conflict. That instability and insecurity fosters the personal responsibility that is the cornerstone of liberty. Once liberty is established, then and only then can genuine stability be realized, which in turn depends on a highly developed sense of responsibility to survive and flourish. It is a circle where each is dependent on the other.

We can learn from Vladimir Putin, who served as a rather mundane agent in the Soviet Union's iron-fisted KGB. As Russia's president he has consolidated that KGB philosophy into the Federal Security Service (FSB). Through the FSB he and his pals control Russia from the Kremlin and the military to the media and economy. Putin's brand of stability has commandeered private property, nationalized industry and railroaded political opponents into jail or exile. Voters are losing their ability to determine their leadership and decisions are justified by what's best for the state, just like during the good old stable days of the Soviet Union. It's not a flattering picture of stability.

Vladimir Putin may indeed have returned a form of constancy to Russia. But coming from a life-long KGB agent who's surrounded by colleagues with a devout allegiance to the state, the price Russians pay for their stability will surely exceed the value thereof.

If the naming of Putin as Time's Person of the Year serves no other purpose let it serve to remind us that stability at the price of liberty is at best a fool's bargain.