This time of year the baseball devotee seeks solace in the Hot Stove League. The chatter around the stove this winter should be the Detroit Tigers. Their off-season acquisitions position them to capture their first World Series title since 1984. Or, the Red Sox could remain the team to beat. It doesn't matter. The talk is about steroids, cheating, an investigation, and what to make of all three.

One columnist noted that former Senator George Mitchell's report itself looked like it was on steroids, bulked to a snooze-inducing 409 pages, which seems extensive until you remember that a politician led the investigation. In that light, it's plausible that Mitchell's report drones from start to finish without saying a thing.

But, you have to give credit to Mr. Mitchell for not shying away from naming names. His list of gassed-up athletes reads like a Who's Who of the national pastime. Or, in some cases, a “who's that?”

There were the known or highly suspected: the Giambi brothers, Gary Sheffield, and Barry Bonds. Most fans were at least somewhat surprised to find Roger Clemens and Andy Pettitte on the list of offenders. There were also instances that make you wonder if, in fact, steroids work as advertised. Take the slugging Wally Joyner--who hit more than 20 homers only three times in 16 seasons--for instance, or the flame-throwing Paul Byrd.

Last season's comeback kid, Rick Ankiel, has seen his heart-warming reemergence sullied by allegations of steroid use. Still other wrongdoers make you scratch your head and reach for the “who's that” file mentioned earlier. Of what benefit were steroids to Ricky Stone, or Tim Laker, or Phil Hiatt?

Performance enhancers may have caused a few more Barry Bonds “big flies” to splashdown in McCovey Cove or added a mile per hour to a Clemens fastball. But they didn't help Bonds recognize pitches and make contact nor did they make Clemens throw the right pitch in the correct count to the proper location. Those skills result from practice alone, meaning that steroid use was altogether unnecessary.

It's interesting that neither Bonds nor Clemens have failed a drug test, which is the case for nearly everyone on the abuser list. The same can be said for the black-hatted Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa, who weren't on Mitchell's list at all.

It makes you question the Mitchell report's worth and what course baseball should pursue in its wake. What action can and should Bud Selig take to repair the game's image, especially when the report itself favors letting bygones be bygones?

The steroid problem rests as much on baseball's management as it does the players. Until recently there were no hard rules regarding performance enhancing drugs, and no enforcement policy for whatever lame directive did exist. Therefore, it's arguable that juiced players were gaining an advantage permitted within the rules. That's no more cheating than a base runner who takes an extra step lead against a pitcher with a poor move. Fans bear some blame, too. Moving runners over just isn't as “SportsCenter” as the three-run homer.

Fine; then it's a law enforcement problem. Charge the offending players in criminal court. If they're found guilty; send them to jail. Instead of the Gas House Gang they can form the Big House Gang. But, if you aren't willing to take that step you shouldn't preen and crow over the Mitchell report's seriousness.

Don't misunderstand, steroids should be banned. They cheapen the players, their accomplishments, and the game itself. More important, their use teaches young players that the road to “the Show” is paved with a syringe. However, baseball's hierarchy ignored doping for years. They have no moral authority to sanction players and little practical alternative to wiping the slate clean and starting over.

The initial reports from Jena were startling. We were told that it was a racist town with a racist school and a racist hierarchy. The District Attorney was panned as a small town Klansman, singling out black kids to satisfy his supremacist leanings. Nooses hung from a “whites only” tree, placed there to resurrect yesterday's injustices.

The “white tree” was a myth; both black and white kids routinely gathered under its branches. The nooses were there, but not for the reason we were given. Teachers at Jena High had witnessed both black and white kids playing with the nooses on more than one occasion. Other people claimed the nooses were aimed at a rival school prior to a football game.

Whether Mychal Bell and the Jena 6 deserved to be charged as adults for the beating of Justin Barker is debatable. However, Bell's criminal history of assaults and damage to public property is undeniable. What's also undeniable is that Mychal Bell was used, but not by a racist DA and a good-old-boy system.

Just as soon as the national media was through painting Jena as the birthplace of Jim Crow and the race-hustlers had drained every second of publicity from Mychal Bell's legal troubles, they packed their cameras, bullhorns, and outrage and beat feet for the state line. Bell--for good, bad, guilt or innocence--was left behind. It made me wonder what would happen if a civil rights violation occurred and nobody paid attention. I didn't have to wait long to find out.

Barely two months after the Jena marches, nine teenagers beat a young woman and dragged her from a Baltimore city bus. Her friend was also assaulted, as well as an elderly passenger and the bus driver. Funny thing, there's been only scant coverage of the attack and no civil rights attention whatsoever. The victims were white, except for the bus driver, and the suspects were black.

Should we assume that the beaten woman's civil rights weren't violated? Shouldn't she, her friend, the elderly passenger and the bus driver have the right to go about their business without being beaten and harassed by a gang of punks?

The broadcast media had a field day with the Jena 6, and Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton were everywhere. Why aren't they in Baltimore? Why are they so unconcerned with the civil rights of the Baltimore Four? The answer is quite clear.

Broadcast media outlets are driven by sensationalism. Whatever the motives for the Baltimore attack, they will never approach the emotional connection of perceived racial injustice in a southern town. Therefore, this situation isn't worth their time.

As for Jesse and Al, they are self-consumed. The only civil rights that concern them are the ones from which they can gain attention. They care nothing for the Baltimore Four or the fact that nine black teenagers are throwing their lives away. They cared nothing for Mychal Bell, as evidenced by how quickly they tossed him aside when the cameras stopped rolling.

We don't yet know the full facts from the Baltimore Four assault. But when the outrage broke in Louisiana we didn't have the facts either. One fact we do know is that most people will get along fine privately until self-promoting third parties become involved. Reality is revealed slowly. Maybe if we'll await facts instead of reacting to initial generalizations we'll get along even better.

Love is said to be the strongest human emotion. It can drive us to do things we wouldn't otherwise do. Love can compel a person to make great sacrifices for the benefit of another. People will throw themselves in front of a moving vehicle to save their child's life or donate a kidney to a relative or friend, both for the sake of love.

If love is the most powerful human emotion, then hatred runs a close second. Hate can also lead people to commit acts they otherwise wouldn't consider. Hate can be blamed for driving Adolph Hitler to systematically eradicate 6 million European Jews and ignite a world war that consumed 55 million lives. A hatred for societal standards, or an overall hatred for human life, can fuel a serial killer. Ultimately, it can be said that hate drives all manner of vile and despicable treatment of our neighbor.

Love can be a beautiful and noble emotion. Since hate is love's antonym we know it will produce ugly and selfish behavior. Yet, they share the common denominator of being truly powerful human emotions. Therefore, neither should be a driving force behind the rule of law.

If a law is to be effective and universally applicable it must be free of emotion. We've already addressed how emotion, whether good or bad, can cloud human judgment and alter our behavior. It just stands to reason that man's laws, if coupled with man's emotions, will also reflect our biases and prejudices.

When that is the case, a criminal defendant may receive a more severe sentence when hate is determined to be an aggravating factor. Conversely, a second defendant may receive a lesser sentence when hate is said not to have contributed to the crime, even when the exact same crime has been committed.

Under these circumstances the victim has suffered to the same degree regardless of their race, sex, creed, or national origin. Hate crimes laws call attention to the racial component of a crime rather to than the crime itself. Therefore, they can only exacerbate the situation, inciting further outrage rather that soothing racial tensions, as their proponents claim.

Hate crimes laws thus allow charlatans to manipulate criminal acts for political advantage. As long as this continues there will remain racial tension and divisiveness. It is the intended result, for charlatans require a divided populace to maintain their prominence and power.

Friends, never is a violent crime an act of love. Even when there is a so-called crime of passion it is anger that fuels a momentary hatred and produces a violent act. Therefore, every violent crime--regardless of race--is a hate crime and should be treated accordingly.

It's doubtful that Mychal Bell and his pals beat Justin Baker as a token of esteem. Nine black teenagers didn't assault Sarah Kreager, who is white, out of loving kindness. And I doubt that the white goons who dragged James Byrd, Jr. down a Texas back road behind a pickup truck did so because of their deep respect for his value to the community. The victim in each case suffered to the same degree regardless of the violator's motivation. Why shouldn't the criminal be punished to the same degree of his victim's suffering, regardless of any racial components?

Before you jump on board with hate crimes prosecutions, ask your self this question: Would I rather be left alone by a bigot, or beaten senseless by someone who doesn't care if my ancestors came from Mars?

Do you miss the Clinton presidency? Don't fret. A gravely voice with a ready lie, a cloud of lust and hearty Hi-Yo Silver! Return with us now to those thrilling days of yesteryear. Bill Clinton rides again.

According to the lead paragraph of a New York Times article, Mr. Clinton claims that he opposed the Iraq War prior to the invasion. The article's next paragraph points out that he never actually declared his opposition. Why the contradiction? Well, perhaps it's because Clinton wasn't opposed to the war at all, at least not then.

In fairness to Mr. Clinton, he didn't support the timing of the invasion. However, he consistently defended President Bush's position. In fact, in interviews cited by CNN, Clinton rejected the Left's argument that oil and imperialism prompted the Iraq War. He affirmed that Pres. Bush's top responsibility following 9/11 was to prevent Al-Qaeda and its allies from obtaining WMDs. “That's why I supported the Iraq thing,” Clinton said then. “There was a lot of stuff unaccounted for.”

Mr. Clinton's public assertions that Iraq and Al-Qaeda posed a threat to the United States can be traced back to his presidency. The administration clearly believed that Iraq had provided technical assistance to Al-Qaeda's quest for WMDs during the 1990s. Indeed Clinton so trusted his administration's intelligence that he ordered a Tomahawk missile strike against a Sudanese factory.

The plant was suspected of producing Empta, an acid used to manufacture VX nerve gas. When asked which countries used Empta to make VX an administration intelligence official responded, “Iraq is the only country we're aware of.”

If that's not enough, consider that several top Clinton administration figures acknowledged Iraq's involvement with Sudan's suspected chemical weapons facility and an Iraq-Sudan connection with Al-Qaeda on WMD development.

The historical evidence is clear; Pres. Clinton and his administration believed that Iraq assisted Sudan and Al-Qaeda on weapons projects, a fact confirmed by the missile strike against the Sudanese plant. He openly expressed support for President Bush's stance before the Iraq War began. How, then, can he now claim to have opposed the war from the outset, and why would he make such an easily refutable statement?

Let's remember who were dealing with. Clinton is the man that a sympathetic media once praised for his lying ability. That talent surfaces whenever needed, and it's needed now to facilitate his return to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Hillary's coronation as America's first queen hasn't been the formality the Clinton's expected. Polling data, if accurate, changes with the wind. But there is one certainty; the polarizing Hillary Clinton isn't the presidential shoo-in she was supposed to be. She, like her husband, either can't make up her mind or is fast and loose with the truth.

Sen. Clinton voted for the war resolution in 2002. Now she claims she was misled by Bush. That's quite a revelation for the world's smartest woman, to admit being duped by a man her supporters consider a dumb Texas cowboy. She has image, likeability and credibility problems not only with opponents and undecided voters but with pacifists within her party. Bill's flip-flop is a diversionary tactic launched to disguise Hillary's war voting record.

When Bill Clinton supported Bush five years ago his wife wasn't running for the Democratic nomination. Now that she needs the pacifist's vote, he is re-writing history to hide embarrassment and appease the base. For the Clintons, life revolves around personal image and political advantage. If the truth becomes collateral damage, well, it's a necessary sacrifice.

Prior to the Iraq War, Bill said what he needed to say to enhance his legacy as a forceful and dynamic leader. He's doing the same now to attain political power, betting that you'll again marvel at his unique ability to spin reality rather than focusing on reality itself.

Whenever we think we've seen it all from the world of the Islamic fundamentalists, like a Saudi rape victim being sentenced to a year in jail for her part in the crime, they up the ante again. Let's turn our attention to Sudan--a genocidal country that has declared a de facto hunting season on anyone who isn't an Arab Muslim--where a British schoolteacher has offended Islam.

Draw a caricature of Mohammed and Islam is offended. Make a video and Islam is offended. Note that Muslims are the perpetrators of the overwhelming majority of suicide bomb attacks and Islam in offended. Let a woman reveal one cubic centimeter of skin and Islam is offended. Refuse to live in the 7th Century and Islam is offended. If you're a Westerner, draw your next breath and Islam is offended. I could go on, but you get the idea.

Gillian Gibbons taught 7-year-olds at a private school in Sudan. She became the latest to offend Islam's delicate sensitivities when her class teddy bear was named Mohammed. Under Islamic Law, this grave insult demands 40 lashes, jail and a fine. Fortunately, she received the “lenient” sentence of 15 days in jail and deportation. That's not enough for the righteous defenders of the religion of peace; Islamic justice demands much more.

The pious, devout Muslims say Gibbons must die for her “flagrant aggression” against Mohammed. Inflamed Sudanese Muslims, properly stoked with the “tolerant” kindling of Friday services, streamed from the mosques like fire ants from a flattened hill. They flooded Khartoum's streets proclaiming their message of peace. “No tolerance: Execution,” they demanded. “Kill her, kill her by firing squad,” they shouted, berating the “arrogant” Gibbons for teaching Sudanese children to hate Mohammed.

A student named Mohammed, not Gibbons, initiated this blasphemous atrocity, wanting to name the teddy bear after himself. Mohammed's classmates voted overwhelmingly in favor of his proposal and the bear was thus named. From this simple matter an entire city--nay, make that the radical Muslim world--is ready to kill a 54-year-old British schoolteacher.

Chris Ofili concocted The Holy Virgin Mary, a juvenile depiction of Christ's mother spattered with elephant dung. A photo titled Wrecked depicts the Last Supper with a topless woman in the place of Jesus, arms spread to imitate crucifixion. Yo Mama's Last Supper did likewise, with the fully-nude “artist”, Renee Cox, in the position of Christ. And who could forget Andres Serrano's photo of a crucifix submerged in a jar of urine, the artistic profundity of which was so eloquently reflected in the title, Piss Christ.

Christians never denied the offence these artworks generated. However, there was no arrest, trial, jail, or flogging. No Christian lynch mob demanded the alleged artist's execution. In other words, Christians didn't practice the “tolerance” we find within the “religion of peace.”

British diplomats have tiptoed around this situation as if they were crossing a minefield. Sure, Britain pressured the Sudanese government. They were also quite careful to affirm their respect for Islam lest it again be offended. But respect is an honor earned, not given. Judging from the latest example of Muslim belligerence Islam is doing precious little to prove itself worthy of the honor.

Live long enough and you'll experience a moment of confirmation. Maybe you've wondered if you should've married your high school sweetheart instead of your actual spouse. Then a chance meeting with the old sweetie confirms the superiority of your current state and you realize the wisdom of your decision. I recently lived this experience, although it had nothing to do with my wife or a by-gone girlfriend.

I read an article on quantum theory and it convinced me beyond the shadow of a doubt that I made a wise choice in never studying astrophysics. With that said a little background is in order along with the following disclaimer. The summation you're about to read is probably inaccurate.

Two renowned university professors have asserted that our universe is likely to die at a younger age because astronomers have viewed dark energy in space. This observance caused the cosmos to regress to a prior state in which its demise is likely to accelerate.

The key phrase is dark energy, and you may be wondering what the heck it is. I did too, so I looked it up. Einstein, a pretty sharp guy, introduced the concept of dark energy 90 years ago, representing it with a symbol that I can neither understand nor reproduce on a keyboard. Experts could form no consensus on the idea and it lay dormant until the 1990s. Even now scientist can't accurately explain dark energy, except that it's a repulsive force credited with expanding the universe.

If the universe's life is shortened by man's observance how long would it have survived without observation? How can we know how long it would've lived without our observation unless we observed it previously, which by this theory would've also shortened its life? Can we accept the initial proposition without having answers to these latter two? Confused yet? Don't fret, so am I.

Professor Lawrence Krauss, one of the two noted scientists mentioned earlier, says his theory depends on what determines the universe's rate of decay and whether our observations can reset that determiner. However, not everyone agrees with Prof. Krauss' theory because it's dependent on the need for humans to do the observing, which itself is a bone of contention within the sphere of quantum theory. It's akin to the question we asked as kids: “If a tree falls in the forest and no one's there to hear it, does it make a sound?”

Regardless, I'm sure that Prof. Krauss can substantiate his position with an impressive and incomprehensible maze of mathematical calculations that resemble something Albert Einstein would've produced after a dose of ipecac syrup. That sort of equation may as well be the script for Saturn's evening news to someone for whom high school algebra was a foreign language, like me.

Thanks to Prof. Krauss, not only must we worry about global destruction but also the universe's demise, both of which are man's fault. While we're offering SUVs and fossil fuels on the altar of environmental responsibility perhaps we should sacrifice a few observatories and telescopes to cosmic preservation. And while climatologists and cosmologists confidently forecast terrestrial and celestial apocalypse, their cousins in meteorology can't predict a thunderstorm brewing just beyond the horizon.

I have no idea what to make of Krauss' doomsday theory. But if man can hasten matter's demise simply by viewing it there may be an upside, at least in the short term. To test this theory I plan to take a long, hard look at Hillary Clinton, as nauseating a prospect as that may be. A few minutes spent staring at the Islamic Republic of Iran might not be a bad idea either.

Suppose we were to conduct a survey asking average citizens to pick one freedom America enjoys that most nations don't. We'd likely receive some varied answers. Some people would declare the right to bear arms. Others might mention the ability to worship freely, an uncensored press, peaceable assemblage, or the protection against self-incrimination.

Some respondents would go beyond the obvious. They might mention the right to travel freely between the states, to own property, or to pursue their educational goals. Still others may cite the right to choose their profession and, thus, pursue their idea of happiness. All of these rights we still enjoy, by and large, unimpeded.

However, suppose we asked those Americans to name three freedoms instead of one. I'll bet the right to free speech would make 90-percent of the lists. What a shame that such an important and inalienable right is so misunderstood.

The First Amendment is a two-way street. For free speech to exist each side of a debate must recognize their opponent's ability to state their opinions. That doesn't mean that either side has a right to be believed--that right must be earned--but only the right to speak. Yet there's a faction in American politics that can't wrap their minds around this simple precept. It may surprise you to learn that it isn't the ideology routinely accused of stifling dissent.

Liberals are genuinely opposed to free speech, at least for anyone other than themselves. The Iraq War serves as a fine example. People who demand an immediate troop withdrawal are simply exercising their free speech. Conversely, when conservatives question the peace-at-any-cost position they're accused of repressing contrasting views. War protesters profess support for our troops while calling them Nazis and war criminals. If conservatives question the protester's accusations they're demonized for censorship.

Liberals maintain their right to express any opinion they please regardless of their accuracy. If you don't accept their views completely you're silencing their voice. The fact that you have a different view is inconsequential. Unfortunately, it's a tactic that works on the unobservant mind.

What would happen if liberals were blackballed within their profession for expressing political views on their own time? Evil business interests would be charged with thwarting free speech. Yet that doesn't hold true in liberal dominated industries, like entertainment.

Liberal celebrities host extravagant fundraisers for their political candidates. But let a star contribute to a Republican and he or she has committed Hollywood's version of hara-kiri. Actors and actresses must deny conservative or GOP leanings, or at the least decline comment.

In Tinsel Town homosexuality and bi-sexuality are embraced. Adultery, promiscuity, partying and leaking homemade sex videos is celebrated. But celebrities who experiment with political conservatism better stay in the closet. Otherwise they'll be relegated to hawking cleaning products on late night infomercials.

Free conservative speech isn't to be tolerated even at the Republican convention. Liberals are already planning their protest marches, human roadblocks and pubic disruptions. Sure, they can protest Republican policies. But the planned tactics aren't about exchanging ideas. The protests are about silencing conservative voices, intimidating convention participants and inhibiting debate. Otherwise liberal protesters wouldn't employ tactics the sole purpose of which it to deny conservatives access to the convention hall.

Then there are the words of Jordan Kushner, a protest sympathizer, who said of the convention, “People have as much right to the streets as the Republicans who are coming here. . . .” So, Republicans aren't people? Small wonder liberals don't acknowledge a conservative's right to unfettered dialogue.

Pay attention to the political discourse this election year. Note which side tries to debate ideas and which attempts to shout-down their opposition. You'll find that it's liberalism that sees free speech as a one-way street.

When the price of crude oil approached $100 per barrel you just knew the price of gasoline would soon follow suit. Gas prices held their ground for a time. But I wasn't surprised to find regular unleaded hovering just north of the magical $3 per gallon barometer at my last fill-up. The next step is the price-gouging charges, for when gasoline prices spike criticism of Big Oil is never far behind.

We heard similar complaints last summer following the iPhone's debut. People lined up by the thousands outside electronics retailers--forever proving P.T. Barnum's theory concerning the birth rate of suckers--to buy the latest electronic gizmo. Predictably, due to the great demand and the limited supply, over-eager consumers paid far more for their iPhones than the device was actually worth.

Wouldn't you just know it? Two months after the iPhone's unveiling the price dropped from $599 to $399. The initial buyers, Barnum's favorite sons, carped and whined about price-gouging. But the gadget-hungry consumers who complained about the inflated launch price should've been kicking themselves in the rear. They indeed paid the market price of $399 for their iPhones, plus an extra $200 for the fleeting prestige of being first on the block to own the latest techno-goodie. The same thing happened when the Playstation3 debuted last December, and it'll happen when the next “can't-live-without-it” device hits the shelves.

However, the price-gouging crusader's condemnations ring hollow. There is another commodity that far outpaces inflation and is fast becoming unaffordable for many Americans--higher education. Average college tuition increased more than 6.5-percent this year, and higher tuition is common at both subsidized and private four-year institutions.

Parents who sent their kids to private universities this year will pay an average of $30,000 including room and board. The price will exceed $50,000 at some schools. Just a few years ago, 2005, Richmond University's tuition rose more than 31-percent in a single year.

Public colleges and universities will predictably cost less, with an average outlay around $13,000 per year. But, as has long been the case, that discount holds true only if a student attends school in-state. A non-resident attending a publicly-subsidized school can expect costs on par with private institutions.

Activists and politicians rant and rave when the price of gasoline rises a quarter per gallon. They then score public points with legislative proposals to combat Big Oil's greed. The same thing happens when there's an increase in the price of heating oil, beef, power tools, you name it.

Yet I've heard nary a consumer activist criticize colleges and universities over tuition rates that rise disproportionately to inflation. Where are the charges of tuition-gouging and the condemnation of Big Education?

There are a few reasons why universities get a free pass for their skyrocketing costs. Grants, scholarships and low-interest loans soften the buyer's out-of-pocket expenses somewhat, and publicly subsidized community colleges remain an affordable option. But a far more compelling reason is that anti-gouging activists and pandering politicians share an overwhelmingly liberal ideology with the majority of university administrators and faculty. Quite simply, the activists aren't going to censure their allies.

Price controls and other legislative remedies are no more the answer to rising tuition costs than they are to rising prices in other industries and services. Tuition price controls will only compound the problem, ensuring a lower quality educational product with less availability. Still, a little consistency on the part of price-gouging crusaders would be refreshing.

The next time activists and politicians carp over a spike in the price of a dozen eggs or a gallon of gas, remember that their outrage is either inflamed or quenched according to the politics of those whose bread is being buttered.

How many times have we heard that Hillary Clinton is the smartest, strongest woman in the world? Ad nauseam, and for the life of me I can't fathom that conclusion. The more the Democratic Senator from New York speaks the less sense she makes and the weaker she appears.

Being the poll leader for a party's presidential nomination makes a person an instant target. Yet when Sen. Clinton's rivals take her to task over her debate answers, or lack thereof, she positions herself as the pitiful target of male bullies. If she's as strong and smart as she would have us to believe, why complain that her opponents are picking on the girl?

Hillary Clinton is strong and smart only until she must explain her views. Then she sidesteps the discussion like a recovering alcoholic avoids the Jack Daniels distillery. Even Kate Michelman of NARAL Pro-Choice America has commented on how Clinton ducks legitimate questions and complains when she's challenged.

Both opposing and neutral observers have noticed Clinton's bob and weave tactics for years. But, for a pro-abortion feminist like Michelman, who should be Hillary's staunchest supporter, to call attention to her lack of commitment is telling indeed.

Clinton's inability to specify her positions is disconcerting. But her willingness to cry foul when asked to clarify her stance is even more frightening. If she can't handle the heat of a debate within her own party, among her peers, what chance would she have when it really counts? If she's to negotiate Iran's nuclear program, an escalation of the Pakistani situation, Chinese trade, or Russia's alliances with Iran and Syria, will she complain of personal attacks like she did following the most recent debate?

When discussing her universal healthcare crusade with the Associated Press Mrs. Clinton acknowledged that the only way her plan can work is to require every American to purchase insurance. Yet she rejected the idea of forcing Americans to opt in . . . for now. Sen. Clinton said, “At this point, we don't have anything punitive that we have proposed.”

“At this point” are the key words that allow her to dodge an honest answer. She has denied forcing Americans into her system while leaving the door open to do just that after the election. Is that smart? No, it's conniving! And healthcare isn't the only issue Clinton obfuscates.

It's no secret that Sen. Clinton voted for the Iraq War and that she believed Saddam Hussein possessed WMDs and harbored Al-Qaeda. What is unknown is her position on Iraq today, if one indeed exists.

In 2005 she rejected an immediate troop withdrawal. Since then she has called for a 90-day timeframe for troop withdrawal and a withdrawal of troops while leaving troops in Iraq to combat terrorists. Most recently, in a September debate at Dartmouth, she wouldn't promise to withdraw the troops before 2013. How's that for confusing? And her statements concerning profits and private companies are eerily similar to the words and deeds of Hugo Chavez.

Everyone has the right to change their mind on an issue. I've done so myself. But Hillary's positions change according to the audience she's addressing. Even if you support her brand of socialism how can you believe she'll implement the parts you favor?

Sen. Clinton considers any request for clarification to be a vicious attack and dismisses unwanted questions with a wild, cackling laugh. She's not the world's smartest woman, and certainly not it's strongest. However, when it comes to arrogance and deceit she's riding at the front of the herd.

When the DREAM Act, S. 2205, failed to gain cloture it meant that amnesty for illegal aliens was defeated for the third time this year. In its wake there are two things of which we can be certain. First, the defeat doesn't mean that some form of amnesty won't resurface soon. Second, those of us who oppose amnesty will again be subject to unfounded charges of bigotry and xenophobia.

The entire immigration debate has produced nothing but contradiction. Politicians promise more border agents, yet we jail existing border agents when they actually defend the border. Meanwhile, illegal aliens sue state and local law enforcement when those departments dare arrest aliens for breaking the law. The lunacy extends to the highest levels, where Mexico's President Felipe Calderon shouts, “Jump!” and President Bush responds, “How high?”

Pres. Calderon has been a vocal critic of any attempt to enforce our immigration laws. He views the most innocuous effort to secure the border as a degrading persecution of “undocumented workers.” Calderon has vowed to defend the rights of illegal aliens stating, “Mexico does not end at the border, that wherever there is a Mexican Mexico is there.”

Perhaps it an antiquated notion, but I thought an immigrant's purpose for coming to America was to become an American, not to remain a part of the country they left behind. But, I suppose that's a simplistic idea, certainly nationalistic and possibly xenophobic.

Frankly, I'm all for immigration and I'm confident that our immigration laws are a bureaucratic maze of red tape that begs for reform. Why would anyone think those regulations would differ from the others Washington administers? It is the blanket legalization of aliens who've proven their disdain for our laws, our language and our culture that bothers me.

I wonder, what kind of immigration reform America could undertake that would gain Pres. Calderon's approval? Perhaps we should offer the same benevolence toward foreigners and immigrants as does Calderon's magnanimous government.

According to Article 11 of the Mexican Constitution anyone has the right to enter, leave and travel freely inside Mexico. If you're thinking there's a catch, take a gold star. The right to travel freely is subordinate to government oversight when it applies to immigrants and “undesirable aliens resident in the country.” Furthermore, Article 33 grants Pres. Calderon carte blanche to compel any foreigner to leave Mexico without regard to legal status or due process of law.

Article 33 also prohibits foreigners from participating in Mexico's political affairs. In America, illegal aliens march through American streets to protest American policies and influence American politics. Aliens can unite with activist networks, like the National Council of La Raza, to influence American politics. Activists and their Congressional accomplices demand that illegal aliens be allowed to vote. If you complain you're a racist. Isn't that convenient?

That's not all; not by a long shot. Article 32 grants Mexicans priority over foreigners for all employment and government commissions. Non-natives cannot become commissioned military officers, crew a Mexican ship or aircraft, or take charge of any port or customs agency. If you aren't a native-born Mexican citizen you can forget about becoming a member of the Chamber of Deputies (Article 55), filling a cabinet post (Article 91) or being a Supreme Court Justice (Article 95). Article 51 states that only Mexican citizens can vote in elections.

Now we know how Pres. Felipe Calderon's government deals with foreigners and immigrants, notwithstanding the physical and sexual abuses alleged to have occurred on Mexico's southern border. I'll bet that Pres. Calderon wouldn't be so hot-to-trot for immigration reform if the reforms resembled his government's constitutional practices.

It seems that those who proclaim Christianity the loudest are becoming the faith's poorest representatives. People who are publicly the most pious are often the first caught with their pants down, so to speak. From priestly sex scandals to the ordination of homosexual ministers to Larry Craig, people claiming the moral high ground continually bring a black eye to the faith.

This is often attributable to political or social charlatans who parlay the Christian message into votes or power. Others deny or hide embarrassing circumstances in the hope that the controversies will just fade away. In still other situations the message is compromised so the Church can fit in with worldly values. Perhaps the worst example is a church that pursues outlandishness simply to draw attention.

The latter is exemplified at Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, KS. Apparently, members have taken Paul's admonition that the Church “be not conformed to this world” to mean becoming arrogant antagonists.

You may be familiar with Westboro; it's the church whose members protest at soldier's funerals claiming that military deaths are God's judgment for America's tolerance of homosexuality. They've protested military funerals from Boston, MA to Bismarck, ND, and numerous points in between. Westboro's Shirley Phelps-Roper explained that they weren't protesting any soldier individually but the nation's sin as a whole, which happens to include the soldiers in question.

True enough, those soldiers sinned in one way or another, as has Mrs. Phelps-Roper, you, and I. However, gathering at a military funeral with signs that read “Thank God for dead soldiers” and “Thank God for 9/11” do little to promote the message of Christ, which is the purpose of the Christian Church.

There is no question that America has undergone a cultural metamorphosis, and not for the moral betterment. We now accept as normal the things that would've made our great-grandparents cut flips, all in the name of tolerance.

Babies are sacrificed on the altar of “choice” while the fallacious notion that animals have rights on par with humans is gaining acceptance. We have declared that nearly any mention of Jesus Christ in a public setting is unconstitutional, and yet we fawn over radical environmentalists who worship the earth. And that's not all.

Thanks in no small part to the liberal doctrine that humans aren't responsible for their actions we have relegated sexual intimacy to the status of a mere bodily function. Homosexuality is considered an alternative lifestyle. Adultery is praised for its open-mindedness and pornography for its artistic expression. There's even an organization, the North American Man Boy Love Association, dedicated to legalizing “consensual” pedophilia.

Worse still, offenders on all fronts are found inside the organized church. It's not beyond imagination that Westboro's vision of Divine Judgment will come to pass. But, Westboro's prophecies center on proclaiming God's judgment after the fact. It's not hard to predict what's already happened or to assign responsibility afterwards.

Christianity expresses a choice, either salvation through repentance or judgment for rebellion. It's a choice each person will make. Westboro's flamboyant practices have taken that Gospel message, already foolishness to most men, and twisted it into unrecognizable and incomprehensible nonsense.

Certainly Westboro's members have every right to express their ideas and they've done so without violence. Furthermore, the recent $10 million jury verdict against them, stemming from their protest at Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder's funeral, opens a Pandora's Box for trial lawyers intent on silencing less controversial congregations. Even so, for Westboro to promote their position by upstaging a funeral service is an exercise in self-promotion that drives people away from Christ's message.

Businesses conduct routine audits to ensure their operations are efficient. Likewise it's good practice for us to conduct a personal audit now and again. We may find a correctible discrepancy, or that we've strayed from a desired path.

Whenever a private property owner restricts someone's activities it's called a civil rights violation, and the activists howl. Yet when government restricts activities on private property it's called smart growth or open space, and the activists worship.

If we learn nothing else from the Larry Craig saga we should learn this: it is dangerous to listen to any type of personal music device while in a men's room stall. If you're enjoying the tune, you might tap your foot.

The United Nations is a government organization that benefits from expanding regulation. Oil companies are private organizations that benefit from shrinking regulation. Yet, if a scientist who questions global warming has received one dime from energy interests he is dismissed as a shill for Big Oil while the U.N.'s pro-global warming studies are accepted as irrefutable fact. Shouldn't U.N. studies be considered biased, too?

According to Britannica, Rev. Al Sharpton began preaching when he was four-years-old and became an ordained minister at the ripe old age of ten. That makes Rev. Sharpton quite a man. Jesus himself didn't address religious matters publicly until age 12, and didn't begin his ministry until he was 30.

When Jake Delhomme underwent season-ending surgery, the Carolina Panthers wanted a veteran quarterback to back-up David Carr. Since they signed Vinny Testeverde we can assume that neither Bart Starr nor Y.A. Tittle were available.

America needs a contemporary Samson to deliver us from the clutches of socialism. He can arm himself at any Democratic presidential debate, where he'll find enough jawbones to slay 10,000 men.

There was a time when bums and vagabonds flocked to flophouses. Today the homeless and disenfranchised congregate at shelters. The changing terminology doesn't alter their circumstances, but they can claim greater self-esteem.

During national campaigns conservative candidates are routinely accused of wanting to poison the air and water. If it's true, it's a good reason to vote for conservatives. Anyone smart enough to survive without clean air and pure water is smart enough to lead the nation.

From the misplaced priorities department: a “please spay and neuter” magnet and an “I Care” animal welfare license plate on the same vehicle with a “keep abortion legal” sticker.

Maxim magazine erred in naming Sarah Jessica Parker the world's “unsexiest” woman. This is impossible as long as Rosie O'Donnell and Whoopi Goldberg are alive. On second thought, I may be wrong. To be “unsexy” implies that a person may have been sexy at some time. Neither Rosie nor Whoopi qualify.

The world is full of war, disease, tyranny, natural disasters and death, all of which try man's spirit. But to ask a Yankees fan to endure two Red Sox World Series championships in a single lifetime pushes the limit of human endurance.

Every so often something happens that you'd like to ignore, hoping it will go away, but you can't. That was my reaction to Kyle Walker, a Dennis Township New Jersey second-grader who was suspended from school. His offense was drawing a picture of a stickman holding a gun, which violated his school's zero-tolerance policy concerning guns on school grounds.

Perhaps Kyle's suspension is born of contemporary psycho-analytical excess, wherein even the most innocuous act is considered a Freudian slip. But Kyle's drawing of a gun no more makes him a potential Dylan Kleibold than his other drawings of King Tut, ghosts and trees make him an Egyptian Pharaoh, a spiritual medium, or a lumberjack.

When I was that age, my friends and I routinely drew war scenes complete with sinking ships, exploding bombs, bazookas, mortars, grenades and machine guns. We suffered no adverse affects, other than a missed assignment or two, from depicting such weapons of mass destruction on school property. Not one of us killed our classmates, grew into a Hitler, or initiated World War III. In fact, the more artistic kids received praise for their drawings.

Several years ago four New Jersey kindergartners were suspended for playing cops and robbers. Presumably, school safety was compromised when the kids pointed their fingers at each other and shouted, “Bang, bang!” With such judgment as a barometer, I'm surprised that the kids who played the robbers weren't charged with a hate crime, since real robbers are victims of our unjust society and therefore not responsible for their criminality.

In Seattle, a 10-year-old was suspended for bringing a plastic, inch-long G.I. Joe gun to school. And Bemiss Elementary in Spokane suspended three boys for playing with similar G.I. Joe guns during their lunch period. Bemiss officials said the school didn't need “anything that's going to make kids feel unsafe.”

It seems to me that a kid who's frightened of a dinky plastic gun has far more problems than can be solved by school administrators, especially those at Bemiss. However, don't make the mistake of thinking such instances are unique to the more liberal, anti-gun areas of the country.

Maine's Joshua Enos is an accomplished trap shooter. Thus he submitted a picture of himself with an unloaded, open shotgun for his high school yearbook's alternative sports section. School officials rejected the picture but said he could pose with his trophies. The second offer was rescinded when officials noticed Joshua's awards had little guns on them.

Finally, but not exhaustively, a nine-year-old honor student from Bayboro, NC, was suspended for five days for having a shotgun shell in his pocket. The boy wore his duck hunting clothes to school on Camouflage Day and had overlooked the shell after his last hunt. No, he didn't bring his shotgun, and no one would have known about the shell had the boy not felt something in his pocket and pulled it out to see what it was.

The zero-tolerance theory has spawned a zero-common sense reality. Schools will suspend kids for drawing crude pictures of guns. Yet, schools can't expel foul-mouthed thugs who assault teachers, curse principals and disrupt classes because of the thug's “right” to an education. It's senseless!

School shootings are a frightening prospect for any parent. However, in light of the previous examples, scarier still is the lack of rational thought on the part of the educational bureaucrats charged with teaching the next generation of Americans.

Randi Rhodes is a rather pretty, forty-something woman living the single life in New York City. She is the host of the Randi Rhodes Show on the inconsequential but somehow acclaimed liberal radio network, Air America. In fact, it's a relationship that calls into question what little may remain of Air America's credibility.

Miss Rhodes was injured recently while walking her dog along Park Avenue in Manhattan. Jon Elliott--her contemporary at Air America--took to his microphone and pronounced her injuries the result of “the right wing hate machine.” Mr. Elliott reported that Miss Rhodes was the victim of a violent mugging carried out by conservative thugs bent on silencing a liberal voice. His raving churned up the liberal blogs, which then ran with the story as if it were John's Gospel.

However, there was a problem. Elliott's story was far from anyone's gospel, John's or otherwise. Rhodes never filed a police report and never claimed to have been mugged. It turns out that she fell down and hit her head.

Despite Elliott's shrill charge of hate crimes, right-wing conspiracies, and threats meant to intimidate liberal voices, Miss Rhodes simply experienced a Gerald Ford moment. Air America issued a statement saying the hate crimes reports were unfounded and Elliott was forced to admit that he drew a conclusion without bothering to learn the facts.

Air America took flight in March, 2004 when investors believed the company had $30 million in reserve funds. Then reality struck. The network had only $6 million on hand and was over $2 million in debt within six weeks of its launch. Rex Sorenson, a founding partner, claimed the shortfall was due to investors who backed out at the last minute. What a convenient coincidence!

The network announced huge increases in listeners following the spring 2005 ratings period. However, the Christian Science Monitor reported that Air America was experiencing weak ratings even in liberal cities such as New York, San Francisco and Los Angeles. Perhaps the proof of which ratings spin is most accurate can be found on accounting's bottom line.

By the fall of 2006, Air America, which had touted their growing market share, was busy denying rumors of an impending bankruptcy. One month later the network filed for the bankruptcy protection it had earlier denied, citing only $4 million in assets and over $20 million in debts.

It seems that if Air America's ratings growth was as strong as they claimed it to be, they could've commanded enough advertising revenue to avoid a $15.9 million debt. And let's not even get into the maze of suspect loans the network received through the now-defunct Gloria Wise Boys and Girls Club.

Since Air America has experienced a tough time getting its story straight on past issues, it's not at all surprising that Mr. Elliott would jump to wrong conclusions based on an emotional reaction. In fact, the emotional response is indicative of the primary criteria by which prominent liberals make their decisions and form policy positions. In that light, Mr. Elliott's uninformed tirade may be the first consistency Air America can claim.

Let's look at the score. Air America was born when its founders claimed to have cash they didn't have. The network claimed listeners that weren't listening and financial solvency while on the verge of bankruptcy. Now, in addition to being out of touch with these essential elements, they've lost touch with reality, too.

It seems like everything is driven by a chip these days, even politics. Of course, the political chip has nothing to do with Intel or Silicon Valley. The political chip is the SCHIP, or State Children's Health Insurance Program. What's more, it's a powerful chip that has driven a political party back to its roots, at least temporarily.

The SCHIP is a state-operated system that provides health coverage to uninsured children. While it's true that each state can design its own program, it must do so within federal guidelines to receive federal funding. You may wonder how a state program can remain a state program when it must dance to the federal government's fiddle. Well, it can't, which means SCHIP is a federal program concealed behind the legitimacy of a state system.

Today, thanks to the SCHIP, we have Republican legislators again questioning the federal government's reach, scope and authority. GOP congressmen are circling the wagons, drawing lines in the sand and discovering a courage and purpose not seen since 1994. They're forming ranks to protect a president who, perhaps for the first time, sounds like a Reagan disciple.

President Bush warned lawmakers--meaning Democrats--to trim their spending or face a veto, promising a fiscal showdown in Washington. George W. Bush, who never vetoed the ever-increasing budgets passed by the GOP Congress, has become an Oval Office Wyatt Earp and challenged Democrats to the budget fight at the D.C corral.

Speaking in Rogers, Ark, the president said Congress must be responsible with the taxpayer's money and propose spending that makes fiscal sense. The Associated Press reports that the White House now sees fiscal responsibility as a winning issue and a chance to label Democrats as the tax-and-spend party.

Well, hallelujah. But an explanation of where this fiscal restraint has been for the last six years is certainly appropriate. There was a day when Republicans didn't have to work so hard to paint a tax-and-spend picture of Democrats.

The Republican Party once proposed de-federalizing education. Republicans believed that schools were best funded and managed through state and local authority, giving parents more influence over their children's education. Instead we received the No Child Left Behind Act, which promotes some worthwhile goals but has also increased federal educational grants by an estimated 66-percent. Who is so naïve as to believe those increasing funds mean a decreasing federal involvement?

Republicans once warned of Medicare's impending doom and opposed a Clinton plan to incorporate prescription drugs for seniors into Medicare. Then, a few years later, they passed a Bush plan that did the same thing. If that's not enough, we heard President Bush preach the need to combat Islamic militants in the name of national security, with which I agree. He then gave his all to a bill that would've legitimized 12 million illegal aliens and compromised what's left of our national borders.

The first political statesman to catch my attention was Ronald Reagan. At the time I knew little of politics, some might say that's still the case today, but I liked his message that America needn't grovel at the Soviet Union's feet and that happiness and prosperity were better sought through private means than through government programs. I came to believe that a Republican president with a Republican Congress would reduce government. When those stars finally aligned Republicans were too willing to compromise the message that brought them to power.

For the first time in six years Republicans appear conservative. How long it will last is anybody's guess. But had Republicans governed like conservatives while they held Congress they might not have lost the majority.

America's school system has observed Christmas for as long as any of us can recall. That recognition changed when the spiritual meaning of Christmas came to violate the so-called separation of church and state. Still, the educational system recognizes Christmas as Christmas. That nearly changed in Oak Lawn, Illinois.

According to a Chicago television station, a Muslim mother--Elizabeth Zahdan--requested that her children be separated from their classmates during Ramadan. You can imagine what would be said to parents who demanded similar treatment for their children during Lent.

At any rate, rather than saying no and encouraging Ms. Zahdan to get over it, Ridgeland School District 122 opted to change the Christmas holiday to the winter festival. Thankfully, parents protested this foolish attack on American culture and tradition (although the true meaning of Christmas transcends all cultures and traditions). However, the situation goes much deeper than simply recognizing a holiday.

The Oak Lawn situation needn't revolve around Christmas; it could be any custom. Contemporary tolerance now considers anything associated with American or Western culture to be exclusionary, and therefore evil. Conversely, any other culture or belief is considered inclusive, and therefore pure. Little by little our uniquely American way of life, which should be revered, is disappearing under a multi-cultural assault.

I'm quite aware that not all Arabs and Muslims share Zahdan's position. If you're a Muslim or a Hindu or whatever, feel free to observe your holidays. But keep in mind that practices common to Western Civilization are dominant in our society and don't have to change to suit the world.

I will give Zahdan credit for one thing; she didn't compromise her beliefs for fear of offending someone. Americans are, by and large, too timid to defend our culture for fear of hurting someone's feelings. If that continues, don't be surprised if we wake up some morning with no society to defend.

Thanks to the aforementioned parental outrage the winter festival nonsense is gone and Christmas is back in Oak Lawn. However, before you breathe a sigh of relief consider that even this is a hollow victory. In order to observe Christmas, Ramadan must be celebrated too. Why is that a problem? Well, what would happen if Ramadan, a religious holy month, were secularized to the same extent as Christmas?

Santa Claus and Rudolph are the primary Christmas décor in most public schools. Yet neither Santa nor Rudolph is religious, although Santa is drawn from the legend of St. Nicholas. Ramadan decorations, such as stars and crescents, are Islamic religious symbols. If those symbols adorn classrooms and hallways during Ramadan, shouldn't nativities, angel choirs and crosses be present at public schools this December? Rest assured that ACLU lawyers would froth like mad dogs at the first sight of a Baby Jesus in the classroom.

Muslims can practice their religion freely in America, for our nation is unique in protecting the minority from the tyranny of the majority. Sadly, that has been twisted until the majority must surrender its rights so as not to offend the minority. If Islamic symbols or Koranic quotations grace Oak Lawn's schools during Ramadan then manger scenes and Luke Chapter Two should be standard fare for Christmas.

I have no desire to transform the school system into the Baptist Church. With that said, it's entirely accurate to deem the Ridgeland School District's decision, or lack thereof, as yet another assault on Western Civilization. At the very least, it represents a double standard on whatever constitutional separation of church and state actually exists.

On October the 8th government employees paused in honor of Christopher Columbus. The rest of us continued on business as usual, except for the banks of course. I took the occasion to reflect on what Columbus was, and I use “what” purposely because his legacy is more than a single man.

I recall some of my grade-school history concerning Columbus. He grew up poor and spent his youth sailing and studying what little was known about geography. Columbus didn't develop the idea of a spherical earth or of sailing west to reach the East. He did, however, desire to prove each theory and gain some fame and fortune for himself.

Columbus didn't gain the fortune he sought and died in poverty within 15 years of a discovery he never realized he had made. He certainly gained fame, but he didn't prove the idea of sailing west to reach India. In fact, he thought the New World was India. By modern standards Columbus would be an ignorant failure. However, he didn't live in modern times.

For his day he was certainly a great navigator and a pioneer explorer. He discovered an area unknown in his world and found his way back home. How many of us can't find our way out of the two-acre forest behind our homes? He made his voyage with sailors who believed the sea serpent-filled Atlantic Ocean had no end and the equator was so hot that the ocean boiled. Considering the circumstances, Columbus' achievement was remarkable.

Yet there's another side to Columbus, and each anniversary of his landing brings renewed scorn to his memory. Not only do his critics point out his failures, as if that were a new discovery, they charge him with raping the Utopian paradise that was the Caribbean.

Antagonists charge Columbus with establishing a genocidal pattern of murder and slavery that quickly exterminated the Arawak tribesmen. Columbus' critics maintain that the entire era of European exploration and settlement exploded into a slaughterous inquisition and that Genoa's famed mariner lit the fuse.

However, the idea that the New World lived in peace and harmony before Columbus is somewhat naïve. Yes, the Spanish abused the Taino Arawak tribe. But Columbus' critics accentuate his violence only, never mentioning that the New World had a native brand of brutality.

The Taino were rather peaceful. But the Caribs were a warrior tribe that was pushing Tainos from their land before Columbus arrived. They made wives of captured Taino women (slavery, anyone?), made necklaces from a vanquished enemy's teeth, and may have practiced cannibalism. Perhaps Caribs had decimated the Ciboneys, said to have populated the Caribbean 5000 years ago, before the Spanish arrived to finish off both tribes.

The Ciboneys apparently descended from a prior culture that was nearly exterminated by yet another people. Brazil's Tupinamba Indians practiced a warrior form of cannibalism whether the Caribs did or not. And each of these tribes came from the mainland meaning that they themselves were explorers and not indigenous to the Caribbean.

I'll neither praise nor scorn Columbus and his successors. But keep in mind that most known civilizations came from somewhere and displaced someone else along the way, likely by force. Mankind has explored, fought, conquered and lost since Adam and Eve were booted from the Garden of Eden, and it will continue as long as man survives. Is that preferable to living in peace and mutual respect? Certainly not, but it's reality nonetheless.

One commenter summarized Columbus thusly, “It is not history that is good or bad--history merely is. It is human nature that is good or bad; and we are all a part of it. Let's celebrate it whenever we can, each in our own ways.”

In the Rime of the Ancient Mariner an old seafarer kills the bird of good omen, an albatross. His finicky shipmates--who condemned, exonerated and condemned him again--hung the dead bird about his neck. From Coleridge's poem comes the notion of likening shameful or disgraceful events to carrying an albatross. That image sprang to mind when John Edwards and Jimmy Carter got together to feign and fawn in southern Georgia.

During President Carter's administration the prime interest rate bounced wildly. That rate was around 7-percent when Mr. Carter took office in January, 1977. By the time the 1980 presidential election came around interest rates were over 20-percent. Inflation more than doubled during the Carter administration, reaching a high of nearly 15-percent in March, 1980.

President Carter appeared to his country as unsure and non-committal concerning his domestic policies. Time Magazine reported in March of 1980 that Mr. Carter, in a single interview, described the U.S. economy as being at a crisis stage and later declared total satisfaction with his administration's economic policies.

On President Carter's watch non-defense spending outpaced defense spending nearly five to one and entitlements alone were twice the outlay for national defense. This poor prioritizing occurred during the Cold War when the mere mention of the Soviet Union prompted nationwide fear. In general, a four-year malaise settled over America.

Of greater importance than economic news and foreign threats is the public's sense of a leader's purpose and confidence. Neither was manifest in Carter's presidency, and the result was Ronald Reagan's comfortable popular and electoral victory in 1980.

Considering the public approval of the current Commander-in-Chief, George W. Bush could become the albatross for current and future Republican candidates. If so, there's no doubt that Carter's performance earned him that distinction for Democrats. It makes you wonder why John Edwards would willingly hang Carter's legacy around his neck. At least the Ancient Mariner had this distinguishing Mark of Cain thrust upon him.

Why wouldn't Edwards run for the tall grass when Carter referred to him as a kindred spirit on poverty and “a candidate whom I really admire?” Edwards would be better off jumping into the briny depths than draping the dead bird of the Carter presidency over his shoulders.

Yet, I suppose Edwards can no more separate himself from the idea that government can end poverty than the Ancient Mariner could've shed the rotting albatross and leapt into the Pacific Ocean. It is that shared vision of a redistributionist solution to poverty that makes Edwards and Carter inseparable. The “two Americas” mantra could as easily belong to Carter as to Edwards.

Their joint condemnation of a Republican administration over the Katrina aftermath ignores two Democrat administrations (the mayor of New Orleans and the governor of Louisiana) that did even less. Also ignored is the fact that poverty rates fell much faster between World War II and the Great Society than they have since government stepped in to solve the poverty problem. And with their shared ideologies and used-car salesman smiles, Edwards and Carter look like they could be kin.

Only upon repentance did the albatross finally fall from the Ancient Mariner's neck. Likewise only can John Edwards shake Jimmy Carter from his shoulders. That's not likely, since repentance means a turn from past wrongs to pursue a new direction.

To enter a public debate requires a thick skin. Anything less means you'll be eaten alive. Thus Rush Limbaugh's in familiar territory with the phony soldier flap, as is Gen. David Petraeus with MoveOn.org. They're grown men and likely accustomed to both fair and unfair criticism. But there's a difference in the two situations that highlights the political divide in America.

MoveOn.org's members don't have to agree with Gen. Petraeus on the Iraq War. However, their “Gen. Betray-us” ad appeared prior to Petraeus' testimony, meaning MoveOn.org made up its collective mind before hearing the report. Whether or not their ad warranted Congressional condemnation is debatable, but its ignorance is unquestionable. Was Limbaugh's “phony soldier” comment comparable? Let's look at it.

Phony soldiers do exist, enough so that Operation Stolen Valor is now investigating at least a dozen cases in the Pacific Northwest alone. These alleged veterans go back as far as World War II and have defrauded the VA of $1.4 million. Then there's Jesse MacBeth, toward whom Rush's comment was primarily directed.

MacBeth was an Army Ranger in Iraq. He was a corporal and a Purple Heart recipient who blew the whistle on U.S atrocities in theatre. He saw--and at the order of superiors, participated in--the wholesale slaughter and desecration of Iraqi civilians. His revelations found a receptive audience in the anti-war movement and at PepperSpray Productions, which taped MacBeth's story, translated it into Arabic and distributed it via the Internet.

MacBeth served only 44 days in the U.S Army before being discharged for “issues related to entry-level performance and conduct.” That means he was a goldbrick who washed out. His Ranger status, rank, commendations and genocidal revelations were as phony as a three-dollar bill.

A little Internet searching will produce the MacBeth video, although its original producers and sympathizers abandoned it once MacBeth was exposed. But it's a safe bet that Muslim militants haven't abandoned that video. It's a safe bet that Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah and other jihad recruits see this phony soldier's lies. Thank you, Jesse MacBeth and PepperSpray Productions, for recruiting our enemies. Not only are you frauds, you're also traitors.

Limbaugh was correct. However, the fact that MacBeth is a phony soldier makes no difference to Limbaugh's critics. Democratic leaders know the comment wasn't directed at true veterans who oppose the war. Yet they've ignored the truth in hopes of gaining political advantage, which raises an even greater issue.

America's at war not only with Islamic fanatics but with itself. There's a quasi-civil war raging that renders legitimate compromise impossible and open debate improbable. Bi-partisanship now means absolute agreement with liberalism.

Bi-partisanship means shielding our foreign enemies behind the U.S. Constitution, subjecting national sovereignty to the whims of world opinion and embracing cradle-to-grave socialism. If you disagree with liberals you're stifling dissent and reality takes a back seat to party doctrine. If you don't believe it, ask Zell Miller or Joe Lieberman.

Anyone who believes that limited government, personal liberty, religious freedom and responsibility will preserve America's future has a poor ally in the Republican Party. However, the now-socialist Democratic Party is a downright enemy to America's founding principles. Don't expect to find common ground, for there's no reconciliation with an adversary that defines compromise as you abandoning your basic principles.

Conservatism and socialism are fighting over America's future. If the next generation is to inherit a representative government based on individual liberty, conservatives better get serious about winning. The reaction to the Limbaugh situation has made that perfectly clear.

Imagine that it's autumn, 1944. We are about three years removed from Pearl Harbor and involved in a global war. How would we react if Adolf Hitler--allied, even if not directly involved, with Pearl Harbor's attackers--came to America to place a wreath at Battleship Row? How would our grandparents have reacted?

Maybe I'm wrong, but I think the Greatest Generation would've arrested Schiklgruber the minute he stepped from the plane, given him a trial and executed him. He certainly wouldn't have been welcome at Pearl Harbor or invited to speak at an elite university. Maybe Hitler was born 70 years too soon. Today, not only he but also Hirohito, Tojo, Yamamoto, and Mussolini would be welcome to speak at American universities. What the heck; why not invite Stalin, too? Yes, he was an ally back then, but out of necessity not ideology.

I must be accurate because Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad spoke at Columbia University. Thankfully, we had the good sense to deny Ahmadinejad his photo-op at Ground Zero. Now we're left to decide if his address was offensive or free speech, which won't take very long.

New York City Council speaker Christine Quinn said the thought of honoring Ahmadinejad anywhere in the city is “offensive to all New Yorkers.” I agree, and will go Ms. Quinn one better. I think his appearing anywhere in America is disgraceful and should offend all Americans, regardless of race, creed, religion, or political affiliation. But disgrace didn't stop Columbia University from bringing Ahmadinejad to its World Leaders Forum. In fact, Columbia's president Lee Bollinger said the appearance served as a “major forum for robust debate.”

Who'll speak next at the World Leaders Forum? Perhaps Robert Mugabe can address the importance of private property. Sudan's Ahmad al-Bashir can lecture on religious and ethnic tolerance in Darfur. Hugo Chavez can expound on the virtues of free markets. And as for a “forum for robust debate,” why not invite the Imperial Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan? Shouldn't we hear from him, too?

Yes, Mr. Bollinger did rake Ahmadinejad over the coals during the introduction. But you have to wonder if the criticism he received beforehand motivated his harsh though accurate statements. If Bollinger believes what he said about Iran's president, why give voice to such a vitriolic tyrant? After all, our own ROTC hasn't been welcome at Columbia University since 1969.

Anyone with as much as their big toe on the plain of reality recognizes Ahmadinejad's speech as a propaganda appearance. Here's a leader form a terror-supporting state standing on U.S. soil telling the world that America is wrong about his humble and peaceful nation. He said that Iranians, especially women, enjoy the highest level of freedom. At times he received applause from Columbia's students, which would be frightening if not for the prospect that most of them will come to grips with reality after graduation.

Had Hitler addressed Columbia University in 1944 his purpose wouldn't have been to debate issues or open a dialogue. Hitler would've spoken to sympathetic minds. Despite Bollinger's condemnations and Ahmadinejad's feigned offense, the Iranian president accomplished the same goal. He wasn't speaking to America but to like-minded Islamic zealots around the world. Ahmadinejad stood at the throne of his Satan and spit in the devil's face.

The term “useful idiot” is attributed to Vladimir Lenin, whether he used it or not, and refers to someone easily duped into serving another's purpose. Maybe Columbia should drop Lions and adopt Useful Idiots as its nickname, for Ahmadinejad played their staff and students for suckers and will laugh all the way back to the jihad.

Ben Franklin said it well, “Take time for all things: great haste makes great waste.” This is sound advice in all situations, but perhaps best applied when forming an opinion. Seldom is the initial information enough to draw an accurate conclusion.

Remember the Duke University rape fiasco? Sure you do! The defendants were pronounced guilty before the ink dried on the accusation. The Duke students were suspended, the lacrosse team's season was cancelled and Coach Mike Pressler was sacked. Civil rights leaders and Duke University professors, the infamous Group of 88, leaped to premature verdicts. The initial reaction was to damn the accused. Then a miracle happened; the truth came out.

Reality contradicted the short-sighted and sanctimonious accusers, who then scattered like roaches at first light. Not one of the outraged activists--those so ready to cast the first stone--remained to defend their false conclusions save for the Group of 88, who piously claimed that their rash and arrogant statements were “misinterpreted.”

By contrast, the facts in Jena, Louisiana appeared crystal clear. White students congregated beneath the “white tree.” When black students sat under the tree three nooses, said to signify a KKK presence, were hung in its branches. Racial strife ensued leading to six black kids assaulting a white kid, which led to judicial discrepancies. This was the gospel truth--for a few days.

There were two nooses in the tree, not three, nullifying the Klan symbolism. According to teachers and administrators, Jena High School students, both white and black, sat under the “white tree” at various times and students, both white and black, were seen swinging on the nooses and placing their heads through the loops. The three noose-hangers did receive a three-day suspension, as widely reported. But they also received a two-week in-school suspension and a month at an alternative school and were recommended for expulsion.

What about the all-white jury that convicted Mychal Bell? True, that jury was as white as a sheet, if you'll pardon the expression. Could that be because none of the black residents summoned for jury duty bothered to show up?

What's accurate and what isn't in Jena can be difficult to determine. It's likely there's some truth and error in both accounts. Still, regardless of the number of nooses in the tree or why they were put there, I can understand why a black person would be taken aback by the sight of a noose hanging from a tree in the Deep South. Had the marchers demanded a stiffer penalty for the white noose-hangers--fine. But that's not what the marchers demanded. You see, “Free the Jena 6” makes a much better sound bite than does “Expel the noose-hangers.”

Marchers demanded “Free the Jena 6” with slogans, chants, speeches, banners, T-shirts, and hats. What was billed as a call for justice was, in fact, the direct opposite. The protests were a demand for injustice. “Free the Jena 6” doesn't demand a just punishment for any crime the white kids committed. Instead it calls for the judicial system to overlook a crime the black kids committed. How is justice--and race relations, for that matter--advanced by excusing six kids of any race for beating unconscious one kid of another race?

No doubt that many sincere people gathered in Jena, LA. No doubt also that many of the “leaders” who organized the marches were demanding that justice suit a racial purpose, which is immoral no matter what race it serves.

I don't know who Berni McCoy might be. I only know that Berni is a blogger at the liberal website DemocraticUnderground.com, and I assume that he's a man. I also know that he doesn't think MoveOn.org's semi-slanderous campaign against Gen. David Petraeus was despicable. He does, however, find many other things despicable. Let's look at them.

Berni says that President Bush's lying and falsifying of intelligence to justify the Iraq War was despicable. Most prominent democrats will agree with Berni today. But that wasn't always the case.

President Clinton, Madeline Albright, Senators Carl Levin and John Kerry, and Rep. Nancy Pelosi, among others acknowledged that Iraq possessed banned weapons and posed a threat to the United States. That was the late 1990's. Following 9/11, Al Gore along with Senators Ted Kennedy, Bob Graham, and Jay Rockefeller stated that Saddam Hussein was stockpiling biological and chemical weapons and seeking nuclear weapons. Sen. Clinton took this belief a step farther. During a speech on the Senate floor she expressed not only similar thoughts regarding WMDs but said Hussein “has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al-Qaeda members.” Not every democratic leader saw this intelligence as justification for war, but its accuracy was widely accepted.

Don't try to claim that Bush conned the Democrats. All we've heard since the 2000 campaign is that George Bush is an ignorant stooge. If that's the case, how did this dim-witted cowboy manage to dupe the most learned of liberal leaders? You can't have it both ways.

Oil company profits have reached record highs. That's not debatable. However, oil company profit margins are less than 10-percent, which is compatible with other U.S. manufacturing businesses. What's more, if the war is to secure oil then why invade Iraq? Prior to the Iraq War we received the bulk of our oil from Canada, Saudi Arabia, Mexico, Venezuela, and Nigeria. That remains the case today. Oil imports from Iraq are actually slightly lower than the pre-war levels.

If we went to war to secure oil we should've invaded one of the five countries from which we receive the most imports, preferably Mexico. It's closest and would've proved an easy occupation. There's no one left in Mexico to resist; they're all here.

Our soldiers are unprotected, forced to dig in the trash for needed armor. “Despicable”, writes Berni. But remember, Congress controls military funding regardless of which party controls Congress. The current Congress can fund all the armor it wants to buy. Or, if Democrats are so serious about ending the war, Congress can cut funding altogether. If you don't believe it, read Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution.

“Despicable,” writes Berni, that George Bush wouldn't meet with Cindy Sheehan. In fact, the President did meet with Cindy and her family at Ft. Lewis, WA in 2004. Following that meeting, Cindy's hometown newspaper reported her as saying Bush was sincere in his efforts and sorry for their loss. A year later she told CNN a completely different story. Even the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, hardly a member of the vast right-wing conspiracy, questioned her sincerity.

Bush's actions following Katrina and the lack of National Guard protections were “despicable.” Yet Berni doesn't mention Mayor Nagin or Gov. Blanco, neither of whom did a thing before the storm but complained vociferously afterwards. Also, he fails to mention that the entire nation watched Katrina churn across the Gulf of Mexico, gaining strength, for five days before striking the Louisiana-Mississippi coast.

Berni accuses President Bush of leaking a covert CIA operative's identity for political purposes. In truth, Richard Armitage--an administration insider who was largely hostile to the White House and the Iraq War plan--leaked Valerie Plame's identity. Ultimately, even the Washington Post concluded that the person most responsible for destroying Plame's CIA career was her husband, Joe Wilson. This doesn't prevent Berni from concluding that Bush's leaking of an identity he didn't leak wasn't only despicable, but treasonous.

We'll have to wait on Berni's assessment of Dennis Kucinich's snuggling of Syrian President Bashar Assad. Not only did “Kook”cinich praise the peace-loving Assad, he steadfastly refused to meet with U.S. troops in Iraq saying, “I don't want to bless that occupation with my presence.” That may not be treasonous, as some people have claimed, but it's certainly arrogant and patently foolish.

Our hero summed up his ill-informed tirade as follows: “So, George, you see, when you have the nerve to call those who would speak the truth, 'despicable', you should take a long hard look in the mirror, followed by a long hard look at the definition of the word. You'll find yourself somewhere along the way.”

Britney Spears hit the comeback trail at the Music Video Awards. Judging from the news coverage it received you would think it's the most important moment in U.S. history. It's not, but it does teach a lesson about pop culture that we'd do well to learn.

Britney's MTV appearance did nothing but solidify her waning image. In fact, she looked as if she were stoned off the planet. If you haven't seen it--don't, and count it as a blessing. I had to watch that tedious video several times to write this article. Thankfully I watched on an empty stomach.

Maybe I'm a bit naïve, but I thought Britney Spears was billed as a singer. Yet, for better or worse, nary an expert mentioned her vocal performance. That could be because she didn't sing. She lip-synched, at least part of the time, and didn't do that very well. Remember when lip-synching was considered a career killer? Ask Milli Vanilli what it did for their future.

Oh, Britney received plenty of harsh words otherwise. Critics panned her dance routine as “lame,” “sleepwalked,” and “glassy-eyed.” The New York Daily News blasted her “ill-fitting blonde weave” and the New York Post roasted the “ditzy disaster” for a body that “jiggled like Jell-O.”

Why did the critics focus on Britney's dancing and physical appearance when she is allegedly a singer? Well, we've established that she doesn't sing. The fact is that she's never been a singer, at least not since she became famous. That won't make sense until you focus on the criteria by which her success is judged, her dancing and her body. Britney Spears career isn't based on music but quasi-prostitution. Hear me out before you pass judgment.

Etymology traces the noun “prostitute” to the year 1613 meaning, "a woman who offers her body indiscriminately." Random House and the American Heritage dictionaries define a prostitute as a person who sells or uses their talents or abilities for debased or unworthy purposes. Prostitution is the act itself. Explain to me how Britney doesn't fit that definition.

Britney Spears' career is like a hooker's without a john, a stripper's without a pole, or a porn star's without a sex scene. She's not a singer; she's a seductress, dancing and wiggling for the pimps her industry piously calls agents and producers. And yes, I will substantiate my assertions.

A craftily disguised sexuality launched Britney's fame, despite her initial portrayal of innocence and promotion of abstinence until marriage. The next thing you know she's kissing Madonna, partying all night, neglecting her kids, and performing outlandish publicity stunts. That behavior is consistent with those of sex industry workers. Make no mistake, Britney Spears doesn't sell music; she sells sex, just as surely as does a streetwalker, an exotic dancer, or a porn star.

Furthermore, her “friends” have capitalized on her declining value, using her for all she's worth. MTV gained free publicity from her poor performance. The awards show host rooted for Britney before the show, afterwards taking pot shots at her kids and declaring that Britney “has already accomplished everything she's going to accomplish in life.” Use her up and throw her away, just like a prostitute or a porn star.

I hope Britney Spears regains control of her life and career; I really do. If she has a good voice she might want to dispense with the lip-synching and actually sing. Contrary to her critics' opinions she's still quite pretty, which can be advantageous without being exploited.

For now she simply fulfills America's lust for celebrity outlandishness. She's known for being famous--on par with Paris Hilton, Nicole Ritchie and Lindsay Lohan. Let's hope she doesn't follow another such example and end up like Anna Nicole Smith.

American flags waved amid ceremonies, prayers and silence on September 11th. While attendance at official commemorations is down from years past, no American passed the day without remembering the attacks or reflecting on our nation's heritage.

The American flag evolved slightly as each new state was admitted to the union. However, it remains the same basic banner that led colonial forces during the American Revolution and survived the 1814 British bombardment at Fort McHenry. It went with our forefathers as they explored and settled the West. It charged San Juan Hill with Teddy Roosevelt and the Rough Riders.

In the 20th Century it survived the trenches, machine guns and chemical weapons of World War I. Less than 25 years later it led our troops against what may have been the most brutal dictatorship in human history. That flag was present at battlefields across Europe and signaled victory atop the blood-drenched Mount Suribachi. It shouted an emphatic “no” to communist expansion in Korea, Vietnam, and Cold War. Today it says no to Muslim fanaticism.

The American flag rising from the smoldering rubble of the World Trade Center provided stability when all else was uncertain. It is a welcome sight on each 9/11 anniversary, except at Hobbton High School in Newton Grove, NC. Hobbton students weren't allowed to wear items displaying their country's flag on 9/11. Sampson County's school superintendent, Dr. Stewart Hobbs, said the situation was “unfortunate”, but explained that educators didn't want to choose which country's flags were acceptable and which weren't. I'd like to know why not.

The ban itself was quickly overturned. However, even then Dr. Hobbs said the school's principal acted in good faith. Hogwash! Hobbton principal Wesley Johnson acted like a politically correct, gutless coward. And his reasoning, that gang members use foreign flags as identifiers, rings hollow.

According to the Education First school report card, which bears the endorsement of North Carolina Gov. Mike Easley, Hobbton High experienced zero instances of crime and violence last school year. Even if there is an underlying gang problem at Hobbton, will someone explain to me how preventing American students in an American school, supported by American taxpayers, from displaying the American flag will solve it?

This is America and we aren't obligated to recognize any nation's flag other than our own, the display of which is always acceptable. If you don't like that--leave. Our flag represents our republic, economic liberty, private property, and the ability to achieve or fail independent of government whim and dictate. If you don't like that--leave. And quite frankly, I don't care if you're an illegal alien who jumped the border last night, a foreign national, or an American citizen whose ancestors moored the Mayflower.

It's often said that an organization is no better than its leadership. By and large Hobbton High is an average school. Yet there is a telling statistic. Only half of Hobbton students reached grade level in U.S. History and civics last year. A longstanding lack of concern for our nation's history and its operational foundations has produced the type of pointy-headed academic leaders who then make such stupid decisions.

Hobbton High's leadership suffers from the avant-garde notions of multiculturalism and unconditional tolerance. For unexplainable reasons we must pacify anyone who's offended by our nation's history and traditions and abolish liberty to deal with its thuggish and immoral misuse.

On Tuesday, September 11, 2007, Hobbton High School students suffered the result of academia's “we are the world” mindset. Maybe it's time for a good dose of old-fashioned nationalism.

Two years ago Southwest Airlines created a brief stir for booting Lorrie Heasley from a flight. Heasley's offence was found on her t-shirt. It bore a picture of Pres. Bush and some administration figures. However, before you jump to conclusions, understand that it wasn't the political message that produced her grounding but the capital “F” expletive that accompanied it.

Southwest had every right to kick Heasley off the flight, a conclusion logical people would agree with. If she had any class at all she wouldn't have chosen a shirt with the “f-bomb” emblazoned across the front. What's more, her message would've been more influential without the vulgarity, which was juvenile at best.

Last month Southwest again policed a customer's wardrobe, and this time it is garnering more attention. Kyla Ebbert, a college student and a waitress at a Hooters restaurant, was asked to leave a flight because of her attire. In a letter to Kyla and her mother, the airline stated their right to remove passengers “whose clothing is lewd, obscene or patently offensive.”

Pictures of Kyla and her controversial clothing are readily available. She happens to be a pretty young blonde with a nice figure. Her questionable clothing was a tank top and sweater that revealed no cleavage, a short mini-skirt and high heel sandals.

Was she noticeable? You bet she was, maybe even sexy and provocative. But by today's standards her outfit was rather tame. I'd certainly prefer flying next to Kyla than some slob with enough rings in their face to resemble a pincushion or a thug with his pants around his knees. Furthermore, it's pretty well known that Southwest used sex appeal in advertisements over 30 years ago.

An old commercial shows a sultry stewardess dressed in hot pants, which were every bit as revealing as Kyla's skirt, pitching the airline in a seductive voice. Since Southwest can't claim Cotton Mather purity, was the airline wrong to confront Kyla?

In an effort to determine public opinion I visited a popular Internet blog site. The exercise quickly became frustrating. One respondent, known as Rufus, defended Kyla by questioning another blogger's ability to define that which is easily definable; a sure indicator that Rufus had no basis for his opinion. Generally, it was downhill from there. The “debate” quickly dissolved into mindless harangues about fashion police, anti-sex Puritans, evangelical dominance, and left-right political ideology.

Kyla's attire was indeed distractive and enticing. It's likely that she could've chosen more appropriate clothing, but she wasn't erotic or offensive. However, since Southwest owns the planes they can decide what is and isn't appropriate onboard. Southwest can require all fliers to don raccoon coats and snowshoes if they so choose. They'd go bankrupt pretty quick, but they have that right.

Whether or not Southwest handled the situation properly is another matter. What is troubling is how little concern people have for freedom. While so-called civil libertarians scream about “my rights” they totally ignore the fact that other people and entities have rights, too. With a populace so ignorant of both rights and liberty it's no wonder both are disappearing in rapid order.

If I buy Southwest Airlines Kyla can fly in her miniskirt any time she wants. But if the current Southwest management cannot determine what is and isn't acceptable on their property then their rights have been violated. Anyone who thinks this is a breach of Kyla's “civil rights” is dead wrong.

To preserve freedom we should accommodate another person's rights even to the point of some personal inconvenience. Conversely, if everyone is to enjoy the blessings of liberty we must also remember that one person's rights end where the next person's rights begin.

Six years ago, on the day of this writing, Islamic radicals attacked the United States of America. Al-Qaeda-trained guerillas boarded and hi-jacked four commercial airliners. They flew two planes into the Twin Towers, another into the Pentagon, and a fourth into a Pennsylvania field following a passenger revolt. Or did they?

Conspiracy theories abound regarding 9/11, with most holding that Osama bin Laden, Al-Qaeda, and Muslim radicals are simply scapegoats for a deeper, internal cover-up. That's right; 9/11 was an inside job. Friends, if you think JFK's death produced a mess it's nothing compared to the aftermath of 9/11.

First of all, commandeered aircraft didn't hit the Twin Towers on that fateful morning. What you saw ramming into the World Trade Center were actually remotely flown cargo planes under U.S. military control. And their damage didn't topple the buildings. They simply created a diversion to hide the fact that the buildings were razed with internal explosives hidden several days earlier. Yes, the Twin Towers were purposely imploded.

Flight 77 didn't strike the Pentagon, as you've been led to believe. That blast was actually a cruise missile fired by a secret arm of the U.S. military. There was no heroism in the Pennsylvania skies. Flight 93 didn't crash as a result of a passenger revolt. Actually, it was shot down by a mysterious white jet, if Flight 93 was in the air at all. Some people claim it landed safely in Cleveland, Ohio with nary an explanation of what happened to the passengers.

For that matter, what happened to the passengers on United Flight 175 and American Flight 11, which were replaced with the remote control cargo planes? Maybe the CIA hi-jacked those planes to Cuba, forced the passengers to make fake phone calls to loved ones, and now holds them in a secret sector at Guantanamo Bay.

9/11 isn't the first event from which people have constructed sinister stories and diabolical plots. The Oklahoma City bombing was rife with conspiracy allegations. The deaths of Pope John Paul I and John Lennon, and the attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan, all stirred unsubstantiated accusations. Conspiracies hold that Franklin Roosevelt orchestrated, or knowingly allowed, the attack on Pearl Harbor so America would enter WWII. And let's not even think about John F. Kennedy's death or the Apollo lunar landing.

The conspiracists who've concocted the wild theories about 9/11 will readily condemn anyone who doesn't accept their allegations as the unmitigated truth. In reality, they don't trust their own theories. If they believe their accusations why have they not taken up arms to overthrow the Bush Administration and the government they claim is responsible for the deaths of 3000 Americans? Would not such a government deserve rebellion?

Thomas Jefferson wrote that proper government secures mankind's basic rights. The government conspiracy that theorists describe is far removed from that Jeffersonian ideal. So what's next? Mr. Jefferson also wrote, “… whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it…” If conspiracists know the “true” story and fail to follow Mr. Jefferson's directive are they not allied with the traitors they accuse?

I don't trust government myself. I tend to agree with Thomas Paine that government is, at best, a necessary evil. But the “anti-government” activists who claim 9/11 was an inside job are also the same activists demanding government healthcare, government education, government welfare, government retirement, and government control over privately held arms. That leads one to believe their conspiracy theories are politically motivated.

Ridley Scott says mobile phones and computers are threatening movie-making's future. Scott is also an award-winning director with credits such as Alien, Gladiator and Black Hawk Down. It's safe to assume that he has a good sense of the film industry's vulnerabilities. Me, I can barely take a still picture. What I do know is that cinema's obituary has been written before, and movies are still here.

However, there's no doubt that the cinematic experience is less of a draw than it once was. During any given week in 1930, 65-percent of America's population attended a movie. In 2000, less than 10-percent did so. And don't let announcements of record gross receipts mislead you; movie tickets cost a bit more these days.

If there's any doubt about price playing a factor in gross receipts just consider that only nine of the top 300 all-time grossing films were made prior to 1980. Classics such as Casablanca, Citizen Kane, and It's a Wonderful Life are nowhere to be found.

There are many reasons for the box office's static performance. Price is a factor in both admission and concessions, and health activists would deny us that good old buttery popcorn that made theatres famous. Television is likely the greatest influence. We can rent or buy movies for a fraction of the cost of a night at the theatre.

Quality is another factor affecting cinema's popularity. Sure, there are some original, entertaining films around. But many movies are remakes or sequels. You can only sink the Titanic and shoot big apes from buildings so many times. No one can Die Hard enough to rest in peace and the worst luck associated with Friday the 13th is entering the theatre. Furthermore, among 2006's top draws were Borat and Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby. That's not exactly Gone with the Wind.

Movie stars were once active participants in defending this country. Eddie Albert received the Bronze Star in World War II. Jimmy Stewart and Clarke Gable flew combat missions for the Army Air Corps. Bob Hope and the Andrews Sisters entertained the troops. Red Skelton delivered an eloquently detailed recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance. What is the prevailing celebrity attitude toward America today?

Every election brings a host of Hollywood brats threatening to leave the country if their candidate doesn't win. Barbara Streisand has done it, so has Martin Sheen. Unfortunately, not many kept their promise. Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon have made careers of belittling the nation that made them rich and famous.

Whoopi Goldberg is another. It's never enough for her to express her discontent, which she has every right to do; she must lace her complaints with expletives worthy of a Parris Island drill instructor. And Rosie O' Donnell seems convinced that 9/11 was an inside job. Charlie Sheen agrees, forever proving that apples don't fall far from the tree.

Are you beginning to see a pattern? How many modern movie stars would fly in Gable's bomber? It's amazing how people whose entire life centers on make-believe consider themselves absolute authorities on reality.

Maybe that attitude has affected cinema's influence. Maybe people, regardless of their opinions of Bush or the Iraq War, are weary of hearing movie stars drag America through the mud. Maybe people don't enjoy seeing Danny Glover, Sean Penn and Harry Belafonte gush and coo over Hugo Chavez. Maybe people, other than me, are simply sick and tired of the folks they see on the big screen and the arrogance that permeates the industry.

A few months ago an area newspaper reported an erroneous fact. Staff members had included an inappropriate category when tabulating crime rates for North Carolina cities. Be it an equation, a computer, or whatever, you tend to get out what you put in, thus the calculation was wrong.

Within a week the editor had publicly admitted the mistake and apologized in writing. “Wrong is wrong,” the editor wrote. There was neither denial nor cover-up, just accepting responsibility for an error. If only bureaucracy possessed such integrity.

In 2006 a gentleman in Gaston County's Tryon area built a $200,000 rodeo arena on his farm. A year later county authorities cited him for building the arena without proper permits. Bringing the facility up to code would prove quite expensive and the arena closed. Now, since permits and codes are associated with construction, you may wonder why the landowner didn't check with the codes before building. Well, he did, and county officials told him that no permits were required.

Alternate fuels are the rage these days, with politicians and bureaucrats alike promoting them tirelessly. So, when a Charlotte man spent $1200 to convert his diesel engine to burn vegetable oil you'd think he'd be a hero. Wrong! North Carolina fined this man $1000 with the possibility of another $2500 pending. One bureaucrat said the state was only trying to maintain a level playing field. Translated, that means the state doesn't want to forego the 30-cent-a-gallon gasoline tax our eco-friendly veggie-burner no longer pays.

When a retired couple decided to build a house they donned their hip waders and began to slog through the sludge that passes for the permit process. A code enforcement inspector came out, examined the property, and told them where to dig the foundation in order to comply with regulations. So far so good.

Based on this information they dug the footings, poured the concrete, and called for the inspection. Imagine their surprise when informed their foundation was too close to a roadway. Although they had checked with code enforcement and dug exactly where they were told the foundation failed inspection because it was in the wrong place. Thankfully, following visits to the board of variances, they didn't have to move the foundation.

Californian Francisco Linares will serve six-months in the jug for violating municipal codes. His charges were failing to remove a fence, building a retaining wall greater than 2 feet tall, and failing to obtain a neighborhood compatibility analysis, whatever that may be. But he's going down for failing to honor an agreement to rectify the original charges. Yes, there were extenuating, bureaucratic circumstances.

Linares asked city officials to repair a dilapidated fence. City officials said the fence was on Linares' property and, therefore, his responsibility. Fair enough. He made the repairs and was promptly charged with illegally building on city property. As for honoring the agreement, Linares spent 142 hours attempting to sift through the city's convoluted building codes and its sluggish response to permit applications.

In each of these situations the governing authority said one thing before the fact and another afterwards. Generally speaking, municipal codes and zoning ordinances are ill-defined and arbitrary, resulting in burdensome delays, increased costs and decimated property rights. Furthermore, regulations often allow the shoddy craftsmen they were meant to control to remain in business.

Sure, certain amounts of regulation are justifiable. There's a need for laws to deal with dangerous operations and for settling disputes between neighbors. But municipal codes and zoning regulations are interpreted and applied so haphazardly that few people understand their meaning, including the “public servants” who enforce them.

The debate over healthcare has devolved to the point of lunacy. A Washington Post writer recently equated President Bush's “campaign to prevent the states from providing health insurance to children” to the sadistic lords in Charles Dickens's “Oliver Twist”. Later in the article the writer reveals his true argument. His problem is with the decision to deny federal funding to keep these state programs afloat.

It may seem obvious that a state program that must rely on federal money or cease to exist isn't truly a state program. However, such a common sense approach has no place in today's political discourse. Sadly, the Post writer's attitude reflects a large segment of society.

A major reason for higher healthcare costs is that we've lost sight of health insurance's purpose. We want to see the doctor, plunk down our co-pay, and be done. However, that's not insurance; that's pre-paid healthcare. Insurance is intended to prevent financial ruin resulting from catastrophic events. Two simple analogies substantiate this premise clearly.

If you own a home and a car you have homeowner's and auto insurance. Your policies will prevent financial ruin if your home burns down or you wreck your car. However, these policies don't cover painting the wall in your daughter's room or the belts, hoses, and oil changes for your vehicle. You pay for such normal maintenance yourself. So why must health insurance policies pay for every stuffy nose? A strong argument can be made that this attitude is driving up healthcare costs.

Health care premiums are high, but that doesn't automatically mean they're unaffordable. When my family found itself without health insurance we purchased a policy for less than $300 per month. Yes, our deductible was high and we absorbed the routine healthcare costs ourselves. But if one of us broke a bone or became seriously ill the policy would've prevented our financial destruction.

Perhaps most perplexing is the apparent demand for government to manage our healthcare. The President's and Congress's approval ratings stand at 32 and 22-percent respectively. And we want those for whom we have such low regard to tend to our most precious possession? It defies all logic. Before making that leap, let's look at other problems government has “solved.”

The reported basis for the federal farm subsidy program was to help small farms. Today it is the nation's largest corporate welfare program. Large agribusinesses gobble up the lion's share of the money. An Arkansas farm is reported to have received $37 million in subsidies since 1996. Other “farmers” receiving funds include the John Hancock Life Insurance Company, Westvaco, Ted Turner, David Rockefeller, and congressmen from both parties. How's that for a success story?

The poverty rate had dropped from 32-percent in 1947 to 13.9-percent at the advent of the Great Society. Forty years of government anti-poverty programs have failed to lower that number significantly. These programs did, however, succeed in supplanting parents and de-emphasizing families. Need proof? The nation's 5.3-percent illegitimacy rate in 1960 reached 35.8-percent in 2004. For minorities, the people anti-poverty programs allegedly help, the illegitimacy rates are significantly higher. Are you still ready to surrender a seventh of the nation's economy to Washington?

Federal healthcare promises to dwarf both farm and poverty programs. Worse still, it is yet another step toward dissolving our republic in favor of socialism. Politicians promote the idea because their only concern for you and your family is the control they can have over both. Make no mistake; control is what the single-payer bit is all about.

Ben Franklin once said that anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither. If we trade the liberty to determine our health for the security of government-managed care we'll soon find that we have fewer options, worse care, and little to say about either.

If you think kids like McDonald's raise your hand. Those with their hands up can find affirmation in a study published in the Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, which confirmed 50 years of common knowledge; kids like McDonalds. Researchers found that preschoolers preferred the taste of food presented in a McDonald's wrapper to that in a plain wrapper, even when the foods were identical. They even liked carrots and milk if they came in the familiar packaging.

You can make what you want from the study. Only 63 kids, age 3 to 5, participated and all were from low-income families in a specific California county. But the ultimate conclusion is rather ominous. Researchers recommend banning advertising aimed toward kids because it's unfair. I see red flags whenever I hear such a statement. Such regulation means growing government, almost as if it does take a village to raise a child.

There's no doubt that marketers target child audiences. Disney and Mattel offer digital video cameras aimed at elementary and preschool children. Disney, Firefly, and Modeci offer kid-themed cell phones. So food isn't the only product pitched to kids. It just happens to be in the activist's crosshairs. What's more, such marketing isn't unique to modern society. Who do you think advertisers were targeting with those November toy commercials 40 years ago?

I know that fast foods are high in trans fat, which doesn't make for a healthy diet. Consequently, too many fast food meals have produced a fatter generation of kids. Approximately 30-percent of kids under 18 are overweight or obese. A surgeon general report says that 80-percent of those kids will become overweight adults, if their parents are fat. Ah, parents! The study barely mentioned them, and said nothing about their responsibility.

A 2004 George Mason University policy statement acknowledges that communities can play a role in preventing obesity. However, it also recognizes that “parents provide the framework for shaping eating behaviors and activity levels within children and adolescents.” Have parents accepted that responsibility, or passed it off to advertisers?

The children in the McDonald's study were age 3 to 5. Marketing may have played a role in making these kids want Chicken McNuggets, but how did they get them? Kids that age aren't likely to have enough money to buy their own food. Even if they do have money they can't drive to the Golden Arches. Someone has to provide a cheeseburger to them, and that someone's likely a parent. A good, old-fashioned parental “NO” still trumps all the ads Madison Avenue can offer.

“But my kids won't stop whining until they get what they want,” you say. That's your fault; don't let your kids run over you. When yesterday's parents said “no” they meant it. What's more, they were willing to prove it. When was the last time you showed your brat who's the boss? “My kids won't eat anything else,” is another standard excuse. Bull! Let them go hungry! Lean meat and lettuce will look pretty good to them after they've missed a meal or two.

I know people are busy. With today's hectic schedules, largely self-imposed, a little fast food can be the perfect solution. That doesn't mean that Ronald McDonald should become your personal chef. If you're careful about the time your kids spend with the television, video games, computers, and other static pastimes you can keep them healthy, have a cheeseburger or two, and stop blaming marketers for your lack of discipline.

Understand that you have more influence on your kids than do advertisers. You have the last word. When the commercial is over you can explain your position without rebuttal. Don't blame McDonald's if you're afraid to exercise that power.

The 2008 presidential race will begin in earnest within 5 months. Still, it's too early to get excited. No candidate thus far, from either major party, has been seen plowing in a serious field. No Republican has attempted to distinguish their positions on the various issues, and the Democrats would be better off if they hadn't.

Democratic candidates have called for an end to the Iraq War, with promises to bring the troops home. Well, that is a position. But it only comes from one side of their mouths. The top three candidates -Clinton, Obama, and Edwards- have also proposed leaving troops in Iraq to fight terrorism and prevent genocide. In a recent New York Times article Sen. Clinton said if President Bush doesn't end the war, she will. She then said national security required a continued deployment.

The Democrats condemned the escalation when more troops were sent to Iraq. Sen. Clinton now says the surge is working, particularly in Anbar province. John Edwards also acknowledges progress in Anbar. Obama, in the August 22nd Washington Post, said another 30,000 troops in Baghdad is a good idea.

Yes, it is still early. Candidates will change positions a thousand times before Iowa. But, if major media outlets are going to host debates, shouldn't their forums present at least a semblance of seriousness? Yet we hear questions from animated snowmen, and it goes much farther than that.

Obama's mixed-race heritage led to questions of whether he's “black” enough. This may seem silly since Mr. Obama is obviously a black man. But it's nothing compared to CNN's Suzanne Malveaux. Ms. Malveaux asked Sen. Clinton is she was “black enough” to maintain black support. Maybe Suzanne should be asked if she's “black enough” to ask such a question. She's white, by the way.

Washington Post writer Monica Hesse profiled Fred Thompson. Assessing the credibility of his candidacy focused on two topics, neither of which means a thing to the Office of President. Ms. Hesse apparently thinks “Fred” is too drab and mundane a name. It just isn't “presidential”. To support that theory she cites Urbandictionary.com, a most authoritative source, which defines “Fred” as someone who does idiotic things. The second criterion is Thompson's sexiness, which was mentioned in some variation nine times.

I still maintain that it's too early to become intimate with the campaign, and Ms. Hesse's column is surely an attempt at humor. However, if we pick our president based on how sexy they or their name sounds we'll surely get what we deserve a year from November.

We've witnessed Democrats change directions like a weather vane. GOP candidates seem content to sit idly and try winning by default. The media is enamored with banality. Meanwhile, we are distracted from threats to our liberty that go beyond wiretapping a terrorist's phone calls.

While an American Idol presidential campaign entertains us, surveillance cameras are coming to a street near you. The Department of Homeland Security is spending millions on these cameras and Americans from Liberty, Kansas (pop. 95) to New York City fall under the government's watchful eye. Developing technologies could allow these cameras to recognize faces and detect “uncommon behavior,” however it may be defined. And current satellite intelligence systems may soon be available to domestic authorities.

No doubt we must keep tabs on the terrorists among us. But we shouldn't surrender our liberty because we lack the resolve to destroy our enemies. The situation will likely worsen as Republican candidates hail our now-tepid actions and Democrats consider even those too harsh, or can't make up their minds. The “mainstream media” can't see the forest for the trees and the public seemingly could care less.

America, top to bottom, seems quite willing to sacrifice liberty for security rather than decimate our enemy. It's quite possible that both liberty and security will fade away, leaving us with only our enemies and our politicians.

It's common knowledge that most teenagers will try alcohol at some point. This creates conflict for parents. Parents want to trust their teens as much as teens want to be trusted. Parents also want to minimize the risks their kids face. For some parents, that means allowing their teenagers to drink at home.

At first glance this seems logical. Only the most naïve person believes we can prevent all underage drinking. Why not have those drunk teens at home in a controlled environment? At least they won't be on the streets killing themselves or others.

It's also logical for parents to make child-rearing decisions free from government interference. Despite the fact that allowing teenagers to drink at home establishes errant guidelines it is a decision best left to each parent, at least in an ideal world. But our world is seldom ideal.

Let's face a fact. High school students don't want to sit around the house on Saturday night watching DVDs and getting gassed with Mom and Dad. If they're going to drink they want to do it with their friends. Thus some parents host teen drinking parties at their homes, sometimes even buying the alcohol for the blowout. Jeffrey and Sara Hutsell of Lake County, Ill were recently found guilty of hosting such a party.

The Hutsell's parental authority means they can allow their teen to drink at home. It is their decision. However, they also made that decision for 28 other teenagers, two of whom died in car crash at the end of the Hutsell's driveway. This exposes two flaws in the logic of teen drinking parties.

First, these parties aren't a safe alternative. Second, the Hutsell's choice affected not only their kid but 28 others who didn't belong to them. Similar drinking parties have made news, thankfully for less deadly reasons, in Rhode Island, Maryland and Virginia.

According to The Marin Institute, alcohol is the most abused drug among teenagers and their leading cause of death. It also contributes to injuries, suicides, and date rapes. Perhaps we should expect no less from a substance the prime purpose of which is to lessen the user's ability to think clearly. But we still haven't addressed whether parents should provide “safe environments” where teens can do unsafe and irresponsible things. Let's apply the safe environment theory to a different situation.

Guess what! Teenagers have sex, too, although the rate has declined somewhat. Still, a large number of teens are sexually active by the time they're high school seniors. Some will do it, just like drinking, no matter what they're taught at home. Knowing this, is it responsible to get Junior and his sweetie a motel room? Is it responsible to provide your daughter and her boyfriend with a box of condoms and a three-hour block of satellite porn? In fact, if drinking parties is a good idea since kids will drink anyway then why not invite your teen's friends over for a sex party?

This sounds ridiculous because it is. Teen drinking parties make parents accountable to kids when the reverse is the proper relationship. Parents must establish boundaries and consequences. A parent's job isn't to protect their kids from every danger. It is to teach them right from wrong, trust that they hear and heed the advice, and pray for their safety when they don't. A better chance for success comes from staying on message, for teenagers will run over parents who compromise principles.

I don't breech this subject lightly. I was a teenager once and my oldest son begins high school this year. It is my job to teach him responsible, righteous living and hope he makes sound decisions when I'm not there. It is also my task to maintain the proper parent-child relationship.

Teenagers are accountable to parents for their actions. It seems the least we can do is show them that what's wrong and dangerous in public doesn't necessarily become right and safe when practiced at home.

In a previous column (A dark day for life and liberty) I took issue with a court decision allowing the Food and Drug Administration to prevent terminally ill patients from using experimental treatments. It's quite true that experimental drugs can have deadly side effects. After all, if testing was complete the treatments would be available.

I will not revisit the entire matter. Suffice it to say that government has no place denying a terminally ill patient access to experimental treatments based on the potential dangers. If you've read my positions on similar issues you may wonder how I can reconcile this stance. For example, I oppose abortion, physician-assisted suicide, and the forced removal of Terry Schiavo's feeding tube. Reconciliation is quite easy when the topics are viewed logically. In fact, I'm quite consistent.

A terminally ill patient's decision about experimental treatment is made within the patient-doctor relationship. “Well,” you say, “that's true for abortion, too.” No it's not; abortion involves a third party: the child. Pregnancy is clinically defined as the moment a fertilized egg is implanted in the uterus's lining. If it weren't alive at that point it could not grow. Therefore, declaring that abortion ends a life is accurate.

The aborted child, who has no input, suffers the consequence of the patient-doctor decision. A terminally ill patient who opts for experimental treatment reaps the benefit or bears the burden alone.

Is my position at odds with opposing physician-assisted suicide? Someone may argue that suicidal patients are simply trying to ease their suffering, just as those who seek experimental drugs. However, the situations are as opposite as night and day.

I would like to point out that a terminally ill patient has every right to commit suicide, at least in light of government regulation. It is their business. They can reconcile their decision with God, not government. But the sum changes dramatically when a doctor becomes part of the equation.

Doctors are ethically bound to ease pain. Yet they are also sworn to abstain from administering drugs to induce death. To stretch a physician's duty to ease pain into an authority to end life is a dangerous leap. Using a potentially dangerous experimental drug to preserve life is quite different from using drugs to end life. If you can't make that basic distinction you might as well stop reading right now.

One issue remains unresolved… Terri Schiavo. Again, this is reconcilable when the circumstances are understood. I don't believe a person should be forced to dangle on life support. Had Terri Schiavo left a living will I would have no moral problem with removing her feeding tube. She had no such will, and her extenuating circumstances were problematic.

Normally I would support a spouse making this decision. But when the spouse has another lover, shuns a divorce, and would collect the life insurance benefit, you have to wonder whose “best interest” was at heart. When so many irreconcilable differences exist it is prudent to err on the side of life, not death.

Terri's situation turned on “quality of life”, an indefinable term that's different for everyone. Government has no place determining death on so flimsy a basis. That's not to say I'm opposed to “dieing with dignity”, but there's nothing dignified about starvation and dehydration. That's how Terri Schiavo died.

Abortion, physician-assisted suicide, and Terri Schiavo involved third parties, established dangerous precedents, or made unsubstantiated assumptions. My views on each are dictated by the facts at hand. I can even support “choice” when the mother's life is at stake. A woman surely has the right to self-preservation (she has no right, however, to convenience).

It's unlikely that August 7th will be remembered as a day of infamy, like December 7th or September 11th. Perhaps it should, for on that day the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals issued an onerous and frightening decision. The potential damage goes beyond surveillance cameras, wiretaps, or other contemporary “civil liberties” issues. By comparison, these subjects are trivial.

The 8-2 majority opinion, written by Justice Thomas Griffith, allows the Food and Drug Administration to prevent terminally ill patients from accessing experimental but potentially beneficial treatments. Justice Griffith wrote that such a right without regulation would undermine much of the modern administrative state. Notwithstanding the great good that would result from undermining the “administrative state”, this is a frightening declaration. Should we accept that the state's interest, whatever it may be, prevails over an innocent person's right to live?

Only a fool would advocate introducing drugs haphazardly to the general public. However, if government has authority to protect the terminally ill from experimental drugs based on the “enormous risks” involved then it also has authority to protect you from “enormous risks”. Where do normal risks end and enormous risks begin? Is it government's role to “save” you from skydiving, rock-climbing, or bungee jumping? There are “enormous risks” in each.

Judge Griffith seemed amazed that terminal patients would rather make decisions about risk and preserving their lives than leave it up to bureaucrats. His opinion upheld the FDA's argument that, “without a requirement of FDA approval, patients could be exposed to unreasonable risks from investigational drugs that may be neither safe nor effective.”

“Unreasonable risks?” How “safe and effective” is a terminal illness? We're not talking about people trying to shake a touch of the flu or deal with unsightly blemishes. These patients are terminal. What could be more unreasonable than telling another human being to die quietly because a potential treatment could pose a danger to their health?

Dissenting Judge Judith Thomas lamented how courts could discover unfettered rights to marry, have children, perform sundry sexual acts, and control one's body even unto the death of a fetus and yet rule that a person has no right to make decisions that could preserve their own life. She chastised the court for relying on “risk” as the basis for the state to take life and death decisions away from patients and their doctors.

In a case that appears so deeply rooted in Constitutional rights and common law, it's odd that the majority cited nary a Founding Father in their ruling. Rogers cited not only a Founder, Samuel Adams, but also common law's foremost authority, William Blackstone. Blackstone referred to self-preservation as fundamental to law and justice. This decision renders that premise obsolete.

Furthermore, this verdict reflects an alarming judicial fascination with death. Courts favored death when ruling that children can be aborted for convenience. Courts favored death when Terry Schiavo's feeding tube was removed, despite the fact that her wishes were unknown. Court's favored death when ruling that doctors could purposely administer fatal drugs to patients. Yet, when a patient wants to preserve their life, well, that decision must be left to government.

To properly focus on this situation we must determine who or what owns your life. Human liberty says you own it. Spiritual liberty says God owns it. Both scenarios represent individual freedom wherein government doesn't own your life. Therefore, legitimate government cannot determine when an innocent life will end.

I admit that I have little if any knowledge of art. One thing I do know is that expressionism allows an “artist” to cover a lack of outward talent by portraying their “inner state”. Essentially, expressionism allows a bum to produce junk then piously look down his nose at the rest of us for not “getting it”. The more I see of “it”, the less I want to get whatever “it” might be.

The public relations or branding firm that designed the logo for London's Olympic Games must be loaded with expressionists. Friends, the logo is rubbish. And I'm not the only person to think so. Most Londoners expressed a similar reaction.

Within four days of the logo's unveiling an online petition to trash the design had drawn over 48,000 signatures. A BBC poll found an 85-percent disapproval rate. Londoners derided the brand as feeble, plain and an artistic flop. A more expressive critic said it resembled a jagged piece of popcorn. The overall consensus found the design childlike and haphazard, especially considering it cost over $800,000.

Apparently they don't do taste either. Several spurned alternatives were far more appealing. One depicts the London skyline while incorporating the Olympic rings in the spelling of London. A second used the British flag as the Olympic torch with red, white, and blue flames. Another is rather basic and straightforward. It shows the rings above the word “London” where the “Lon” is depicted as “2012” . All are superior to the monstrosity they chose.

However, the logo does have its supporters, and they must adhere to the avant-garde “expressionist” mentality. People involved with adopting and unveiling the logo called its design an invitation to take part and be involved in the London Olympics. They crowed about its innovativeness and how it captured the spirit of the games. Our place is to blindly accept their declaration. After all, they're cutting edge; they possess a deeper understanding than do we in the great unwashed. In fact, they're so enlightened they hired the branding firm without having seen their designs or proposed images.

I'll tell you what the logo looks like, but first I'll borrow a page from Rush Limbaugh. When he addresses a mature topic he gives listeners a few seconds to get the kids away from the radio. Now is the time to remove your kids from this column.

The image on the left looks like a man and the one on the right, a woman. The man's head is leaning back; his arms extend toward the woman's head with his knees bent. The woman's knees are flexed and she leans forward at the waist with her arms resting on the man's legs. It is a rather clear depiction. Some critics have even said it looks like Lisa Simpson doing the deed.

Maybe the similarity is pure coincidence, and I'm not trying to be provocative. But I raise the point to convey a truth about modern culture. What was once considered private is now promoted with an “in-your-face” (pardon the pun) openness. Art has come to reflect that mentality and it's a sad testimony to our permissiveness. Decorum and modesty have given way to hedonism and depravity.

London Mayor Ken Livingston said the logo reflects “one of the main reasons for London's success in winning the games.” Well, maybe so. If the logo reflects London's idea of “guest services” the games will certainly draw a crowd. But they'll drive another nail in modesty's coffin in the process.

SPAM® has been the butt of American jokes for 70 years. The name has even become an acronym for the mystery meat's contents. “Squirrel, Possum, And Mouse” is one of my favorites. But I, through exhaustive research and personal experience, have solved the mystery. SPAM's basic ingredient is fish, or should I say, phish.

For sake of clarification, and to avoid defaming the venerable canned meat, I should point out that real SPAM® is comprised of ham, pork, salt, sugar, and some preservatives. The new “spam” is made from phish, and the “phishermen” bombard your inbox daily.

One of my recent emails claimed to represent two banks. I was instructed to complete their client online form, which the message said was obligatory. I found this odd since I've never heard of either bank, much less have accounts there. But it was obligatory. I clicked the link and submitted the information. Anyway, I'll need a good bank to manage the millions of dollars I expect from my investment in a wireless messaging and internet communications company, also solicited via email.

Since no wise investor foregoes their due diligence I researched the stock on NASDAQ's website. The risk factor is 1792, meaning it's 9 times riskier than the average stock on Wall Street. In fact, only 5-percent of traded stocks are considered higher risk. At this writing my stock is down 9.5-percent, trading at 19 cents a share. But even with the slight downturn I'm confident the financial advisers who sent the email have my best interest at heart. Opportunity only knocks once, so I mortgaged the house and took the plunge.

I'll track and manage my imminent windfall with the top-rated software I can buy via email solicitation at a 90-percent discount. When I combine this great fortune with my “enhancement” pills, cheap Viagra, and $179 Rolex watch, my self-esteem is sure to skyrocket.

The watch seemed quite a bargain. So, in an attempt to calculate my savings I paid a quick visit to the Rolex website. It turns out they don't list their prices. I guess if you have to ask, you can't afford it. However, I did find a retailer. Their lowest priced Rolex lists for $3450. At the high end is the GMT Master II Gold, listing for $62,400. This watch is 18k gold with 99 diamonds, 18 rubies, and 18 sapphires. And I can buy a genuine Rolex for $179 by simply clicking an email link? Talk about your bargains.

The Federal Trade Commission reports more than 670,000 fraud and identity theft complaints in 2006, totaling $1.1 billion dollars in consumer losses. In cases where the fraud's origination could be identified, 45-percent were initiated through email messages. Consumers reported the method of payment as bank debits, credit cards, or wire transfers 77-percent of the time. All are accomplishable with the information “phishermen” seek.

There were over 23,000 such reports in North and South Carolina, totaling over $50 million in losses, last year. These frauds involved bank and credit cards, lottery and prize scams, and various Internet and foreign money transfer offers. Again, this information is attainable through those phishing messages.

There's nothing wrong with SPAM® or fishing. Fix yourself a sack of SPAM® sandwiches and head for a shade tree at the nearest pond. It's a great way to spend a day. But take a different approach to your inbox. There's a new type of “phishing” that's not quite so Norman Rockwell. You and I, neighbor, are the phish.

When a situation sounds cut and dried it's best to take another look. That's not to say conspiracy lurks around every corner, just that we may have to look deeper to find a story's subliminal angles. Other lessons may be learned that are as important as the original subject. The Michael Vick case illustrates this idea perfectly.

Everyone is familiar with Vick's alleged dog fighting operation and its related charges. We know the indictment accuses Vick and company of electrocuting, drowning, hanging, and shooting dogs that didn't meet expectations. I'm no animal rights activist, but there's no place for such savagery. The guilty parties should be punished. However, other aspects of this story are worth examining, and they're being largely ignored.

This is a rare instance in which People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) can appear reasonable. Yet, in typical fashion, they have made themselves look like fools. PETA members marched on Nike, the NFL, and the Atlanta Falcons carrying idiotic signs and chanting inane verses demanding those organizations sever all ties to Michael Vick. Outside the Richmond federal courthouse, where Vick was indicted, PETA members appeared dressed in dog costumes. Even when PETA has a winning argument they can't resist the urge to portray themselves as idiots. It proves that they are -if you'll pardon the pun- publicity hounds.

I'll admit that revealing PETA's ability to look foolish isn't up there with the electric light in the sphere of great discoveries. What with their chicken-suited tirades against KFC, lettuce bikinis, and nude anti-fur protests, a few mindless dolts in dog suits appear rather common. Recognizing their lunacy is equivalent to pointing out the elephant in the living room. Furthermore, the NFL and Nike are within their rights to suspend Vick, although severing ties completely is somewhat premature. Those organizations should make their decisions based on sound judgment, however, not to placate outraged activists.

Emotions have ruled the Vick situation thus far. Cooler heads should remember that he is innocent until proven guilty. Let's assume Vick is exonerated. Will animal rights activists repay the revenue their premature demands caused him to lose? Will they work to restore his standing with the NFL and Nike? Will they issue as much as a public retraction? Don't bet the farm on it.

Yet, the most disturbing element in this case goes beyond the animal abuse, PETA's predictable folly, or that Vick is apparently guilty until proven innocent. It is the outrage itself. People have jumped on this case as if it's the worst crime in human history. Where are the protesters in Ocean City, Maryland? That's where Christy Freeman stands charged with murdering her child. That's where the remains of four other children were found in various places on Christy's property. There were no protests, no chants, and no signs. No one called for her head on a platter. There was no widespread outrage. Perhaps that's par for a course where abortions are hailed as a great triumph for human rights.

The hostility and condemnation over dogfights compared to the relative silence when human life is abused indicates priorities that are illogically twisted. While protests rage over Michael Vick's alleged animal abuse, human abuse takes back seat. That's not to say we should condone dogfights. Vick should serve a full sentence if he's guilty. But the public outcry indicates a society more concerned with cruelty toward animals than toward humans.

Animal rights activists often claim that mistreating animals leads to mistreating humans. But when people are apathetic toward innocent human life, why are we surprised when that indifference extends to animals? Humans are greater than animals, and human abuse should garner more outrage than does animal abuse. Unfortunately, our priorities have literally gone to the dogs.

Liberal activists are organizing their forces and positioning their guns. In their crosshairs is Fox News. Truly, liberals have every right to disagree with Fox concerning their news presentation. But debating the network's value and honesty isn't enough for the more virulent progressive activists. They're out for blood.

Some familiar liberal groups, like MoveOn.org and Daily Kos, are leading the charge against Fox. Their accomplices include Brave New Films, an unintelligible production company that makes Michael Moore appear neutral, and the Campaign for America's Future, which considers the Democratic Leadership Council a right-wing organization. However, these organizations do not plan to fire on Fox directly. A more clandestine battle plan is forthcoming.

The strategy is to pressure Fox News' advertisers with an orchestrated phone campaign. Such a tactic can make a relatively small number of activists appear as a massive army, especially when their primary targets are small companies that advertise locally. It's somewhat like Gen. McArthur's “island-hopping” strategy during World War II. Bypass the formidable targets, instead making smaller conquests until the larger installations are isolated.

MoveOn's spokesman Adam Green claims that the problem isn't Fox News' alleged bias but its claim of impartiality. Even if Fox News submitted each and every story to Rush Limbaugh prior to its airing that argument would ring hollow. If Fox is fair and balanced, or conservatively biased, it is the only major news network that can make that claim with a straight face.

Everyone is aware of the Dow's recent slide. The Big Three networks jumped on the story as if it were the Crash of `29. Barely mentioned was the 3.4-percent rise in GDP over the year's second quarter. Also ignored is the fact that stocks were in uncharted waters when the slide began. The 600 point drop, only 4.3-percent, was reported as if America was on the verge of economic collapse.

Conversely, when stocks recently topped 14,000 for the first time in history it was also bad news on the major networks. ABC's World News reported the record close with details of high gasoline prices, trade deficits, and the housing slump. So, on “unbiased” networks both a rising and falling stock market is cause for gloom.

CNN's You Tube Democratic debate fared no better. The questions were placid if not banal, catering not to issues but ideological spin. The worst example came from “Billiam the snowman” who asked, “…what will you do to ensure that my son will live a full and happy life?” The question is based on the belief that all happiness depends on the next government program, a core liberal principle. If CNN were unbiased it wouldn't have aired this emotionally cute but otherwise empty query. Far better it would be to ask “Billiam” what he'll do to provide for his “son's” happiness.

PBS's Bill Moyer speaks through your tax dollars. Yet his “balanced” reporting revolves around re-living Vietnam and Watergate while lamenting an “imperial executive” and calling for Bush's impeachment. How's that for objective? And we haven't even touched on academia, where professors are predominantly liberal and campus “speech codes” reflect a politically correct bias.

It's fine for liberals to denounce Fox News, just as conservatives denounce the “liberal media.” But when conservatives point out biased reporting we are accused of censorship. What makes the liberal attitude toward Fox different?

If this “open-minded” campaign is successful it will drain revenue from Fox News, forcing it to alter its programming. That's unlikely to happen. However, liberals are guilty of using coercive tactics to silence what they consider an opposing voice. They are censoring the media and stifling dissent, the exact charges they lodge against conservatives.

Apparently censorship is in the eye of the beholder, or liberals consider themselves capable of exercising censorship fairly. It's also liberals who deem themselves capable of determining fair wages, property use, healthcare, retirement, etc.

“I don't go to church because of the hypocrites,” the saying goes. If I only had a dime for every time those words have been uttered I'd never work again. Unfortunately, Christians often fuel that argument.

We Christians talk a good game, making a firm stand for morality, integrity, generosity, and forgiveness. The stands are public, uncompromising and correct, for they are the way of our Savior. But too often the public stands are public only. Our private lives are quite different. Sin contradicts our outward faith and compromises our witness. When our private sins become public our critics are ready to pounce. Coy Privette is the perfect prey.

Mr. Privette is a retired Baptist minister. He is a former president of the State Baptist Convention of North Carolina and currently sits on the executive board and the board of directors. He is president of the Christian Action League of North Carolina and an outspoken conservative voice for Christian values. Privette is a member and leader of the church he pastored for 14 years.

The Christian Action League has now suspended Mr. Privette and he plans to resign his positions with the State Convention. His reputation is shattered and his family is suffering. Mr. Privette was recently arrested on six counts of cavorting with a prostitute.

Like anyone charged with breaking the law Mr. Privette is innocent until proven guilty. The charges themselves are misdemeanors. If he's convicted he isn't going to Central Prison. At worst, he'll receive community service and probation. But the greater damage is done, for his failure has opened the door to charges of hypocrisy.

Christians adamantly condemn immorality, be it adultery, lying, homosexuality, or prostitution. These stands prompt critics to charge believers with intolerance, bigotry, or worse. When a Christian sins, especially a leader like Privette, they say, “See, they're no different. Who are they to lecture about morals?”

If Mr. Privette is guilty as charged and asks forgiveness it is the Christian's duty to forgive him. On that day the critics will howl louder still. They will charge Christians with absolving our own while condemning the same things in others. That's also where their charges of hypocrisy miss the boat. Genuine Christians condemn sin, not the sinner. Yes, it sounds cliché, but it's no less true.

Christians recognize a morality above that of mortal man. It is a standard we often fail to uphold. There are skeletons a plenty in my closet. The key difference is that Christians accept sin as wrong even when the sin is our own.

Christianity's critics view morals arbitrarily. Right and wrong exist only through man's declaration. Such relativist ideology renders incomprehensible how Christians can condemn sin and yet forgive repentant sinners. It appears that Coy Privette did wrong. However, if Christ can forgive him then Christ's followers should, too. If he admitted the acts but denied the sin he couldn't be judged as if nothing happened.

Is this hypocrisy considering that everyone, Christians included, have sinned? You decide. All Christians are technically hypocritical since our conduct is measured against perfection. The difference is in attitude.

Forgiveness comes from admitting sin and turning from it, better defined as repentance. In order to repent we must acknowledge that there is right and wrong, good and evil. It is a concept that Christianity's detractors either can't recognize or simply ignore. In fact, those faultfinders often hail depravity as if it were virtuous.

There's nothing immoral about forgiving immorality when forgiveness is sought. Yet there is immorality in pretending that immorality is proper. If this is hypocrisy, then perhaps hypocrisy is a necessary step toward greater understanding.

Previous generations considered Western culture -particularly American culture- the greatest in human history. America appeared the crowing achievement of years of societal experimentation. Our forefathers expanded upon previous cultural evolutions, culled the tyrannies from past societies and produced a republic respectful of individual liberty.

That's not to say the product was or is perfect; it was never promised to be. The Constitution's goal was never to create Utopia, but “a more perfect Union.” An earthly paradise wasn't part of the equation.

Today, if you read internet blogs and listen to left-wing pundits you'd think America is Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, and the Khmer Rouge all rolled into one. We have our problems no doubt. But mostly those problems exist because we have strayed from our founding principles. It isn't the result, as critics claim, of Western culture's inherent inhumanity.

What detractors never reconcile is how they are able to freely lodge their complaints. If we were the fascist, censoring dictatorship they say we are, would they not be arrested and possibly executed for their condemnations? Yet the only time such critics face arrest is when their actions interfere with the rights of others.

Occasionally a journalist is jailed in the United States. Generally this is due to contempt of court arising from their refusal to divulge sources. I cannot recall a time when a journalist was jailed simply for speaking against our government, much less kidnapped as a political statement. Elsewhere, it is a fairly normal part of life.

In another culture, a man received a six-month prison sentence for killing his sister. He chased her, strangled her, and then suffocated her. So, why is the sentence so short? The woman was pregnant with her ex-husband's child and the court considered the killing necessary to protect the family's honor.

In another culture 18 Christians, 15 of them women, are kidnapped because of their religious beliefs. Their captors threaten to kill all of them, and have killed one, for religious and political reasons. An alleged leader calls for attacks on another country's civilian population because, he claims, that nation has insulted his way of life.

In another culture a 19-year-old woman faces death because a baby died while in her care. If she murdered the baby the sentence is just. But she had no lawyer at her trial, and if the execution is carried out it she'll be publicly beheaded. She may soon become the latest of at least 103 people beheaded in this great outpost of cultural enlightenment this year alone.

In another culture stoning is a practiced method of capital punishment. The condemned is wrapped in a cloth sack and buried somewhere between waist and shoulder depth. Those without sin cast stones until the person dies. An adulterer was recently executed in this manner. His partner remains jailed awaiting the same fate.

The journalist was kidnapped in Hamas-controlled Gaza. The “honor killing” happened in Jordan. The threatened nation is Britain; their crime is defying the Islamic world. Taliban thugs kidnapped the Christians in Afghanistan; the beheadings are common to Saudi Arabia. The adulterer, Jafar Kiani, was stoned to death in the friendly and peaceful nation of Iran. Yes, the same Iran that openly calls for Israel's destruction yet insists their nuclear ambitions are peaceful.

Each incident is factual, recent, and not unusual within Islamic culture. Western nations do not practice such atrocities. In that light, it is becoming a bit tiresome to hear empty-headed activists claim that all cultures are analogous.

There are plenty of charitable Americans who devote time and money to charitable organizations. According to the Giving USA Foundation, overall charitable contributions increased more than 6-percent in 2005 and corporate giving increased 22.5-percent. Giving to human services rose 15-percent, and that was before factoring hurricane and tsunami relief contributions. Another, albeit slighter, increase was noted for 2006.

The American Heritage Dictionary defines charity as the provision of help or relief to the poor. Charity originates with benevolence, which means something done or given through kindness. It is a free act performed willingly by one person or group for another. Coercion is the opposite of charity, indicating the use of authority and force to gain compliance, notably by government. With these definitions in mind let's see if we can determine what constitutes charity and what constitutes coercion.

Let's say our neighbor Bill is incapacitated and unable to mow his lawn. We notice Bill's predicament and cut his grass, or hire a contractor to do so, without thought of reward or payment. Bill has received a needed benefit as a result of our willing kindness. But suppose we noticed Bill's need and take no direct action. Instead we call Jim over and force him to mow the lawn. Bill's need was still met, but was it through charity or coercion? Let's try another scenario.

Suppose Ed has lost his job and has no income. He has exhausted his savings and can't buy food for his family. We go to the store and buy food, which we give to Ed. Or, better yet, we help Ed land a new job. His need would be met and he'd be grateful. However, suppose we simply take the food from Jack's refrigerator and give it to Ed's family. Again, Ed's need has been met. But which act is charitable and which is coercive?

Under each scenario, our first actions indicate our willingness to help our neighbor. Our second actions forced another person to meet the need without regard to their willingness. By definition, our first actions are the result of charity and our second actions are the result of coercion. In fact, our second actions might be considered kidnapping and theft. So, why is the second action considered compassionate when government does the coercing?

We may not recognize government's coercive acts because they're hidden under layer after layer of red tape and bureaucracy. But suppose government were to directly force you and I to mow Bill's lawn, or take food from our pantries and give it to Ed. Would we then consider the government's action righteous charity? Or, would we rebel against its coercive nature? In principle there is no difference in how we have treated Jim and Jack and how government has treated us.

When we voluntarily meet our neighbor's needs it is an act of charity. However, when government demands that we meet our neighbor's need under threat of force it is an act of coercion. Unfortunately, we have come to consider government coercion and individual charity synonymously. The big winners are those holding the reigns of coercive power, namely politicians and bureaucrats.

Politicians can then stand before the cameras preening and crowing about how they've helped the downtrodden. Yet their answer involves seizure of one person's property for the benefit of another. The practical application of government assistance is exactly how we dealt with Jim and Jack. If there is no charity in our treatment of them there is no charity in government's treatment of us.

Maybe you've heard of the Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD). If not, don't rush for the encyclopedia or Internet; it won't take long to provide the pertinent details. The CSD is a 53-member United Nations panel dedicated to some lofty goals.

This assembly is charged with reviewing present and future policies, establishing dialogues, and promoting measures to combat poverty and ensure human health. It will save the oceans and develop sustainable agricultural progression. Members will study methods to prevent deforestation, drought and desertification, and determine sound management policies for toxic waste. Last, but by no means least, among the CSD's responsibilities is strengthening the role woman and children play in developing nations and economies.

If the CSD is serious about accomplishing its task it should start in Zimbabwe. However, in order to substantiate Zimbabwe's indictment, a few facts proving its failed status are in order. To accomplish that task I turned to the Central Intelligence Agency's World Fact Book.

Zimbabwe is plagued with deforestation, poor soil conditions, recurring droughts, pollution, and toxic waste caused by poor mining practices. It contains every element to which the CSD has sworn opposition. Zimbabwe's environmental condition is bleak at best, but its economic health is even worse.

In 1998 the inflation rate was 32-percent, a figure that makes even the Carter administration appear rosy. Believe it or not matters are far worse today. The inflation rate in 2006 was officially near 1000-percent, and private sector estimators claim it was higher still. The 2005 unemployment and poverty rates were 80-percent. And even though 66-percent of the work force is agricultural, Zimbabwe has become a net importer of food.

Today, in what was once known as the breadbasket of Africa, people depend on grain handouts to survive. Hundreds of thousands of Zimbabweans, especially professionals, are immigrating and the economy is shrinking. The estimated gross domestic product, meaning the total value of goods and services produced, for 2006 would fund the U.S. government for a paltry three days.

If that's not enough, consider that Zimbabwe is heavily involved in “human trafficking,” which is nothing more than a socially acceptable term for slavery. It is fairly common for women and children to endure forced labor and sexual servitude. Furthermore, this isn't simply an internal matter. Zimbabwe is also known to export such slaves and facilitate the flow of slaves between nations. But have no fear; I'm sure the Rev. Jesse Jackson will assist Zimbabweans just as soon as he's through protecting the helpless Barry Bonds.

Zimbabwe suffers from nearly every problem the U.N.'s Commission for Sustainable Development is supposed to solve. You'd think this would be a perfect place for the CSD to focus its works, and you'd be wrong.

Instead, Zimbabwe was recently selected to chair that commission. Yes, an ambassador from Robert Mugabe's corrupt dictatorship will soon take charge of solving world-wide the problems that run rampant in that country. Only U.N. bureaucrats could rationalize such lunacy. But don't think it's an isolated incident. Other CSD member states include the robust economies of Sudan and North Korea, the first a nation enabling a brutal genocide and the other a “worker's paradise” that can't so much as feed itself.

How often to we hear “experts” and “world-changers” demand that we subjugate our sovereignty to the United Nations? How often do they deem U.S. decisions illegal and illegitimate unless they are authorized by a U.N. resolution? It happens regularly, even in the face of the U.N.'s blatant foolishness.

This is simply the latest in a long line of instances proving the U.N.'s lack of credibility. Why our nation should seek approval from such a corrupt and contradictory organization is incomprehensible. Yet, allegedly educated and influential Americans insist that we do just that. It is a most depressing realization.

Inspiration is an irresistible force. A soul inspired is a soul motivated, and there is no stopping a motivated person. Such an individual will attack and conquer any and all obstacles to achieve the desired goal. But to reach that point one must first discover an inspirational source. It is a difficult, often impossible task.

I am quite fortunate, for I have found my inspiration. No doubt it will propel me to unimaginable achievements. Let me warn you, my newfound inspiration comes from a surprising source. No great statesman or philanthropist has filled me with confidence. It isn't a powerful politician, successful businessman, gifted composer, or athlete. It is “Rev.” Tori Spelling.

When I learned that Spelling had become an ordained “reverend” online in less than a week, and officiated over a gay union to launch her ministry, I decided that I could do it, too. I went straight to my computer and got busy. In no time at all I had exceeded the success of my heroine.

I soon learned that I could become an ordained minister through a church in Seattle, Washington in a matter of minutes. But a little research revealed that this same church would make me a Doctor of Divinity for $29.95. I am considering the handsome, calligraphic diploma. It's only $3 more.

Understand that I won't be sent out like a lamb among wolves, so to speak. Both the doctorate program and the simple ordination come with complete ceremonial training, from baptism to marriage to funerals. If I understand my new position correctly, I can even forgive sin.

Don't roll you eyes; the issuer has ordained nearly a quarter of a million people. So don't tell me it doesn't count. With my confidence and intellect soaring I decided to expand my horizons further still.

I soon found another website through which I've elected to pursue a Doctorate of Medicine and a Doctorate of Pharmacology. I hesitate slightly on that second subject, for I have friends who spent years in pharmacy school to attain their degrees. With my doctorate I'll possess a superior knowledge of pharmacological sciences than do they. However, they aren't jealous folks and I'm sure they'll be thrilled with my achievement.

Now, you may wonder what I'll do for my doctoral thesis, since I am currently ignorant of both disciplines. Not to worry, yet another website offers doctoral dissertations on subjects ranging from aardvarks to the Zuni Indians. Soon I'll be a medical and pharmacological doctor, as well as an ordained Doctor of Divinity, all for under a thousand bucks. I'll bet all you doctors who did it the hard way feel like schmucks about now.

Not only can I officiate at your wedding, I can also deliver your first child. I can diagnose your illness, prescribe a cure and fill it on the spot. Since we've cut out the middle men, you'll save time and money. If the pills fail and you need triple by-pass surgery I can do that, too. Don't worry about your survival. After all, I'm an ordained religious doctor; I can conduct your funeral.

There's only one unresolved problem. We live in a litigious society and a malpractice suit could arise from a failed by-pass. What the heck, I'll toss in another $250 and get a law degree as well. I'll be more than happy to represent your survivors.

All these years I thought Hollywood celebrities were simply sanctimonious, empty-headed publicity whores. Now I have “Rev.” Tori Spelling to thank for my bright new future. Who knows where I'd be today if she hadn't been led into the ministry after stealing another woman's husband?

An essential part of freedom is self-determination. This is, of course, the ability to decide one's actions and reap the benefits or pay the consequences accordingly. However, it is foolish to conclude that each person is, therefore, an island. We are all dependent to some degree, most notably on our Creator.

Variances aside, we can conclude that self-determination allows us to judge and choose courses of action that we deem most appropriate and beneficial for our selves and our families. Whenever another person, group, organization, etc., violates our trust a negative judgment is appropriate.

Militant Muslims are an example of this premise. Islamic radicals bomb, kill, kidnap and behead, all in the name of the “religion of peace.” These acts, which are all too prevalent, demand a negative judgment. Yet, Muslims express outrage and offence when their religion is so questioned.

For the record, I know that not every Muslim is a disciple of bin Laden. I will accept the idea that the majority of Muslims, especially in Western nations, just want to go about their daily lives. They want to live peacefully, religiously, and prosperously. Still, there is a large segment of Islam that believes, follows, and supports the terrorist ideology. The sight of Muslims celebrating successful attacks is consummate proof.

Violent Muslims bring suspicion upon all Muslims. We now notice threatening possibilities that were previously dismissed, such as jittery imams ignoring flight crew instructions. Sometimes we will overreact and suspect a Muslim who is friendly and sympathetic toward us “infidels.” But, by the time each individual's intent is determined it may be too late.

Western suspicions toward Muslims are generally stereotypical. We view militants as uneducated and indoctrinated, susceptible patsies who willingly seek false martyrdom at the behest of self-serving clerics. Historically this has proven accurate, for suicide bombers have come from that mold. However, recent events have forever shattered that image.

At least six suspects are physicians or medical students. They lived placidly and nondescriptly within British society. Co-workers saw them as model citizens with excellence references. A Jordanian medical professor who taught one of the suspects said, “I didn't even have the impression that he was religious.”

Yet investigators say the suspects are either aligned with or inspired by al-Qaeda. If every Muslim fanatic resembled the robed and bearded bin Laden identification would be simple. But it's a different matter when the militant wears a lab coat and a stethoscope.

We can be thankful that the attacks were unsuccessful, or were they? A fanatical doctor may take an individual life, but the greater terror lies in the compromised doctor-patient relationship. For patients of doctors with Middle Eastern features, that rapport is strained at best.

“Enlightened” observers will warn us not to judge all Muslim doctors by the actions of a few. We would be fools to listen. Such blind advocacy for the sake of tolerance would have you bet your life, and the lives of your family, that your Middle Eastern doctor isn't the next Bilal Abdullah.

What can we learn from this situation? First, no tactic is off-limits to Muslim militants. Second, militant leaders aren't stupid. If we shun Muslim doctors it will be spoon-fed to the “Muslim street” as insulting to Islam, becoming a valuable recruiting tool. If we express “tolerance” we welcome enemies to freely infiltrate a profession with intimate access to our very lives.

Just as all Muslims aren't slavish stooges of bin Laden, all extremists aren't ignorant youth. We have no alternative but to abandon foolish tolerance and embrace common sense. Legitimately peaceful Muslims may not welcome this attitude, but if they're honest they'll recognize who soured the relationship. If they are offended, it's plausible that they are our enemies already.

“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it” is a familiar quote attributed to George Santayana. If this is true the world may be on the brink of repeating one of the worst catastrophes in the history of mankind. Let's take a look at history.

In January of 1933, a former army corporal became Chancellor of Germany. In less than two months The Reichstag burned and Hitler was given dictatorial control of Germany. Hitler pledged restraint in exercising his god-like powers. However, by the dawn of 1934, the Dachau concentration camp was open and Germany had resigned from the League of Nations.

Events proceeded from bad to worse. In 1934 the leaders of Hitler's storm troopers, those who had helped him attain his authoritarian powers, were killed in a nationwide purge conducted by Heinrich Himmler, Reinhard Heydrich and Hermann Göring. By March of 1935, the German military had reinstated conscription in direct violation of Chapter III, Article 173 of the Treaty of Versailles, which ended World War I.

In hindsight we see Adolph Hitler as a vile, ruthless, and murderous tyrant. These basic truths were also apparent to anyone monitoring der Fuhrer's actions between 1933 and 1938. Yet, despite evidence that Hitler's word was empty as a gourd, British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain lustily signed the Munich Agreement. He returned to Britain in the fall of '38 with Hitler's promise to refrain from war with the United Kingdom. Chamberlain triumphantly, and erroneously, declared the Munich Agreement “peace in our time.”

Czechoslovakia, a nation not represented at the Munich conference, had little choice but to surrender its German-speaking areas to Nazi occupation. Meanwhile, Chamberlain praised this escape from the peril of war and expressed his belief that “the new Czechoslovakia will find a greater security than she has ever enjoyed in the past.” Land for peace! Where have we heard that term in recent years?

The Nazi's quickly occupied the Czech Sudetenland and began a Jewish purge within Germany. The “Night of Broken Glass” brought murder to Jewish men, women and children. German Jews saw their property either burned or confiscated by the Nazi state. In the spring of 1939 Hitler conquered the rest of Czechoslovakia and declared the nation non-existent.

Neville Chamberlain had taken the word of a known betrayer and brutal dictator in a futile attempt for an impossible peace. His appeasement sacrificed the Czechs to Nazi conquest and subsequent Soviet domination.

Chamberlain died in 1940, but his spirit must wander the halls of Downey Street seeking whom it may enter. When Al-Qaeda bombed London in 2005 Prime Minister Tony Blair responded, “We will not be intimidated.” Tony Blair is gone and Chamberlain's spirit has found a willing host in new Prime Minister Gordon Brown.

Muslim militants have again assaulted Britain. This time, however, PM Brown doesn't want to offend the cutthroats. We know the attackers were Muslims, but Brown has declared the moniker off-limits in identifying terrorists. The “War on Terror” is dropped from the British government's lexicon not because it's a misnomer, which it is, but in order to improve relations with Hitler, uh, Islam.

A government spokesman informed the Daily Express of the need to “strike a consensual tone” while storm troopers gathered at The Reichstag shouting, “Full powers or else… fire and murder.” I'm sorry, wrong war again! A contemporary phrase might be militants gathering at the mosque shouting, “Islamic rule or else… fire and murder.”

Mr. Chamberlain formed a “consensual tone” with Hitler. Hitler regarded it as weakness and the ensuing “peace” left Europe in tatters and 55 million people dead. Let that figure sink in.

Radical Muslims see “consensual tones” similarly. We better pray to God that George Santayana was wrong; else the Second World War's carnage may seem like a group of kids playing army.

President Bush's poll numbers have been dismal for quite some time. As far back as September, 2005 his approval rating was 43-percent. The most recent numbers are around 30-percent. However, he can take solace in remaining more popular than Congress, a fact even House Speaker Nancy Pelosi recognizes.

Congress' approval rating hovers at a dismal 24-percent, down from the drab 33-percent rating in September, 2005. The bad news for Pelosi is that Congress' standing with the American people isn't improving. Who will she blame for the poor showing?

Despite this truth, some Republicans question the value of partisan battles in achieving electoral success. Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-SC) expressed amazement that as much as 20-percent of Americans were happy with Congress. Senator, for now you can count me in that 20-percent. The less the 110th Congress accomplishes the less of our remaining liberties are lost. Temporary stagnation may not be progress, but at least it isn't regression.

As for establishing a winning GOP formula, a little partisanship may be just the ticket. After all, out-pacing previous Democratic congresses in government growth and spending didn't equal success last November.

A show of principled courage is the perfect antidote for Republican ills. Such backbone hasn't been evident in the Party since Clinton's second term. And since more conservatives are becoming disenchanted with President Bush, the break with the White House over immigration is a sign of ideological unity rather than party disunity. Need proof? President Bush's support for amnesty placed him in the corner with Ted Kennedy, a quasi anti-Christ in conservative circles.

Even if this is wishful thinking and conservatives lose the next elections, the Democrats are hardly a functional family either. The party's left-wing base isn't happy with Pelosi and Co.'s performance thus far. The evidence lies in the fact that Congress's approval rating is no better, and in fact worse, than before the `06 election.

The grinding pace of current legislation revolves around the Senate filibuster rule. Republicans loathed the practice between 2000 and 2006 when Democrats exploited the filibuster to sabotage judicial nominees. It is the Democrats who hate it now. What, if anything, should be done?

In today's Senate the mere threat of a filibuster sends leaders scurrying to and fro in search of the elusive 60th vote. That wasn't always the case. In a bygone day a filibustering Senator took the Senate floor and actually filibustered.

In the 1930's, Sen. Huey Long recited Shakespeare and read recipes to filibuster legislation, once spending over 15 hours reading and analyzing the Constitution. He is hardly a lone wolf. Sen. Robert La Follette once filibustered for more than 18 hours, and Sen. Wayne Morse for 22. Yet, not one of these men holds a candle to the filibuster's undisputed champion… Sen. Strom Thurmond.

Thurmond took the Senate floor thoroughly prepared for his 1957 filibuster. He began by reading each state's election laws. Next came an analysis of a lengthy Supreme Court decision, Washington's Farewell Address and a complete reading and dissertation on the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights, perhaps the last time either document was read in that august chamber.

If we are so concerned with legislative progress, as well as the authorities and tyrannies associated with the majority and minority, why not return to this formula? Why not insist that filibustering Senators actually filibuster? We might find that they become more selective in their battles.

Only the most naïve American believes that favors aren't handed out in Washington, D.C. like magnet schedules on baseball's Opening Day. So why was anyone, especially Washington politicians, surprised when President Bush commuted Lewis Libby's prison sentence? Everyone knew this would happen, either in form of commutation or pardon. Therefore, we can conclude that the resulting outrage is, at best, insincere.

Sen. John Kerry said that even friends of powerful officials should be accountable to the law. That's true. But if Sen. Kerry truly believes that ideal, why was he mute when President Clinton pardoned Marc Rich? Sen. Joe Biden encouraged Americans to flood the White House with protest calls. Yet, Biden himself ignored the people's voice when he voted for cloture on the amnesty/immigration bill. Sen. Dick Durbin charged the administration with acting above the law, and Sen. Clinton accused Bush of cronyism.

Senators Kerry and Biden should be ignored, for they are speaking from both sides of their mouths. But has President Bush broken the law, as Senator Durbin claims? Is Senator Clinton credible in charging cronyism? Let's look at it.

President Bush has acted within his official authority. Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution allows the president to “grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.” The American Heritage Dictionary defines “reprieve” as the postponement or cancellation of a punishment, which Bush did in part. Furthermore, not only is Bush's use of presidential power legal, it has precedent.

An influential American once wrote that a president may deem a pardon or commutation appropriate for several reasons. Among those reasons is the belief that a sentence is unjust or excessive, which Bush cited as validation. He also wrote that this broad power allowed the president to act as he thought correct despite the decision's popularity.

So, do you think I've dredged up one of the few Bush apologists left in America? Think again. Bill Clinton made these assertions in a February 18, 2001 New York Times editorial explaining his decision to pardon the aforementioned Marc Rich.

The Rich pardon raised eyebrows due to Rich's ex-wife, who made political contributions to the Clintons and donations to the Clinton Library. Ironically, Clinton cited three Republican attorneys who supported the Rich pardon, one of whom was Lewis “Scooter” Libby.

Overall, President Clinton issued 459 pardons and commutations during his presidency, according to Department of Justice records. He pardoned a WWII deserter and a bootlegger name Theodore Roosevelt. He pardoned Henry Flipper, who was sentenced in 1891 for conduct unbecoming an officer. He pardoned or commuted crimes ranging from bank robbery to stealing butter. He pardoned perjurers, which is certainly understandable considering Clinton's legacy. He even pardoned a guy named Limbaugh, believe it or not.

On President Clinton's last day in office he issued 140 pardons and commuted 36 sentences. Among those was John Deutch, a former Clinton administration CIA director. Clinton pardoned Deutch one day after he was charged with acts alleged to have compromised national security. He also pardoned his half-brother Roger Clinton and some well-heeled friends of Hillary's brothers, Hugh and Tony Rodham. What was that about cronyism, Mrs. Clinton?

You don't have to agree with or support Bush's decision. However, commuting Libby's sentence is legal, Constitutional, and in line with presidential precedent. This is worth remembering simply because Hillary and company are counting on you either forgetting or being too ignorant to understand the past.

Now that we know the current history of presidential authority under Article II, Section II, what should we make of the Democrat's criticism? Frankly, their cries are based not on respect for the law or moral principles but on gaining political advantage. In fact, Senate Democrats have politicized the Libby matter just as thoroughly as has the administration, if not more.

When Elizabeth Edwards announced that her cancer had returned in inoperable form friend and foe responded with genuine sympathy. The well-wishes continue from my end. I hope and pray she receives a medical miracle. However, politics is what it is, and contributions to the Edwards campaign rose as perceptions of her health deteriorated.

I'll admit to cynicism. Mrs. Edwards' health prospects increased with each subsequent public appearance. I hope it's true for her sake. But I wonder if the Edwards campaign parlayed her illness for political advantage.

Whether you love or hate Coulter, her “wish” that John Edwards would die in a terrorist attack was deliberately played out of context. You can easily find her edited and unedited comments online (the links are below). Suffice it to say, Ann Coulter's brusqueness aside, she doesn't wish terrorists would detonate a bomb in John Edwards' shorts.

Despite the obvious, the Edwards campaign posted the conveniently edited Coulter comment on its website. And when Mrs. Edwards took issue with Coulter the donations flowed. You must tip your hat to Mrs. Edwards, when she sees an opportunity she capitalizes.

Mrs. Edwards has become the face and force of John's campaign. However, she isn't the candidate. At some point, John Edwards must step from behind his wife and face the world. When he does his issues and positions will be exposed as tired, old, and weak. In fact, the Edwards platform is fraught with demonstrably flawed programs.

Edwards touts a renewed “war on poverty” and champions the minimum wage. He has blasted “predatory” lenders and check cashing businesses, and hailed a proposal to eviscerate secret ballots in unionization votes. It's somewhat surreal.

John Edwards champions the “little guy” and fights poverty from the comfort of a $6 million, 28,000 square foot home on a 102-acre estate near Chapel Hill, NC. The bills for his celebrity haircuts topped out at $1200.

Be it understood that I'm not concerned with John Edwards' material wealth. He can buy whatever he can afford, up to and including the Hala Ranch near Aspen, Colorado. However, it is disingenuous for King Midas to cast pennies to the poor.

The “Employee Free Choice Act” would transform the mere signing of a union card into a vote for union membership. Employees would be stripped of the right to vote privately on unionization and, therefore, subject to coercive card-signing tactics. John Edwards supports this abuse of the employee-employer-union triangle.

Edwards' promise to stop “predatory lending” and regulate check-cashing businesses ignores the fact that government doesn't exist to protect people from their own decisions. Arguments for a higher minimum wage ignore several key facts, too. Labor Department statistics paint a vivid picture of minimum wage earners. They are under age 25, single, and haven't finished high school. Despite what John Edwards would have you believe, few families are scraping out a living on the minimum wage.

As for the war on poverty, that too is a farce. Between 1947 and the advent of the Great Society, America's poverty rate had decreased from 32-percent to less than 14-percent. Give or take a few percentage points it has remained stagnant ever since. Edwards faces a high hurdle in convincing rational people that another “war on poverty” will accomplish anything other than exacerbating government dependency and entrenching the poor in a downward spiral of misery.

When John Edwards's steps forward he is met with a collective yawn. Yet, when Mrs. Edwards takes the spotlight John's polling numbers and campaign donations rise significantly. Perhaps that's because John Edwards himself has nothing to say.

There's something compelling about dumb crook news. Maybe it's the comfort we find in knowing that we aren't the world's dimmest bulb. With that in mind, let's entertain ourselves for a moment.

A pickpocket targeted 72-year-old Bill Barnes of Grand Rapids, Michigan. The robber erroneously concluded Barnes' age meant an easy mark. Therein lies proof that it's dangerous to jump to conclusions. Barnes is an ex-Marine, a Gold Gloves boxer, and a retired iron worker. That's not the stuff wimps are made of. This miscalculation cost Jesse Daniel Rae a thorough whipping and a charge of unarmed robbery.

Gastonia, NC's, Earnest Williams admittedly stole a purse. He then called his victim promising the pocketbook's return in exchange for a reward. He's in jail on charges of larceny, breaking and entering, and extortion. Evidently there is no applicable charge for abject stupidity.

Patricia Frankhouser sued Norfolk and Southern in 2004 after a train struck her while she walked along the tracks. According to the lawsuit, the railroad failed to warn Mrs. Frankhouser that trains run on the train tracks. She sought $30,000 in damages.

In February, 2005, two teenage Colorado girls stayed home from a dance to avoid foul language and underage drinking. Instead they baked cookies and made late evening, anonymous deliveries to their neighbors, several of whom responded with thank you notes. However, our litigious culture ensures that no good deed goes unpunished.

According to MSNBC, the girls' knock-and-run delivery method so frightened Wanita Young that she spent the night with her sister and went to the hospital the next day. Yep, she sued. The attempted good deed cost the teens over $900 in medical bills and court costs.

On one hand we have the fun and entertainment of dumb crooks. On the other is the frustration of frivolous lawsuits. What would happen if the two combined? We need look no farther than Robert/Michelle Kosilek for our answer.

Robert/Michelle is in a Massachusetts prison for killing his wife. He is also the source of extensive legal wrangling to determine if taxpayers should foot the bill to change Robert/Michelle into a full-time Michelle. The case can be summarized this way: should a convicted murderer serving a life sentence receive a sex-change operation at taxpayer expense?

Thus far at least $50,000 has been spent on expert witnesses for both sides of the case. The state Corrections Department has spent $33,000 opposing Robert/Michelle's operation. The Massachusetts Correctional Health Program, a part of the University of Massachusetts, has spent nearly $19,000 arguing for it.

You may think that's quite an expense when the answer to the primary question is obvious. If so, you're having a knee-jerk reaction according to Shannon Minter of the Transgender Law and Policy Institute. In fact, he says it's cruel punishment to deny a sex-change treatment for Robert/Michelle's “gender identity disorder.” This, advocates claim, is a violation of the 8th Amendment. Somehow, I just can't believe that's what Madison, Jefferson, Jay et al., had in mind.

I can settle this case in short order. Few insurers take responsibility for sex-change surgeries when their insured isn't a convicted murderer. Thus taxpayers aren't responsible for a disturbed inmate's gender illusions. Furthermore, Robert/Michelle's supporters are safely dismissed as well. They are overwhelmingly aligned with gay rights organizations, thereby rendering their testimony biased and their witness hostile.

“The greatest loss is the dying I do inside a little bit every day," whines Robert/Michelle. Well, your wife died conclusively at your hand. You're a prisoner with no more “right” to a sex-change than to a hair transplant, facelift, or tummy tuck. If your supporters are concerned with your mental health rather than establishing a legal precedent sympathetic to the gay rights agenda, let them pay for your surgery.

Until recently I didn't realize that Salman Rushdie was still alive. That's my oversight, for Rushdie's death would certainly have produced celebratory gunfire in the “Arab street.” There's been none.

To refresh your memory, Rushdie became the target of an Islamic bounty, otherwise known as a fatwa, in 1989 when his book, The Satanic Verses, was published. None other than Ayatollah Khomeini, that great Iranian imam of peace, issued Rushdie's death sentence. The knighting of Sir Salman Rushdie has fanned that spark into a flame once again.

All manner of protest and “death to…” chants have engulfed Muslim nations. One hard-line sect promised a $150,000 reward to Rushdie's assassin. You might expect such things from the average Ali on the street. However, when a Pakistani government leader vocalizes such rhetoric it can't help but raise eyebrows.

Ijaz-ul-Haq said, “If somebody has to attack by strapping bombs to his body to protect the honour of the Prophet then it is justified.” He immediately tried to qualify the comment, but the horse was already out of the barn. Pakistan's national assembly then passed a resolution condemning Rushdie's knighthood, alleging it would encourage contempt for Muhammad. I beg to differ.

Contempt for Muhammad intensifies with each irresponsible utterance, suicide bombing, and beheading perpetrated to “protect his honor.” It seems odd, Western understanding of Islamic rage is demanded while Islam openly tolerates and even promotes widespread, indiscriminate violence.

Rarely does the Christian response to religious insults and blasphemies include brutality. But if you watch, you'll see that Western media outlets have no qualm parroting the “extremist Christian right” mantra whenever believers speak out collectively. Where is the admonishment when the Christian faithful are slighted?

There are several movies that can be interpreted, superficially at least, as disrespectful toward God. There were the Oh God movies 20 to 30 years ago. Bruce Almighty was a more recent release and Evan Almighty is in theatres now. I've seen nothing more than trailers for these movies and they may be innocuous. Reviewers have said Evan Almighty is respectful toward God, even if it isn't biblically accurate. Yet, all could be interpreted at least somewhat offensive to God and Christianity. That's to say nothing of Hollywood's systematic contempt for Christian moral attitudes.

Even so, I don't recall the Southern Baptist Convention or the First United Methodist Church declaring a bounty on Steve Carell, Morgan Freeman, Jim Carey, or George Burns. In fact, if Christians say anything when their faith is insulted they are told to “loosen up” or to “get over it.” The same secularists say very little about the Islamic reaction to alleged blasphemies. Maybe it's time someone spoke up.

I'll defend my faith when necessary. However, I think God is more than capable of defending Himself against public insults. He really doesn't need government dictates or my indiscriminate murder of hundreds of unsuspecting infidels to protect His good name. So, if you're a Muslim offended by The Satanic Verses -which was a novel, not a documental text- or Rushdie's knighting… get over it!

Ironically, Christianity and Islam share some common observations. Both readily declare the 21st Century's immoralities. Even so, despite modern life's shortcomings there is little justification for Muslims to remain mired in the 7th Century and even less to kill alleged enemies for not following suit.

If it is the Muslim's true desire that Islam be recognized as a “religion of peace” its time they practiced it that way. Perhaps then Sir Rushdie can shun his suit of armor indefinitely.

Sometimes life isn't fair. That's hardly big news since no one with so much as their big toe on the plane of reality claimed that it is. However, once in a while there's an occurrence that seems even less fair than others. Jessie Marie Davis is such a case.

You'll recognize the name as the pregnant Ohioan who disappeared from her home, sparking a mammoth search effort. She's now confirmed dead. A suspect and an accomplice are in custody, charged with murder and obstruction of justice.

Of course, an arrest doesn't mean the suspect is guilty. That must be determined at trial. Yet, the fact remains that someone killed Jessie Davis. Whenever one person takes another's life, for reasons other than self-defense, it is life's ultimate unfairness. No one is justified in taking life for their own convenience.

Jessie Davis is gone, but her parents are left to grieve. Her two-year-old son will not only grow up without his mother but may have witnessed her death. Her sister Whitney will miss her, too. Ironically, a few things Whitney said are about to get me in hot water. There are lessons to learn from Jessie Davis's death, but only if we're honest in facing them.

Whitney, wrongly dragged before a camera to expose her anxieties to the nation, spoke of how she looked up to her older sister. That's understandable, even expected. But when she said Jessie had no enemies and had done nothing wrong we need to take exception. The fact is that Jessie had done wrong and she did have enemies.

First, Jessie Davis wasn't married, but the father of her children was. Miss Davis was involved in a recurring adulterous affair. She could've avoided that situation and should have, for adultery is both a flawed and hazardous choice. Yes, Jessie Davis did something wrong and her choice created vulnerability. The father was a potential enemy -and the suspect now in custody- as was the spurned wife.

This doesn't mean that Jessie Davis got what was coming to her; that's not the case at all. No one should think she deserved to be brutally murdered and have her body unceremoniously dumped in a field. She's not responsible for her death; that lies with her murderer, whether or not it's the current suspect. It does, however, mean that she wasn't an innocent bystander who was snatched from a street corner. Her decisions increased her exposure to danger. We would do well to learn from her mistakes.

Poor decisions produce unwanted results, just as surely as rain produces mud. Oftentimes those consequences are ruinous and irreversible. So it was for Jessie Davis. Her parents, sister, and child will suffer her loss for the rest of their lives. And we shouldn't forget the suspect's apparently innocent wife, who must bear a grievous burden as well.

This family has my sympathies; they should have yours. It is my prayer that they will find strength and courage in the Lord, and that he will carry them through an unimaginable situation. But, for the rest of us, to ignore this lesson is to invite similar results. I don't wish that on anyone.

You can call me old-fashioned. You can accuse me of proselytizing. You can even call me uncaring and unfeeling if you like. But I know the truth, and it is simple. Following time honored morality, while not protecting us from all danger, will lessen our exposure to physical and emotional harm.

Someone who doesn't drink is less likely to have an alcohol-related accident. Someone who doesn't use or sell drugs is less likely to die in a turf war. Teenagers (and adults for that matter) who are abstinent or monogamous are less likely to contract sexual diseases or to become pregnant. Had Jessie Davis resisted the desires that led to adultery there's a good chance she'd be alive today.

The headline is from the book of the prophet Jeremiah, written approximately 600 years B.C. It could've been written 50 years ago, 10 years ago, or last week. If you need proof, just look at Palestine and Israel.

The latest violence disproves the mythical cause of Palestinian anger yet again. Even if there weren't a single American in the Middle East and Israel ceased to exist Palestinians would fight with each other.

The Hamas offensive sent Fatah forces, the ones that weren't executed or thrown from rooftops, scurrying from Gaza. Despite the embarrassing military defeat, Fatah's Mahmoud Abbas gained immediate support from the United States, Israel, Egypt, and other key states.

So thrilled is everyone that Abbas dissolved the governing partnership with Hamas that the current Palestinian embargo may be lifted. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert was so overjoyed by Abbas' action that he said, “A government that is not Hamas is a partner.” We obviously can't support Hamas, but the elation may be as misguided as it is premature.

First, you must wonder what clout the Fatah government will have. Simply decreeing a new government is no guarantee that the public will recognize its authority. Hamas did win the 2006 Palestinian elections and their forceful expulsion of Fatah left little doubt as to the greater military power. It seems Olmert's “enemy of an enemy is a friend” philosophy is, at best, a 50-50 proposition.

On September 13, 1993 Israel and the P.L.O. agreed in writing to end their conflicts, recognize mutual rights, and peacefully coexist. The agreement didn't create “Palestine”, but it did give Palestinians governing authority in the West Bank and Gaza and provide for withdrawal of Israeli troops. This Declaration of Principles became known as the Oslo Accords. Finally there was peace in the region. Or was there?

Between the Declaration's signing and today there have been 496 fatal attacks against Israel by no less than 10 militant Palestinian or Islamic organizations. And that number doesn't include the Hezbollah War in Lebanon last summer. Who was responsible for the violence? The attackers remain unidentified in 203 cases. However, some infamous characters claimed responsibility for the other 293.

The Islamic Jihad took credit for 59 attacks. Hamas claimed responsibility 93 times. Hezbollah and Al-Qaeda were directly involved in at least three strikes. If we add these together we account for far less than half the total attacks. Who else took part in the bloodshed?

The greatest purveyor of terrorism since Oslo was Fatah, either directly or through various allied organizations. Fatah and their pals claimed credit or were identified in 137 of the 496 fatal terror attacks. In several instances Fatah, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad all claimed responsibility for the death and destruction.

To be fair, some attacks targeted Israeli Defense Forces. If this is a war you can grant leeway for strategic motives in those instances, even when civilians were hurt in the process. However, there was plenty of death intentionally targeted toward civilians that served no purpose other than to spread fear.

Tactics included kidnappings, stabbings, and drive-by shootings. Militants bombed everything from synagogues and nightclubs to historical and religious shrines. They employed car bombs, suicide bombs and nail bombs. In one instance a Palestinian concealed his weapon in the sacred Muslim “prayer rug.”

Abbas and his close associates may be reasonable, descent, and honorable men. But the Fatah party they lead has a history more violent and bloody than even Hamas. I hate to see the glass as half-empty, but even if Abbas can establish governing authority -and that's a big if- peace will remain an elusive commodity. Abbas still must contend with Fatah's militant core.

Network television isn't what it used to be. Nowhere is that demise better highlighted than the ratings slide that is the evening news. Cable news shows continue to gnaw away at the Big Three's audience and there are no indicators that the trend will slow. The networks must push all the right buttons just to maintain the status quo. CBS seems determined to push all the wrong buttons.

The CBS Evening News received a boost when Katie Couric took over the evening anchor position last fall. Her first night on the job produced over 13 million viewers and a 9.1 Nielson rating. It represented seas in which CBS hadn't sailed for quite a while. However, within a week they were back in familiar waters. Couric still garnered more attention than her predecessor, but lost 6 million viewers and dropped to last place.

Despite an occasional ratings bump, CBS's free-fall was underway. By December the CBS Evening News had solidified its hold on an 8-year streak as the also-ran. Numbers don't lie, and they indicate that curiosity drove Katie's initial welcome.

The situation has gotten no better for Katie and the news program since then. In fact, they're even worse. Couric's voice reached a paltry 5.5 million viewers in ratings released earlier this month. It was CBS's worst audience in 20 years.

As if the Evening News' futility wasn't enough to cause CBS's hierarchy to jump from the window along came -as if on cue- Dan Rather. His “dumb it down and tart it up” analysis of Couric and the studio format was the last thing the flagging newsroom needed. Rather not only stuck his foot in his mouth but shoved it down his throat.

He accused CBS of sacrificing journalistic integrity to the pursuit of ratings. But, since Rather lives in a glass house he should keep his stones in his pockets. It's worth remembering that his ratings were no better than Couric's. He presided over a reign of futility matched only by the NFL's Arizona Cardinals. Remember, too, that he was unceremoniously dumped from the anchor desk following a bogus report about President Bush's military record. Journalistic integrity indeed!

Katie Couric can't resurrect the glory days of Edward R. Murrow. She can't revive the network news. Viewers are jumping ship across the board, favoring the cable channels and the Internet to traditional outlets. No one can expect Katie to preserve what's already spoiled. But could CBS be on the verge of pushing the wrong button with its most venerable program?

Bob Barker led The Price is Right for 35 years. Each and every day he displayed professional courtesy to the guests and sympathy to the losers. He conducted himself with dignity and amiable charm. Only at the end of each show did he delve into personal reflections, which pointed to his animal rights activism and my conclusion that Bob was a bit of a nut. But Bob's recommendation that Rosie O'Donnell take his place indicates that he is a complete nut who may have fallen from the tree. Could CBS possibly be so foolish?

Let's imagine Rosie O'Donnell hosting The Price is Right. She would certainly bring qualities to the show that Barker never displayed, at least not publicly. Rosie would greet contestants and viewers with a loud-mouthed, boorish, and demeaning personality. That is, unless her entire life up until now has been an act. And you have to wonder if “Barker's Beauties” are ready to become “O'Donnell's Dolls.” It's a mental picture I can do without.

You can't blame Katie Couric for the evening news' bleak future. Essentially, she was assigned the task of bailing the Titanic with a teaspoon. In fact, if CBS executives saddle The Price is Right with the venomous O'Donnell, the blame for the network's failures becomes crystal clear. It might lead one to wonder if the top brass is placing bets on their competitors.

Anecdotal evidence, compiled in one's memory over a period of years, indicates waning appreciation and respect for representative government. Nowhere is it more apparent than in the animosity toward presidential electors, better known as the Electoral College. N.C. Sen. Dan Clodfelter's (D-Meck.) S.B. 954 supports that claim and subverts the constitutional process for electing our president.

However, this is more than a North Carolina bill. It is an interstate agreement, or compact, sponsored by the National Popular Vote campaign. Similar bills exist in 43 statehouses across the nation. If enough states to constitute an electoral majority pass this agreement it will force those state's electors to vote in accord with the nationwide popular vote.

Let's assume the vote in a compact state goes 75-percent for Candidate A. Electors would cast their state's votes for Candidate B if he or she won the national tally by as little as one vote. In this scenario, the votes cast in that state are meaningless because the voters weren't in line with the majority.

Sen. Clodfelter blames the Electoral College for creating swing states while other states are ignored. However, the National Popular Vote Compact would create swing metro areas, which could trump not only the will of the people in the affected states but also in states throughout the union.

Mark Gibney, a political science professor at UNC-Asheville, agrees with Sen. Clodfelter. He says the Electoral College represents the Founding Fathers “fear of the popular will.” The founders considered it the tyranny of the majority. That's why we are a representative republic and not a popular democracy.

The “popular will” actually means the mob rules. Any right can disappear under the “popular will.” I wonder what Prof. Gibney would think of the popular will if a majority of Americans decided that political science professors should be paid the minimum wage?

Writing in The Federalist #68, Alexander Hamilton argued that the presidency shouldn't depend on those who prostitute their vote, nor should it be a popularity contest. This is a provable theory. Under the elector system, a candidate promising government goodies or preferred treatment to high population centers cannot, solely through the voter's greed, ensure their election. The system was never promised to be flawless. However, Hamilton wrote, “if the manner of it be not perfect, it is at least excellent.”

Pres. Reagan trounced Walter Mondale by nearly 17 million popular votes. Mondale won only the state of Minnesota. Had Minnesota been party to a binding popular vote compact their electors would have given the state to Reagan. It would've made no difference in the outcome, but Minnesotan's votes would've been worthless.

It is also false that the elector system makes small states inconsequential. At the risk of opening a can of worms let's go back to 2000, where contention centered on Florida. What about Nevada? It was a contested state, where George Bush won by less than 2-percent. Had Al Gore won those four votes he would've been president.

Only four times has the popular vote winner failed to become president. And in one of those elections the House of Representatives chose the winner. We're not in the midst of a constitutional crisis. However, coercing state electors to yield to a national majority may create one. At the least, it undermines representative government and transforms presidential elections into a political version of American Idol.

I take a thoughtful, researched approach to my writing. Most of the fluff is removed, leaving only the nuts and bolts in place. I have used this approach in past columns about illegal aliens. However, this is a time to shoot from the hip.

The alleged “immigration reform” bill is nothing less than amnesty for people who've invaded our country. It's being revived in the Senate, where it recently died under voter pressure. Our Senators apparently have short memories, or total contempt for our opinions. They're heeding pressure about immigration, but it's not from us. It's from immigrant rights groups, the business sector, and the White House.

When we speak of immigrant's rights groups we are speaking of illegal aliens who are breaking our laws and subverting our culture. These people are not the “guest workers” that President Bush and his unholy alliance with Ted Kennedy would have us believe. They are invaders. Immigrant's rights advocates are betting that we're too stupid to know the difference, or too afraid of racist dogma to speak up.

The business sector represents people who will sell out this nation for a source of artificially cheap labor. It's odd. Business leader's words say that our kids must finish school and get a college degree, but their actions tell us that a flood of drop-outs who can't read, write, or speak English are the key to our economic success.

Our future, this deal with the devil would have us believe, now depends on an ignorant workforce. If these workers are indeed indispensable to a vibrant economy, why aren't Central American economies vibrant? The business sector is counting on our being too stupid to connect the dots.

So, why is the White House so determined to press this so-called immigration reform? Why is President Bush so willing to snuggle Sen. Kennedy and thumb his nose at conservatives? Simply put, it's because George Bush, while a capitalist, is not a conservative.

Yes, I know Ronald Reagan signed an amnesty bill for illegal aliens in 1986. But that was sold as a one-time deal, for far fewer aliens. Had our federal government enforced immigration law in subsequent years, instead of turning a blind eye to the flood at the southern border, we wouldn't be in the verge of doing it again.

The White House is banking on our being too stupid to realize that the federal government cannot be trusted. They want us to support this “reform”, oblivious to the fact that it means trusting a government that previously reneged on the same promise. It's insulting.

To all the immigrant rights groups and the aliens you represent… you are beating a dead horse. Your rights are few and quickly identified. When you are arrested you will not be required to testify against your self. You have a right to a fair hearing and respectable quarters during detention. You do not have any right beyond those basic to all humanity.

You should understand that we have a right to demand that our laws be followed, our borders be secured, and criminal behavior be punished not rewarded. We have the right to change our laws, but we're not obligated to appease you in the process.

To the business community, your desire to turn a quick buck pales compared to our obligation to preserve our republic, our society, and our culture. I'm all for capitalism and I understand the concept of attaining a product, in this case labor, at the lowest price. But there are principles here that go beyond dollars and cents.

The workers you depend on will undermine this republic. If they're legalized, as you demand, they will be more likely to join labor unions. They will vote in elections. They will become a dependable voting bloc for politicians bent on expanding entitlements. Those politicians are, by and large, hostile to business.

You may turn a quick buck now, but you are sowing the seeds of your future demise in the process. Furthermore, it wouldn't hurt our overweight and spongy populace to get off their fat duffs and cut their own grass for a change.

To the White House, meaning President Bush, you are sowing the seeds of destruction for the Republican Party. Do you actually believe that making the illegal alien legal will win their loyalty? If so, you are a fool. Even if they would cast lots with the GOP, their demands on government would transform the party from its basic tenets of individual liberty to one of “social justice,” whatever that means. What profit is there in winning the support of voters who would use their influence to corrupt the message you claim to support?

The lines that once separated a journalist from an editorialist have blurred until indistinguishable. I think it's time for a brief review that highlights the difference between journalism and editorial analysis, and between journalists and editorialists.

Journalism, in its pure form, is the product of the various acts required to report the news. The result is a direct presentation of facts with little or no analysis. A journalist is someone who performs the tasks necessary to produce the defined product. How that is accomplished requires a deeper examination.

The role of a journalist is to produce journalism, meaning to present the facts. The journalist must obtain facts, condense the various angles, and then relay the pertinent information to the reader or viewer. You may remember the “five Ws” of journalism you learned in school. A reporter's job is to communicate who did what, when and where it was done, and why. At no time is it the journalist's place to tell the reader what to think of the information. Their role is to inform, not influence.

An editorial is defined as an article or speech that presents an opinion. Such a presentation must center on facts to be credible. However, it must be slanted and biased toward a certain conclusion in order to be effective. An editorialist is the person who writes or presents editorials.

A journalist can be an editorialist, but only if he or she is honest. Professional integrity requires a journalist to editorialize on the editorial pages, not on the news pages. A recent Associated Press story about Newt Gingrich miserably failed this simple test.

The story accused Gingrich of promoting policy based on the interests of companies that fund the Center for Health Transformation (CHT), a think tank Gingrich organized. The writer citied anonymous critics who claim the organization shuns free thinking in favor of free advertising and promotes the conclusion that only healthcare related entities contributed to the center. The only person quoted was a spokesman for Public Citizen, Ralph Nader's organization.

The writer never considered that CHT's positions may have attracted the donors instead of the donors dictating the positions. It's true that many hospitals, insurers, and pharmaceutical companies sponsor CHT. But so do several non-healthcare companies, such as UPS and AT&T. Still other sponsors have reputations and histories that are anything but conservative. Ford, Gallup, and the American Cancer Society are perfect examples.

Had this article appeared on the editorial page it would be no big deal. However, its presentation as a news item creates a problem. The “journalist” presented as news an article designed not to inform but to influence the reader. That writer has compromised his profession.

Presidential polls show Gingrich favored by 10-percent of voters. However, Gingrich currently holds no public office nor is he a declared candidate. Even so, his successes in Congress make him the perfect target for a national media that is largely opposed to his politics.

You may recall the media furor over Gingrich's book deal when he was Speaker of the House. Yet, the same media responded with a collective ho-hum when Hillary Clinton signed a book deal worth nearly twice as much as Newt's. It makes you wonder if this writer's purpose was a preemptive strike against a Gingrich candidacy.

Even if the story isn't part of a grand “left-wing cabal,” it is anything but balanced. In fact, it's detrimental to a free press. Biased editorials published as news stories compromise the AP's credibility and undermine journalism as a whole. Yes, the First Amendment protects the story's content, but ethics demand an honesty that, in this case, was conspicuous by its absence.

We hear so much about rights, all from varying perspectives. Nearly every segment of society has laid claim to a group-specific collection of rights. Maybe it's old fashioned, but shouldn't true rights be universal.

The only way someone can be deprived of rights is when a more powerful authority, be it individual or government, undermines them. That doesn't mean the right no longer exists, only that it isn't being recognized. This happens all too often, but the attempt to correct such injustices has produced rights where none existed previously. The idea of human rights has been tossed about until it holds little meaning.

What now passes for human or civil rights is confused with needs and privileges. One oppressed collective claims a right to healthcare, a job, or a living wage. Another advocacy group champions a right to education, adequate housing, or food. Still others claim a right to retirement or to be free from discrimination. Modern thinking has confused these needs and privileges with rights when, in fact, they aren't.

Rights are defined as an entitlement or freedom. However, that definition stops halfway, omitting an important concept. A true right imposes no hardship on your neighbor. They need make no sacrifice other than to acknowledge that your right exists. For example, my right to speak freely requires nothing from you.

Any “right” that requires your neighbor's sacrifice is not a right but a privilege. In its worst form it becomes a usurpation of the true rights of your neighbor. In this light it becomes obvious that what passes for modern “rights” are not, and never were, true rights.

If you cannot afford healthcare, decent housing, retirement, or even food, your neighbor isn't obligated to provide them. That's not to say we have no moral duty to help our fellow man. However, when a person or group uses government to force their neighbor's charity, it's no longer charity. It is tyranny. No one has the right to tyrannize their neighbor.

The right to a job, or a living wage, or an education, is mythical as well. Each of these depends on what you can produce or earn. Knowledge means a better job and higher standard of living, and all are available. Even so, no one has a right to a job they cannot do, a wage they cannot earn, or an education they will not take. Even the right to be free from discrimination ends at the next person's right to choose their friends and associates.

Our Founding Fathers recognized the rights of a free man, and understood that they are as essential as the breath of life. They understood that government's legitimate function is to protect the rights with which we are endowed by our Creator. To that end they adopted the Constitution, which restrains government to those ends. They never intended to transform a person's wants, privileges, and needs into a “right.”

The Declaration of Independence identifies these inalienable rights. The right to life means that no one can legitimately determine when a free man will live or die. Liberty is the right to determine our actions, to succeed, and even to fail. The third inalienable right is the pursuit of happiness. It is the most misunderstood of the three, for the contemporary focuses on the happiness while ignoring the pursuit.

No human has a right to happiness, only its quest. You may seek housing, food, education, work, and a higher wage if you determine they will produce happiness. Let's face it; we're happier when we have knowledge that leads to work and an income so we can secure a place to live and food to eat. But the right to pursue such happiness is far different from a right to attain it.

A true right requires nothing from your neighbor but their respect for your liberty. No man has a right to require an education, a job, a “living wage”, or even food and housing, from their neighbor. If your “right” demands forced sacrifice from others then it is not a right. In fact, it may be a theft.

I grew up in the 1970s, so that decade holds some fond memories for me. Apparently I'm not alone. The 70s have become a nostalgic trend, complete with a television show. So why not relive those joyous days?

Remember the Arab oil embargo and gasoline price controls? Oh what fun that was! Like I said, I was a young boy. Even so, I know that oil prices increased fourfold in six months. I remember the gas lines on the evening news and the “sold out” signs at the pump.

Are you waxing nostalgic, thinking you can't go back again? Are you too young to remember these tidbits of Americana? Fear not; you may soon have the opportunity to experience or relive the good ol' days. Congress is on the verge of “doing something” about gasoline prices, and it might take us back to the future.

Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) introduced H.R. 1252, the “Federal Price Gouging Prevention Act.” It will become a federal crime to sell gas at a price that is unconscionably excessive or takes unfair advantage of circumstances. Of course, the indefinable terms “unconscionably excessive” and “unfair” remain, well, undefined. The penalties, however, are perfectly clear.

Section 3(a) gives “priority to enforcement actions concerning companies with total United States wholesale or retail sales of gasoline and other petroleum distillates in excess of $500,000,000 per year.” That means Big Oil. Fines collected will fund the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program.

Upon inspection we find this to be perfect liberal legislation. It overrides free market capitalism, targets an “evil” industry, and funnels money to a welfare program. Perhaps a better name for H.R. 1252 is “The Vote Procurement via Populist Demagoguery and Wealth Redistribution Act.” But you'd never expect such an honest presentation from Congress.

Yes, gasoline prices are high, and you don't have to like it. But it's far better to buy gas priced at $3 a gallon than to not buy gas priced at $2 a gallon. Would you want such price controls in place when you sell your home, or your car, or other property?

Big Oil's “obscene” profits amounted to 9.5 cents on the dollar in 2006, slightly higher than manufacturing's overall profit of 8.2 cents. Is 1.3 cents the threshold for gouging? Is that the point where a “windfall profit” begins? And before you praise Rep. Stupak for sticking it to Big Oil you may want to understand who you're sticking it to. Who owns stock in Big Oil?

Pension plans and retirement accounts owned 41-percent of oil stocks in 2004. Individuals and mutual funds are represented in the remaining 59-percent. Do you have a pension plan or an IRA? Do you own mutual funds or energy stocks? If so, friend, you are the dreaded Big Oil.

There are many factors that cause gasoline prices to rise. More petroleum products came to market in April 2007 than a year ago. Furthermore, American Petroleum Institute statistics say that gasoline production from January to April was the highest ever, averaging 8.73 million barrels a day. We used the gasoline as fast as it came out of the refinery. Speaking of refineries, we are relying on upgrades to old refineries to maintain supply.

According to the Energy Information Association, 144 refineries account for domestic production. That's less than half the number operating in 1981, and all were built prior to 1976. Thanks to refinery upgrades the total output dropped only 10-percent since then. However, gasoline consumption has increased 45-percent. Maybe we should be thankful that fuel remained as inexpensive as it did for so long.

When the House voted 284-141 in favor of H.R. 1252 Rep. Stupak said, “This is a first step in addressing the outrageous prices we are seeing at the gas pump.” The bill is now in Senate committee. In the unlikely event that it becomes law we may be in for a walk down memory lane.

The greatest reward from the Supreme Court decision upholding the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act comes not from the decision itself, but the reaction. That may sound perverse, considering my pro-life background. But it is far more entertaining to hear the hysteric howls of protest emanating from the pro-abortion activists.

Kate Michelman, a leading abortion advocate, said the court ruling “threatens the fundamental dignity of women.” Dr. LeRoy Carhart, who successfully challenged Nebraska's partial birth abortion ban seven years ago, questioned the court ruling, too. He said that abortion is about women's health and that doctors should determine the best and safest procedures.

Michelman's comment is laughable. But under normal circumstances Carhart's position would be agreeable. Doctors and patients, not government, should make medical decisions. However, these circumstances aren't normal.

A partial birth abortion is a rather gruesome process that supporters rarely describe in detail. To be brief, the baby is delivered feet first until the head is visible. The head is then pierced at the base of the skull, a tube is inserted and the contents are vacuumed out. You need not be a biologist to know what's happened.

If Carhart sees no ethical problem with this process he should retire from the medial profession and go fishing with Jack Kevorkian. Personally, I wouldn't allow him to prescribe as much as an aspirin for my ills.

In their zeal for rhetoric, pro-abortion advocates overlooked a key element of the court's decision. The banned procedure is rare relative to the number of abortions performed annually and other abortion options remain legal and available. If a woman wants to become “unpregnant” this ruling won't stop her.

Suction aspiration, a.k.a. vacuum aspiration or curettage, is an early and common abortion procedure. A tube is inserted and the developing baby is vacuumed away. Dilation and Evacuation (D&E) is available, wherein medical instruments are inserted and the body is dismembered and removed. RU-486, the abortion pill, is another option.

Quite frankly, I hope the pro-abortion voices are correct. I hope this is the beginning of the end for Roe v. Wade. But for now abortion remains perfectly legal despite the slippery slope analogies. Abortion supporters are distorting the truth, and it's not the first time. We are told that abortion must remain widespread and easy to ensure the mother's life and health. The facts don't support that argument.

A 2005 Guttmacher Institute report identified the reasons that women have abortions. By and large, it's a matter of personal or financial convenience. Women feared that motherhood would interfere with their education or career. Those things should be considered before tempting the fates of sexual intercourse.

Near the bottom of the report's list was the mother's health. Ranking even lower was rape and incest. Pro-abortion activists constantly promote these reasons for supporting abortion. Yet they are rarely the reason pregnant women abort their pregnancies.

The Supreme Court's ruling will have a negligible affect on the number of abortions performed and leaves many other abortion methods available. This indicates the disingenuous nature of the pro-abortion movement. Abortion isn't about women's health, rape, incest, or even about choice. It never has been. Abortion rights are about refusing to accept personal responsibility, which is the cornerstone of liberalism.

Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito sided with the 5-4 majority. That alone makes the Bush administration worthwhile. If upholding the ban on partial birth abortion signals the demise of Roe v. Wade, so much the better.

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.

Tolerance, like hocus-pocus or abracadabra, is a magic word. Tolerance condones all acts and all acts must be tolerated. However, contemporary tolerance depends on the agenda driving the “tolerant” people more so than respect for a neighbor's freedom. Let's look at a recent news event.

In the heart of the Bible Belt churns a storm of religious intolerance. Christians are targeting small, isolated pockets of Muslims, demanding they renounce Islam and adopt Christianity. Under normal circumstances this would be traditional outreach, no more than the missionary and evangelical calling of the faith. But this time there is a hitch.

The Muslims aren't being evangelized; they are being threatened. They are being told to close their mosques. A strict deadline for conversion is in place. If they don't comply their mosques and homes will become bomb targets. Shahbaz Bhatti, a prominent leader, urged Christian scholars to denounce the attacks and begged the government to take “concrete steps to provide protection.” So far those requests have fallen on deaf ears.

Police say the threatening letters are a joke. Few, if any, patrols are provided and Muslims attend mosque at their own risk. Before 9/11 these Muslims lived peacefully beside the majority Christian population. No more. Now they are the target of repeated extremist attacks.

Is this news surprising? Are you curious as to why this situation isn't widely reported, making headlines throughout America and leading the evening news? Mainly, it isn't big news because it's only half true.

This is happening, but not to Muslims and not in America. It is Pakistani Christians who are being told to convert or die and receiving very little protection from their government. Yet this religious intolerance and minority oppression barely registered in the American media. This same media raises the specter of Islamophobia whenever it is pointed out that Muslims conduct the lion's share of terrorism against America. Now, in this case, their silence is deafening.

Sure, media outlets treated Falwell's passing with the normal dignity reserved for such an event. Liberals overall, the self-proclaimed champions of tolerance, were anything but tolerant and dignified in their response. Liberal bloggers praised Falwell's death with calls for sexual celebrations worthy of Aphrodite's temple. They wrote with glee of his passing, as if Hitler himself had just crossed over Jordan.

Amanda Marcotte wrote, “The gates of hell swing open and Satan welcomes his beloved son.” The responses she garnered, available at http://pandagon.net/2007/05/15/the-gates-of-hell-swing-open-and-satan-welcomes-his-beloved-son/, are far, far worse. And these are the people who are “tolerant.” These are the people consumed with fairness and social justice, and similar ambiguous and indeterminable notions.

There's been little to no media coverage given to the persecution the Pakistani Christians face. If the roles were reversed, as they were in our “half-truth,” the national media and “tolerant” liberals would jump on the story with both hobnailed boots.

I am not in favor of immigration reform, at least not in its current structure. The immigration reform bill passed by the Senate, and promoted by Pres. Bush, undermines the rule of law, perverts justice, and subverts America's sovereignty. Basically, its title should be the Legalization of Illegal Cheap Labor Act.

Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) is receiving credit and praise for pushing this bill through the Senate. He has worked tirelessly, insisting that other Senators remain on the job to complete the negotiations. Following the vote, Kennedy met with immigrants affected by raids on illegal aliens. He sympathized with them, promising that the immigration bill would make them secure. He said nothing of how the bill would secure America.

Sen. Kennedy may be a hard worker. So were Al Capone and John Dillinger, which indicates that hard work and beneficial results aren't always synonymous. I expect no common ground with Senator Ted Kennedy. I cannot recall a time when I agreed with him, so it's no surprise that I oppose him on immigration. What is surprising is hearing Republicans hail Kennedy as if he were a Mayan king.

A Boston Globe reporter praising Kennedy as a “consummate dealmaker” or “indefatigable” is one thing. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff praising Kennedy's leadership as critical and indispensable is another.

Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez gushed over Kennedy's focus and determination. He called working with the senior Massachusetts senator “a real privilege.” South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham glowingly described Kennedy as “informed, determined, practical and essential.” In the midst of this love fest Gutierrez had the nerve to say, “It's obvious we're in different parties.”

This nation's attention to history, especially in regard to politicians, is woeful. With this in mind, let's take a look at Senator Ted Kennedy. Where better to start than a dark summer night near Martha's Vineyard?

It was July 18, 1969 when Ted Kennedy drove his Oldsmobile off the Dyke Bridge into Poucha Pond. He escaped the sunken car. Mary Jo Kopechne didn't. While there is debate over what led to the wreck and Kennedy's actions in the immediate aftermath, there is no disputing that he left the scene and didn't report the accident until 10 hours later. Kennedy received a two-month suspended sentence and a revoked driver's license. You or I would've gotten much worse.

On Chappaquiddick's 25th Anniversary the New York Times quoted Kennedy as having “expressed my remorse” to the Kopechne family. Mary Jo's parents said they had received letters from Rose and Ethel Kennedy, but never a word from Teddy. But integrity and truthfulness have never been a high priority for the Senator.

William Kennedy Smith, Teddy's nephew, faced a very credible rape charge in May, 1991. Smith was eventually acquitted, and that's the end of it. But, whatever happened at the Kennedy's Palm Beach compound that night resulted from alcohol, late nights, and an inability to control bodily lusts. And it all began when Ted Kennedy, the older and supposedly mature uncle, rousted his nephew from bed for a night at the Au Bar.

Various accounts of womanizing, drinking, lying, etc. have dogged Sen. Kennedy throughout his public life. He earned most of the criticism through his own errant judgment and lack of personal morals.

This brief walk through Kennedy's past is meant only to indicate with whom the administration is aligned. To join with and praise a man of Ted Kennedy's ideology means rejecting the GOP's basic principles.

The immigration reform bill is a typical government document. The versions I found, S.2611 introduced in the 109th Congress and S.1348 in the 110th, comprise 796 and 790 pages respectively. FOX News reports the bill as a 1000 page document and CNN says 380. When the number of pages is indeterminable, what does it say about the bill's content?

Suffice it to say that the immigration bill is a meandering, confusing maze of legalism, unintelligible to most Americans. I chose a condensed version, and I doubt that your senator has read the entire bill either. Nonetheless, it's sold as the best solution to the problem of illegal aliens. I'm not convinced.

Between the sound bites and summaries, we've heard that aliens must pay a $5000 fine and go to the rear of the line. However, this bill makes nearly all illegal aliens legal immediately. Why would they pay a fine or wait in line for citizenship? And since officials tell us we can't track aliens now, how can we enforce the provisions?

Reform would open the United States to unprecedented immigration, with estimates ranging from 73 to 193 million immigrants over the next 20 years. Pure numbers, however, aren't the reason to oppose this legislation. We should oppose it due to the government's lax attitude toward enforcing current law.

Sen. Arlen Specter says this bill “will restore the rule of law.” Actually, it's just the opposite. I suppose legislators can write laws that make the illegal legal, but that doesn't mean it's beneficial. If simply changing the law to accommodate those who break the law will end lawbreaking, why not apply it to other illegal activity?

We can use this method to deal with illegal drugs and prostitution. All we have to do is make those activities legal and the problems disappear. We can start a “guest working girl” program through which every migrant prostitute receives a bag of pot. If one to five million prostitutes -each with a bag of pot- enters the country annually, this nation will be one happy place.

The bill's supporters are turning to the standard talking points, ranging from “we're a nation of immigrants,” to “we were all immigrants at one time.” These slogans are long on rhetoric and short on substance.

At the height of the Great Migration in the early 20th Century, immigrants comprised only 15-percent of the U.S. population, hardly a “nation of immigrants.” But, according to a Heritage Foundation report, that could rise to 27-percent if the immigration bill becomes law. It would be the highest percentage of foreign-born residents in American history.

As far as everyone being immigrants, this is an empty argument as well. I was born here, as were my ancestors for many generations. I'm not an immigrant. I'm just as much a native as Sitting Bull and Powhatan. Oh, I know I have immigrant ancestors if you delve deeply into history. But that can be said of everyone, including the chiefs just mentioned. Everyone came from somewhere.

Perhaps crying xenophobia is the worst tactic that amnesty proponents use. Such charges are pure bunk. The intent is to intimidate amnesty opponents, and most people cow to the race card whenever it's played. For most of us, we aren't opposed to immigrants. We're opposed to unchecked immigration resulting from ignoring our laws and failing to secure our borders.

A country with no border is a country without sovereignty, which means no country at all. “The bill is amnesty and a slap in the face to the sovereignty of the United States of America,” said Rep. Sue Myrick, hitting the nail squarely on the head.

I know the legalization and citizenship process is bureaucratic and burdensome. Even so, we aren't compelled to sacrifice our sovereignty or change our laws to accommodate people who respect neither idea. Immigrants should come here legally; learn our language and adopt our customs. They should come to America to become Americans. Then they'll be welcomed with open arms.

However, if an immigrant's purpose is to prop up the failing economy back home or change America into the country they left, they don't need to be here. In fact, I wonder why they came here at all.

Everyone has heard of a wrongful death lawsuit filed on behalf of a plaintiff who was largely or totally at fault. Perhaps an armed suspect points a gun toward a policeman and the family sued because he was shot to death. Maybe the family of a smoker who happily puffed four packs a day sued the tobacco company when cancer developed. Such litigation contributes to tort awards of approximately $250 billion annually.

Not all wrongful death lawsuits are unwarranted. There are dangerous products and negligent acts that demand legal action. But they must be pursued in a way that doesn't reward ignorance, stupidity, or recklessness on the part of the harmed. Wrongful life lawsuits are another matter entirely.

Jennifer Raper of Boston filed such a suit against the Planned Parenthood clinic that botched her abortion. Her “choice” was made solely for financial reasons, having nothing to do with her health. She claims the clinic should pay child-rearing expenses for the daughter she tried to abort.

There's some ironic satisfaction in seeing Planned Parenthood on the receiving end of an abortion lawsuit. However, that gratification is tempered by the fact that the suit arose because the infant lived. It's disturbing to know that a mother can occupy a lower rung on the morality ladder than does Planned Parenthood.

Stacy Dow filed a similar suit against a Scotland hospital for failing to abort both of her twins. Like Raper, her suit arose from the financial hardship of supporting her daughter as well as the pains of pregnancy and childbirth.

Well, Stacy, why not tell her the truth? Tell your daughter you tried to kill her but failed. Tell her you sued the hospital because she's alive. Tell her what a burden she's been to you, financially and personally. Tell her what a whining, pathetic, selfish person you are. Finally, be sure to teach her about a mother's love.

Kelly Molenaar lives in Amsterdam, no thanks to her parents. The Molenaars sued because Kelly's potential for mental and physical disabilities weren't detected. Leilani Duff was born in California in 2003. Her parents sued the obstetrician for not detecting her pre-natal spina bifida. Believe it or not, these cases aren't the most egregious either.

Sherry Zhang's parents sued their doctor over the "distress and expense" of giving birth to a child with Down syndrome. Their claim that the doctor should have detected the baby's problem resulted in a Vancouver, BC court verdict awarding $325,000 in damages. Lydia Zhang said having Sherry “totally disrupted our lives.” This shining example of motherhood has seen Sherry only eight times in five years.

There is a common thread running through each case. Either the child in question would've been aborted or the attempted abortion was bungled. In addition to their own disturbing nature, these cases open a deeper ethical debate.

Medical science is making exponential strides in pre-natal care. Doctors can now detect potential birth defects that were previously unknown until delivery. This gives parents the option to simply abort a baby with potential disabilities. How is this different from selective birthing, wherein parents abort a male or female child because they wanted the other sex? How far is this from abortions based on physical characteristics such as eye color, hair color, IQ development, etc.?

None of these cases involved rape or incest. The mother's health wasn't in danger. The desired abortions were matters of pure convenience. It's not quite the pristine vision that the “pro-choice” community promotes.

If wrongful life liability becomes legal precedent it bodes poorly not only for medical ethics and the unborn, but also for any patients. Suppose a doctor was to save a person who then became a financial liability to their family. Would the doctor be liable for the person's living expenses, for saving a life? Would doctors faced with financial ruin simply allow such patients to die? It's not as farfetched as it sounds.

Dr. T. Goodwin Murphy of USC's Keck School of Medicine says that wrongful birth judgments render doctors financially liable for the child's life. Conversely, doctors can avoid liability by steering parents toward abortion whenever there is the slightest risk of abnormality.

Dr. Goodwin says, “There's almost no adverse reaction if a doctor tells someone to terminate a pregnancy based on faulty information." So, even if the possibility of birth defects is minimal, it makes sense for a doctor to advocate abortion. Once the abortion is complete there's no chance for a birth defect, and no liability.

These stories shouldn't surprise or appall anyone. In fact, we should expect no less from a culture that has embraced death over life. We opened that door with the assumption that certain innocent lives don't matter. Wrongful life suits are just the latest thorn reaped from the seed we've sown.

Let's construct a mythical political leader, or president. We can give this person any policy positions we choose. We can provide quotes from this leader's numerous speeches; we can form a well-rounded agenda. We'll begin now, and see what kind of a leader we can create.

Our leader beats a quasi-populist drum, and is no fan of oil companies. In fact, the top administrative priority is the nationalization of the oil industry, bringing the richest producing fields under control of the state-run company. In a magnanimous display, our ruler negotiates compensation for the private companies' losses. But do those companies have any actual bargaining power, or are they at our leader's mercy?

It's commonplace for politicians who attain high levels of unfettered control to become discontented with their status. Power is an aphrodisiac, stoking an insatiable lust for dominance. Our leader is no different and soon tires of centralizing only one segment of the economy. The authoritarian tentacles reach farther.

Private banking is the next target. Our leader insists that banks finance low-cost industrial projects without regard for their solvency. "If banks don't agree with this, it's better that they go, that they turn over the banks to me,” says our leader. Spurred on by the populist support of the ignorant, our noble chief sets sight on yet another conquest… the industrial sector.

The nation's largest steel producer comes under fire for alleged monopolistic practices said to harm domestic businesses. This charge arises despite the fact that our leader heads the nation's largest and most inefficient monopoly, namely government. If the steel company “does not immediately agree to change this process, they will obligate me to nationalize it,” declares our president. Along the way plans are made to nationalize the country's phone and utility industries as well.

During pubic appearances our leader affirmed the desire for supreme control of economic production. When oil company profits soared our leader wasted no time vowing to seize those profits and use them for purposes more acceptable to the state. Changes are also promised in the way healthcare systems are funded, taking money away from people who are doing well.

I guess it's time for me to come clean. This leader isn't fictional, but a combination of two actual people. One is a head of state. The other has that aspiration. They share the same initials, and their ideas indicate that they may have been separated at birth. The first, the one directly quoted, is Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez. The second is our would-be queen, Hillary Clinton.

Speaking at the Democratic National Committee's winter meeting Mrs. Clinton said, “The other day the oil companies reported the highest profits in the history of the world. I want to take those profits, and I want to put them into a strategic energy fund that will begin to fund alternative smart energy…” At a Democratic presidential forum on healthcare Clinton said, “We're going to change the way we finance the system by taking away money from people who are doing well now.” When asked to whom she referred Clinton implicated insurers and expressed support for government price controls.

“Affordable” healthcare and sticking it to “Big Oil” are populist themes that resonate with voters. But aren't Mrs. Clinton's proposals eerily synonymous with Hugo Chavez's blatant socialism? What right does Mrs. Clinton, or any politician, have to confiscate profits from businesses or individuals on the basis that they've earned her ambiguous definition of “too much?”

Presidential debates should be a serious matter, a place for candidates to face tough, meaningful questions that open their position for public scrutiny. MSNBC's Republican debate aired from the Reagan Center in California was anything but. As it turned out, staging the event at the Reagan Center may have been the last intelligible act MSNBC performed.

I was unable to watch the debate due to other commitments. Anyway, it's too early to get hyped up about the candidates. However, upon hearing some of the juvenile and loaded questions that were asked, either by the moderator or viewers, I became interested. A small amount of research uncovered the debate transcript and, sure enough, the questions were as dull as indicated. Politicians must answer such questions in a politically expedient manner. I am not so obligated. So, just for fun, I have superimposed myself on the GOP presidential field and answered the questions the way I wish the real candidates had responded.

Since the candidates were required to respond verbally I have decided to do likewise… inasmuch as a writer can. I answered the questions as I read the transcript and offer them without editing for content, grammar, style, etc. The only proofreading performed was for spelling. The ground rules are now established; let the debate begin.

Hager: We need to stop allowing world opinion and our media determine our war policy. It amazes me how we try to fight modern war. This surgical strike, nobody gets hurt, Marquis de Queensbury rules type of combat prevents us from demoralizing our enemies and breaking their will to fight. We did not allow our military to do that during the early stages in Iraq and we're paying a price. While we prosecuted our soldiers for mirages like Abu Ghraib, our enemies were chopping people's heads off. We should pursue this war, from this day to conclusion, like we pursued the Battle of Fallujah.

Hager: How popular was the American Revolution? The Founders had to sell the people on that war. Was it the right thing? Most people would say yes, now that we can look at it in hindsight. The Founding Fathers were leaders. They did what they thought was right without regard to popular opinion, and set out to convince the people why they were right. The president, whoever it may be, should not be poll driven. We've had too much of that in the Oval Office during the last decade.

Hager: The nanny-state mentality that is now so prevalent in America. Too many Americans look to Washington to bail them out of any problem they face. I still believe in Ronald Reagan's vision of the shining city on the hill. But there is a large enough bloc of voters that reflect the first picture of America, not Reagan's vision. If you think the answer to your problems can be found in government, then you are what I dislike most about America.

Hager: The key word in your statement is “almost.” Almost certain is like almost pregnant or almost free. You either are or you aren't. Besides, there are reputable, knowledgeable scientists such as Frederick Seitz, Richard Lindzen and Fred Singer who think just the opposite. They may believe the climate is warming, but they have great doubts as to its cause, especially in regard to man's activities. For that matter, scientists argue that Mars is warming, too. How many SUVs, fossil fuel power plants, or air conditioners are running on the red planet today?

Hager: What part of the Constitution allows the federal government to “solve” the shortage of donated organs? I happen to support organ donation. However, that is a personal decision and a problem that I do not intend to “solve” as president.

Hager: There are some things about George Bush I like and some things I don't. The term compassionate conservative is one of the things I don't like. The name implies that conservatives in their natural form do not care about people. That's not the case. Conservatives recognize the value in each person. We believe that each person -regardless of race, creed, etc. - is capable of great things. We want them to learn how to maximize their skills and set priorities that will lead to prosperity and independence. We also believe that people should succeed or fail based on their merits, not on which party they're willing to cast a vote for. What could be more compassionate?

Hager: Was the day World War Two ended a good day for America? Less than a half million Americans died in that war and we call it the greatest human tragedy of the century. Yet over 40 million would-be Americans have died since Roe v. Wade and we call it freedom? That's the most foolish thing I've ever heard of. Do women have a choice? Do men have a choice? Sure. But choice does not include passing the responsibility for sexual decisions to the child they conceive.

Hager: Businesses are private property and it is not government place to tell employers who they must employ, for several reasons. When an employee does their job without flaunting their extra curricular activities no one knows the difference, and isn't likely to pry. This has far less to do with discrimination than it does allowing activist homosexuals the ability to parade their perversion.

Hager: The Catholic Church is protected by the First Amendment. They can offer or deny communion to anyone at their discretion. They must answer for their decisions to God, not to government, not to elected officials, and not to you.

Moderator: Governor Schwarzenegger has won the state twice by downplaying partisanship and taking centrist positions on the environment, immigration, abortion. Is that the way to win for Republicans?

Hager: We've spent the evening speaking of Ronald Reagan, morning in America, the shining city on a hill. If those ideas are no longer winners for Republicans then we have lost the debate. Quite frankly, I don't see where failing to lead in any of those areas equals victory. Republicans must stand for our principals. If we'll compromise everything for a vote or two then we are no different than Democrats.

Hager: Yes! Do you think the increased influence of homosexuals, animal rights activists, Austrian-born billionaires, illegal aliens, and social parasites who want to live off the fruit of their neighbor's labor has been good for the Democratic party?

Moderator: Jack Abramoff, Mark Foley, Duke Cunningham in prison for bribes. Just last month, FBI raids of two Republican members of Congress. What's with your party and all this corruption?

Hager: Please refrain from the talking points. Don't forget Dan Rostenkowski, Robert Torricelli, Jim Wright, Bill Clinton, Los Alamos, selling missile guidance technology and nights in the Lincoln Bedroom for campaign cash. What about Harry Reid's land deals, William Jefferson's freezer full of cold hard cash, and Cynthia McKinney's assault of a Capital police officer? Political corruption is hardly the exclusive “culture” of my political affiliation.

Hager: There's a reason politics comes right after prostitution in the world's oldest professions. The best way to clean up any “culture of corruption” is to remove the source; that being the huge amount of money and power wielded by government. It's not what our Founders intended.

Hager: There would be no funding for corporate or personal welfare whatsoever. That is the role of investors and charities, not government. To put it succinctly and all-inclusively, any program that allows one American to live at the expense of another will be fair game.

Hager: “C.” I supported the invasion, the removal of Hussein, and taking the fight to Islamic fanatics. I think we should allow our forces the latitude to win this war, whatever it takes. But, we began the innocuous task of “nation-building” before we broke our enemies desire to resist. That was the key mistake. Troop levels, WMD's, etc., are merely symptoms of that disease. I will, however, give the media an “F” for their coverage of the war. That is, if that's as low as I can go.

Hager: Racism has been a part of the human experience since the Tower of Babel. Chances are good it will remain so as long as humans occupy this world. Racism exists from every race toward every other race. No one is immune. But I think we have lost contact with the true nature of racism. Hanging blacks because they're black is racism. Gassing Jews because they're Jewish is racism. Beheading white missionaries because they're white missionaries is racism. We can recognize racism's existence without lending it credence. To allow words to affect one's view of self is to surrender self worth to the other person. If you're willing to do that you should blame yourself, not racism.

Hager: Mr. Kim, who besides yourself do you think your employer should hire to do your job and why? I expect to win the nomination. If I didn't, I wouldn't run. If it becomes apparent that I will not win I will make a choice from the other candidates at that time. Until then I will not provide a de facto endorsement to one of my opponents.

Hager: No I have not. But, then, I haven't watched Michael Moore's movies, or Dziga Vertov's, or Leni Riefenstahl's. In fact, I watch very few honest movies, much less editorialized movies disguising themselves as documentaries.

Hager: That's a sad situation. But we must look at why those mothers are behind bars and why they don't seem to care about the kids they birth. Washington, with its pervasive paternalistic mentality, has taken responsibility and thrown it in the ashbin. Mothers would not be in jail if they accepted responsibility for their actions. That's not a satisfactory answer for anyone believing that government is the answer, but that's fine. I believe that government is the problem, having replaced personal responsibility and family accountability with socialistic reliance.

Hager: No it will not. I grieved for Mr. Reagan at the announcement of his disease and his death. I am sorry for the struggles Mrs. Reagan and others have endured with Alzheimer's. But two wrongs don't make a right. Other forms of stem cell research are progressing much faster than embryonic strains. Not accounting for people who are emotionally connected to the issue through a suffering friend or relative, most leading proponents of this research are more interested in legitimizing abortion than in healing the ill. Unfortunately, they will use the sufferings of people like Mrs. Reagan to further their diabolical schemes.

Hager: The “death” tax would be first, with payroll withholding following closely behind. Inheritance taxes are nothing short of double taxation. Taxes were paid on the income that produced the wealth to begin with. Allowing any government to tax wealth a second time makes the assumption that all wealth belongs to government. This is flawed policy if we are a free society. It does, however, make perfect sense if we are a socialist society.

Hager: The withholding tax is among the greatest frauds ever devised by Washington. Americans do not see that part of their income and therefore do not think of it as part of their paycheck. If every American received their gross income each pay period and wrote a check for their income taxes out of pocket we would have tax revolt the likes of which hasn't seen since the Boston Tea Party.

Hager: The federal government does an outstanding job of frivolously spending taxpayer monies, all the while making us think the expenditure is worthwhile. How else can we explain America's incessant howls and jokes about government waste, only to see the same Americans beg government to “do something” about any situation they find unacceptable? It does a poor job of adhering to its Constitutional boundaries. I fully believe that if we examined federal expenditures against the article of the Constitution that authorizes Congress to so act, we could reduce government to less than half its current size.

Hager: Sure. And when I leave tonight I will place my head in an alligator's mouth while holding a rattlesnake by the tail. No, seriously, I trust the mainstream media just as much as the mainstream media trusts Rush Limbaugh.

Hager: What a brilliant question! That's just what every candidate wants to do, come on TV and point out their weaknesses to every one of their opponents. Would Tony Dungy publish the weaknesses in the Colts game plan? Would Joe Torre tell everyone what pitch gives Derek Jeter the most trouble? Why not ask me to cut off an arm and jump in a shark tank? Please tell me that Jesse from Madison will stay home on Election Day.

Hager: This isn't a yes or no question; it's a trick question, and here's why. If I say yes, I violate my ethics and my base, for I'm now pro-abortion. If I say no, I'm likened to some radical Muslim that makes his wife dress in a bed sheet and walk five paces behind him. There's no such thing as women's rights, anymore than there are men's rights, black's rights, gay's rights, or Indian's rights. Rights are what they are, and they apply equally to everyone, for we are endowed with them by our Creator. What you make of opportunity is not government's responsibility but your own.

Hager: I hope this question's author will be playing cards with Jesse in Madison on Election Day. What is it about Bill Clinton anyway? Is he Zeus or Apollo, or some other Greek god? Why not just make him Supreme Dictator for Life and dispense with all this election, self-government stuff? Think of the money we could save.

Hager: I am a RE-PUB-LI-CAN. Bill Clinton is a DEM-O-CRAT. If I wanted him back in the White House I wouldn't be running for president. On second thought, maybe he could serve a purpose in my administration. I'll need someone to track FBI files. You know... the ones that mysteriously turn up on White House coffee tables and such.

I wonder what America's reaction would have been had we pinpointed and stopped Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor. Would we have considered their intent a crime and not an act of war since the attack itself was unsuccessful? Most logical people would've accurately judged Japan's intent as an open act of war and proceeded accordingly. The Pacific Theatre would likely have unfolded much as is it did.

These six men aren't criminals. Their plans aren't the same as a robber's, a burglar's, or even a murderer's. These men are infiltrators from an undeclared army fighting an officially undeclared war. Part of me would like to see them face a military firing squad. Another part doesn't want to grant them the martyrdom they seek. The best solution may be to lock them in Gitmo and give them the works, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International notwithstanding.

The official complaint filed in New Jersey shows strong evidence that these six conspired to attack Fort Dix and kill our soldiers. They discussed the need to illegally acquire fully automatic weapons and attempted to buy them from undercover operatives. There were repeated references to jihad, boasts of ample amounts of money, and the need for a “fatwa” -an edict granting permission to break Islamic law- to conduct the attack.

I wonder if they received their “fatwa”, and if so from where and whom? Yes, they had jobs. But I also wonder if they received money from sympathetic organizations and individuals, and if so from where and whom?

We're being told to proceed with caution, that we mustn't assign guilt haphazardly. That's fine… to a point. These men's efforts were clumsy and may have come to naught. Yet it amazes me to what lengths we'll go not to profile or offend Islam, the primary sponsor of attacks against America and Western culture. Had this attack been planned by other entities would the reaction be so benign?

Suppose the Senate approved a U.N. treaty to ban our privately held firearms, requiring our own military to confiscate them. What if our government adopted an abortion policy similar to China's, using military force to ensure compliance? This may be far-fetched. But if gun owners or the dreaded Christian right devised an attack plan in response, would they be afforded understanding?

The Duka brothers, three of the six conspirators, are in this country illegally. What's more, they were apparently smuggled across the southern border years ago, when they were just children. This is the very border that we can't, or won't, secure. The failure to secure the borders and label the source of our enemies only serves to open the door to more and worse situations. As much as we should support aggressive warfare against Islamic militants, we should be that opposed to Bush administration policy on aliens and border security.

Perhaps the administration's lax attitude toward alien infiltration explains its impotent response to the Fort Dix Six. Spokesman Tony Snow said, “… there is no evidence that they received direction from international terror organizations.” What can be made of the administration's sincerity in fighting Muslim militants when it won't acknowledge that Islam is producing the militants?

Whether or not these six are funded by or aligned with al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, or some other “martyr's brigade” is immaterial. They are associated ideologically if not directly. They have actively pursued the stated goal of militant Islam, that being to harm America, the “Great Satan.”

The Fort Dix Six's effort to attack a U.S. military installation, however awkward, is an attack on our sovereignty. It is in no way a justifiable revolutionary act. Furthermore, it highlights some key flaws in our attitude toward national defense and security. Refusing to assess this attempt accurately leaves us vulnerable to better organized and more credible threats in the future.

One of the cherished memories of my military service was the huge air show held each September at NAS Oceana in Virginia. Allies from around the world put their aircraft on public display. From Britain to Germany to Israel, the best of Cold War combat and support aviation were represented. My plane was there, too.

I was the junior crewman on the TC-4C and I stood beside our funny-looking, prop-driven bird just as if someone would be interested. But few people paid me a second look as they hurried past to see the free world's hottest jets and helicopters. Mostly, I received only smiles and waves from passing spectators. They seemed genuinely sympathetic to my loneliness, but not so much as to stop and talk about my non-descript airplane.

Even so, despite roughly five hours of tedium, it was one of the best assignments of my four year hitch. When the aerobatics began I would climb onto the wing of my plane, resting my back against the engine compartment, for a runway-side seat when the Blue Angels thundered into the sky.

A Blue Angels show invariably produces three reactions, the first being a wide-eyed “wow.” Next, you'll decide that the performers are 100-percent nuts. Then you'll conclude that those six pilots are the gutsiest guys in Navy and Marine aviation. You are right an all accounts, for the Blue Angels make the impossible look routine.

Their rolling formations, knife-edge passes, and gravity-defying loops and turns never failed to impress. What I saw them do in their bright blue A-4 Skyhawks, and then F/A 18 Hornets, seemed impossible, as if the jets themselves should disintegrate from the g-forces. They came home each and every time to thunderous applause and admiring children.

Since Adm. Chester Nimitz ordered their formation following World War II the Blue Angels have thrilled 393 million spectators. But their shows don't always end in glory. Lt. Robby Robinson was killed when a wingtip broke off of his F8F-1 Bearcat during the Blue's inaugural season of 1946. Mid-air collisions in 1952 and 1985 also claimed the lives of Blue Angel pilots.

The Blues are readily converted to combat operations when necessary, and they've paid their dues there as well. LCDR Johnny Magda was killed in action over Korea in March, 1951. CDR Harley Hall, Blue Angel team leader in 1970, was shot down over Vietnam on January 27, 1973, the last official day of U.S. hostility. He is listed as MIA, although evidence suggests that CDR Hall died in Vietnam several years after the war ended.

On April 21, 2006, LCDR Kevin Davis became the squadron's latest fatality when Blue Angel 6 went down during the final moments of a show at MCAS Beaufort, SC. Thank God that no one on the ground was killed.

LCDR Davis was just a kid the last time I saw the Blues perform, and I was never a member of the Blue Angels squadron. Even so, the crash left me with a sense of emptiness. Not so much because of LCDR Davis, who I obviously didn't know, but for the Blue Angels represent.

Blue Angel pilots and ground crew symbolize the best of the American spirit. They illustrate the value of going one step farther, climbing the tree one branch higher, running the extra mile and swimming the extra lap. They are willing to pursue perfection and are the best at what they do because of it. When one of them falls, every American who shares their drive for accomplishment, excellence, and freedom should mourn their loss.

The Blue Angels are true role models for young boys and girls, and not only from a military standpoint. Their dedication and commitment to excellence applies to success in any pursuit, be it military or civilian, public or private.

The United States is unique in human history. We serve no emperor, we know no king, and we bow to no czar. Truly, we determine our political destiny. At our disposal is biennial revolution. We can overthrow our sitting government without firing a shot and without storming Capital Hill. We call it voting, and it's considered with little consequence even by those who champion its glory. Maybe if we viewed elections with the same significance as we do revolutions we'd take them more serious.

The word “vote” appears 40 times in the Constitution, in various word forms. Mostly it deals with choosing Electors and with the votes of Representatives. It isn't until the 14th Amendment, Section 2, that voting as an individual right is expressly mentioned, although the Founders surely understood voting as a right and responsibility of self-government. Ironically, the very act of voting now weakens our nation.

A “what can I get from government” mentality drives voters, who think nothing of the damage that attitude inflicts on our republic both present and future. That attitude is present, albeit in a different way, even in the reporting of the 8 U.S. attorneys fired last fall.

Partisan reporters charge that these dismissals were based on the attorney's refusal to file voter fraud charges desired by the Bush administration and Republican Party leaders. They cite research claiming that voter fraud is a rare occurrence to bolster their assertions. Isn't it odd that no such claims were made nor research cited in 2000, when Democrats were crying foul? And why were they crying? Frankly, it was due to the fact that Democratic voters were too stupid to figure out how to cast their ballots.

Now, any attempt to ensure that only registered, qualified voters cast ballots is met with immediate litigation. And the “voter's rights” groups that spearhead such lawsuits hail the value of the National Voter Registration Act, or “Motor Voter” law. Such self-proclaimed experts see no problem whatsoever with registering voters at vehicle licensing offices or public assistance agencies, i.e., welfare agencies.

Ask yourself, which political party will voters who register at welfare offices be most likely to support? What's more, the workers in such offices are dependent on government growth to ensure their livelihood. It's not impossible that those workers themselves might be biased. Why is this not a conflict of interest?

Each election cycle produces another “get out the vote” campaign. Each campaign registers any Tom, Dick, and Harry who was otherwise too lazy to pursue the matter independently. They are bused to the polls by allegedly non-partisan organizations. Once inside the booth they can use their vote to give themselves a raise, and freedom is cast to the wayside.

Such mass voter registration and turnout efforts may indeed “strengthen democracy,” as supporters claim. But, since our form of government is a republic, it is of little value and does us no good.

The easier it is to register and vote the less thought voters will give to the entire process. Let's make it more difficult. Anyone lacking the sense and initiative to ask the Board of Elections how to register and where to vote isn't likely to know why they're voting to begin with. Why should such voters impose suffering on their neighbors? Furthermore, it's not beneficial for laziness and ignorance to determine the nation's direction.

Americans have become child-like in our relationship to government, and exponential government growth is the obvious result. Government feeds from its own fat. That fat is replenished by voters who sell their ballots for a government subsidy, abdicating the personal responsibility that freedom demands in the process.

If not for talk radio I may have missed the Lawrence O'Donnell-Pat Buchanan confrontation on The McLaughlin Group. The topic was firearms and centered on the Virginia Tech killings. Perhaps confrontation isn't the best description, for the word implies a two-sided debate. This ridiculous display was anything but a dialogue.

Mr. O'Donnell claimed the pistol magazines used during the rampage were illegal and unavailable during the Clinton Administration. He blamed George Bush and Republicans for allowing mentally ill people to purchase such magazines. O'Donnell referred to the gunman's weapon as “an automatic weapon that could spray the bullets -- just spray them. You hold that trigger and it sprays.”

All told, Lawrence O'Donnell referred to spraying bullets six times and automatic weapon three times. Buchanan, when finally able to complete a sentence, responded, “You don't know anything about guns.” Pat is absolutely correct.

There are a few things we can now suspect about Lawrence O'Donnell. First, he believes that the volume of spoken words is more important than the knowledge behind them. Second, he is totally ignorant of firearms or, third, he is an unabashed liar. Maybe it's a combination of the three.

The magazines in question weren't illegal during the Clinton Administration. Owners of high-capacity magazines weren't required to surrender their property, and existing supplies could be bought and sold legally. The Clinton Gun Ban affected only magazines manufactured or imported after September 13, 1994.

It was government failure that allowed the gun purchase to occur. Had the killer's known mental state been documented he wouldn't have passed his background check and the transaction wouldn't have happened. The magazine issue is irrelevant. Lawrence O'Donnell is either ignorant or deliberately lying.

Furthermore, the pistol the gunman reportedly used, a Glock 19, isn't an automatic. It fires only once for each trigger pull. The Glock 19 functions similarly to any semi-automatic firearm, be it a handgun, rifle, or shotgun. The “auto” part of a semi-auto refers to the ejection, cocking and loading process. Let's look at the basic function of the semi-auto action.

A fired round generates pressure that drives the action rearward. This extracts and ejects the spent cartridge, exposes the next round, and cocks the action. The hammer and/or firing pin, depending on the firearm, is mechanically engaged and held in a ready position while the trigger is disconnected from the firing mechanism. When the slide or action moves forward it pushes the next round from the magazine into the chamber. The pistol is now ready to fire. However, the trigger must be pulled to fire another round, contrary to Mr. O'Donnell's raucous claims.

Such an action can fire without another trigger pull if there is a mechanical malfunction. In this case, the weapon could fire one round, two, or until empty without regard to the user's intent. The only other option for producing full-auto fire from a semi-auto is to modify the action, a process that is prohibited by law. In fact, possessing the type of weapon Mr. O'Donnell describes has been restricted since 1934. Any civilian possessing a true machinegun must adhere to federal regulations that effectively render them a licensed dealer, subject to BATFE oversight. Moreover, the manufacture of new machine guns for civilian markets was banned in 1986.

This information isn't top secret, classified, or otherwise prohibited from public view. It is available to anyone willing to sift through The National Firearms Act, Title 26 USC Chapter 53. Boring? Absolutely! But it's there.

Whether Lawrence O'Donnell is a blatant liar bent on promoting a cause at any expense or merely ignorant of firearms and firearms law, we can draw two firm conclusions from his tirade. First, louder words aren't indicative of greater knowledge. Second, appearing on television doesn't make someone an expert, for their “expert” analysis may be based on things that aren't so.

We live in a time of rising energy prices, increasing oil and gasoline imports, and ready enemies in oil producing states from the Middle East to Venezuela. Doesn't it make sense to seek an alternative fuel? The easy answer is yes, and ethanol quickly became the easy answer.

Ethanol has been elevated to the status of quasi-savior in terms of America's energy needs. Proponents, such as the American Coalition for Ethanol, are quick to praise the grain-based fuel's glowing benefits.

Ethanol will secure energy independence and national security by cutting gasoline imports by a third and oil by 80 thousand barrels a day. It will be an easily renewable energy source, since it comes from corn and similar crops. Ethanol burns cleaner than gasoline, thereby reducing carbon monoxide and other ozone producing emissions.

That's wonderful news, isn't it? Ethanol is a renewable fuel source that is readily available. But what is ethanol, this cure-all for our energy ills? It is the same stuff that brought “revenooers” to the mountain in search of great-grand-pappy a few generations ago. That's right folks… ethanol is “corn squeezin's”. It's naturally produced through a process of grinding, mixing, fermenting and dehydration that culminates in 200-proof alcohol.

It is plain that ethanol is no more new or exotic than the stills of yesteryear. In fact, ethanol is present in 46-percent of our gasoline right now. Yet it's fed to us as a fresh alternative, like an energy version of John's Gospel. Doesn't it cross anyone's mind to consider the source of this information? Who is the American Coalition for Ethanol, and do they have an agenda?

The ACE is the grassroots voice of the ethanol industry. That's right; it's a public relations organization. And the Argonne National Laboratory often cited by the ACE is located in Illinois, the very heart of corn country. If a petroleum organization touted gas and oil in a similar fashion, citing research from a laboratory in Baytown, Texas, they would receive the riot act.

It's true that ethanol reduces certain emissions. But a Stanford University study says it also increases acetaldehyde and formaldehyde emissions, which leads to increased ozone. David Pimentel of Cornell disputes the claims that ethanol equals energy independence. He asserts that a gallon of ethanol requires more energy to produce that the finished gallon will generate, thereby making us more energy dependent, not less.

Ethanol isn't the economic alternative some proponents claim, either. Ethanol actually costs more than gasoline when current federal subsidies are factored. What's more, it costs more to transport. Ethanol cannot efficiently utilize current pipelines due to contamination problems. Even if existing pipelines could be used effectively, there are none near the corn states where ethanol is generally produced. This means the finished products or associated blends must travel by truck, rail, or barge, and at an increased cost.

It is true that ethanol increases the octane rating of gasoline. But according to a Congressional Research Service report by Brent D. Yacobucci, which lends credence to Mr. Pimentel's assertions, ethanol actually produces less energy per gallon than does gasoline. Thus, more gallons of ethanol fuels are required to propel your vehicle the same distance at the same speed, meaning lower fuel mileage.

I welcome the emergence of a new, efficient, alternative fuel. It is the very essence of America to reach for the unknown or undeveloped technology. There's no reason that such attitudes shouldn't prevail in energy research. Conspiracy theorists aside, if an energy company discovers an alternative fuel that is cheap, available, and meets the public's demands it will come to a free market. Any competitive company with such an advantage could corner the market, and no energy producer could resist such an edge simply to maintain collusive agreements.

On August 1, 1966, Charles Whitman wrote his name on American history. He climbed a tower at the University of Texas and began a shooting spree that killed 15 people and wounded 31. It was the worst school related shooting in U.S. history. Sadly, Whitman wouldn't be America's last mass murderer.

James Huberty's 77-minute, 1984 rampage left 21 dead and 19 wounded at a San Ysidro, California McDonald's. In 1989 Patrick Purdy sprayed a playground in Stockton, California with over 100 bullets. Five children died. A teacher and 29 other kids were wounded. George Hennard shot up Luby's Cafeteria in Killeen, Texas. That 1991 massacre killed 23 and wounded 20.

Two Jonesboro, Arkansas middle school students were convicted of murder following a rampage that left 5 dead and ten wounded. And we shouldn't forget the 12 dead and 24 wounded at Columbine, or the 5 dead and 6 wounded at an Amish school in Pennsylvania last fall.

When we weigh this evidence we must conclude that the events of April 16th at Virginia Tech are by no means unprecedented. Thank God such massacres aren't daily occurrences. They are, however, too frequent for the victims and their families.

Analyze the murderers in each event and you'll find comparable behavior. In nearly each case the shooter exhibited psychotic behavior, alcohol or drug abuse, or some form of self-imposed grudge against the world. Cho Seung-Hui is no different. His twisted writings alarmed professors and students, yet nothing was done.

Whenever the irrational and unexplainable occurs we immediately begin rationalizing and explaining why it happened. But what sense is there in assigning logical sequences to illogical events? It is the very definition of foolishness, and foolishness is thus far the reaction of many to the Virginia Tech shooting.

Gun control advocates see their opening. Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA), Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) and Brady Campaign spokesman Paul Helmke wasted little time calling for “commonsense” gun laws. Not one of them, however, explained what constitutes “commonsense.” Of course, it's highly likely that none of the three would recognize commonsense if it bit them on the rear.

However, their implications are all too clear. Gun owners and the National Rifle Association are at fault for all gun violence. That's why there is no condemnation for the gun control advocate's shameless exploitation of the dead in promoting their political agenda. Make no mistake; more gun control laws wouldn't have prevented this or any other horrific act of violence. On the other hand, current gun control laws may well have added to the death toll.

What might have happened if the unarmed students had been armed when the shooting spree began? What if they could've legally carried a firearm? The violence may have occurred anyway, but the death toll wouldn't have been as high. Perhaps 16 of the 32 would be alive today.

Virginia Tech's leadership actively opposed the presence of legal arms on campus in 2006. School spokesman Larry Hincker said preventing legally concealed weapons on school grounds was “… a common-sense policy for the protection of students…” When the school's position was upheld Hincker expressed his thanks to the General Assembly, “because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus.” Now, Mr. Hincker, tell me how safe your students and faculty were in an actual life and death emergency.

If gun control activists can blame the gun, the store that sold it and the factory that made it for these deaths, then why can't the victim's families blame the leadership at Virginia Tech, including Larry Hincker? It was their policy decisions that made sitting ducks of Tech students.

The Virginia Tech shootings were horrifying. But just as repulsive are the attempts to exploit the killings for political power. If blame must fall apart from the killer -where it rightly belongs- then let blood be on the hands of the “leaders” who stripped those young men and women of their inalienable right to protect their lives.

It is wise to check your thoughts at the edge of your lips, especially if you are a public figure. Once said; never recovered. Radio host Don Imus has learned this simple lesson, and it took only 30 years behind the microphone. But the lessons from this episode extend far beyond Imus' typically rash commentary.

For the record, Imus referred to the Rutgers University women's basketball team as “nappy-headed hos.” It just happens that this team is mostly black women, so the racial implications are obvious. However, I was struck not so much by the statement's ethnic overtones as by its pure ignorance.

Rutgers has a reputation for intellectual achievement, so it's likely that these players are rather well-behaved, intelligent young women. Since Imus hadn't met these women and didn't know their lifestyles, from what source did he determine their promiscuity? It makes sense that he should meet these players and their parents to explain what foundation he had for such an idiotic statement. But Imus himself is only one surface of a multi-faceted story.

I wonder, had the reference been to “hos” without “nappy-headed” would there be such outrage? Rappers refer to women of all races in far worse ways and they are rewarded with stardom and multi-million dollar recording contracts. How much of this indignation is genuine and how much is socially obligatory?

Why did these ladies allow the hollow words of another's ignorance to define them? One player said the comment had taken an emotional and physical toll on the each team member. Coach Vivian Stringer had much to say, accusing Imus of taking the “luster off an incredible season.” It amazes me that this team would allow Imus such command. Why allow his foolishness to tarnish their accomplishments? Why give an idiot the ability to determine their worth?

There is great danger in affording such power to any third person. Once done, you have granted your destiny, and your ability to control it, to that third person. You have allowed the unknowing mind to establish your value. It is far better to ignore stupidity than to feed it, and thereby lend it credence.

Amazing as it is there are more deplorable participants in this spectacle than the foolish Imus or the piteous, self-subjugating women. They are the race hustlers who pop up with every opportunity for publicity. When it comes to such antics Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton take center stage.

Since the story broke these two have been everywhere staging protests, demanding apologies and calling for heads. Don't think for one minute that they care about those young women. The only thing they care about is their self-aggrandizement. Alright, fine. Demand your apologies and shout your slogans. But just once, Mr. Jackson and Mr. Sharpton, could you please lead by example instead of hot air?

It's sweet irony that this situation coincides with the dismissal of charges in the Duke Rape case. When those charges broke who was first on the scene? Why, it was none other than Jackson and Sharpton.

They pounced on that subject like jackals on carrion, convicting the defendants without benefit of trial. They slandered the accused, promoting racial and class divisiveness along the way. They labeled the Duke defendants as racists and rapists without a shred of credible evidence. They grabbed their camera time, spewed their venom, and then disappeared as the case began to crumble.

Where are the calls for Jackson and Sharpton to meet with the Duke defendants and their families? When will Jackson and Sharpton apologize for their race-charged deception? Who will call for their firings, if they indeed have jobs? They are just as guilty as Don Imus.

The Imus comments were best settled between Don Imus, the ladies he insulted, and his former employer. But the issue won't die until Jackson and Sharpton have drained every possible photo-op from its rotting corpse. The best conclusion we can hope for is that these young ladies won't allow foolish verbiage from a has-been shock jock to ruin their confidence and self-respect.

It is an undeniable truth that public acceptance of a product equals increased production. Remember the debut of the Sony Walkman in 1979? That simple device cost nearly $200. Yet, despite the excessive price tag they caught on, expanded, and today their descendants are given away as sales promotions and cereal prizes. The same can be said of CD and DVD players. As sales grew production increased and the price came down. Now nearly any American can afford one.

Why doesn't it seem that oil products respond in the same way? The more gasoline America uses the more oil companies should produce. It is far better to sell one billion gallons at $2 a gallon than half a billion at $3. Then again, maybe gas prices do overcome regulatory obstacles and respond to market forces more than most of us like to admit.

When gas prices reach an unacceptable point consumers will drive less and use less gas. At that point supplies will increase and the price will start back down toward a level the consumer accepts. So, under normal circumstances usage drives production which increases supply and controls prices. Some people benefit from rising prices just as others benefit from easing prices.

The same underlying principle applies to the recent cultural worship of corn-based ethanol. The idea of an alternative fuel has caused corn prices to increase, which is great news for the corn farmer. But it isn't good news for everyone. Rising winter corn prices caused ranchers to see the price of feed increase. What will this do to the price of beef? If you said it will eventually rise, take a gold star.

Over time corn based fuels would respond to the same forces as the Sony Walkman. If ethanol gains a legitimate hold on the free energy market more corn will be grown. This will drive the price of corn, and ethanol, down. Farmers will sell for a lower price but have a much wider market in which to conduct business. The price of corn would fluctuate according to supply and demand.

Ethanol is gaining popularity due to our nation's dependence on foreign oil and the market whims of that dependency. One of the main reasons we import oil is that we can't produce enough domestically, although the United States has large untapped oil reserves. ANWR comes to mind. Yet, environmentalists howl at the prospect of producing oil on the Arctic reserve. Keep in mind, there is a price to pay for that, or any, decision.

There are also vast deposits of oil in Wyoming and other areas of the Rocky Mountains that are estimated to exceed those in Saudi Arabia. This is referred to as shale oil, and it is more difficult and expensive to extract and refine than crude. However, the greatest obstacle to domestic production is regulation and market interference.

We just can't seem to produce our own oil no matter where it is found. Drill in the Gulf of Mexico? Forget it; there are too many environmental concerns. Tap the reserves off California's coast? No dice. Californians don't want to see oil platforms from the lofty ocean views of their plush seaside estates. It's the “not in my backyard” principle. Such regulation and restriction hampers domestic energy production.

This is all well and good if that's the course you want to take. But keep in mind that there is a cost and benefit to regulatory decisions, just as there is to any decision. When we let market factors make these decisions rather than government regulators and activists, we get the best of both worlds.

Let's suppose that ethanol were to someday replace gasoline as our prime transportation fuel. Is there any doubt that people would then complain about the price of corn-based fuels? Is there any doubt that the very government that now subsidizes ethanol would over-regulate it, interfere with its production, and add to its pump price? And what would you bet that a new group of “consumer advocates” would then arise to decry the greed and corruption of “Big Corn?”

Any reverend, rabbi, theologian, layman, Christian, or Jew worth their salt knows the creation story recounted in the Book of Genesis. There, laid out for our review, is the account of how God made the world over the course of six days, resting on the seventh. This is indisputable to most believers. God got up on Sunday morning and began His work. He worked Monday, Tuesday, etc., completing his task on Friday and taking Saturday off. This is simple and easy to understand. In fact, it is just a bit too simple for a God as powerful as the one we serve. Were these days the days of man, or the days of God?

“In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth,” Genesis 1:1. Notice that He made earth before making light. We know this from Genesis 1:1, which says the earth was without form, watery, void, and dark. God looked at what was before Him and created light. Then He separated the light from the darkness that had been present, naming them day and night. This work completed the first day. Well, there it is, right? Day and night, one day, just as we know them now. Hold on, for there is more to the story.

Yes, God called the creation of day and night the first day, but I don't think it was a day as we know them. No, I'm not questioning God or the Bible. In fact, I'm simply taking both of them at face value, refusing to place my human limitations on His limitless handiwork. Bear with me.

On day two God made a firmament. This firmament, apparently the sky or atmosphere, divided the waters above from the waters below. On the third day God made the Earth, with a capital “E”, and the Seas. The fact that both words are capitalized indicates that they are a unique creation, and that this earth and waters differed from the earth and waters mentioned in verse 1. He also added plants, trees, and grasses of all kinds. This completed the third day of work. Remember, there was light and dark covering all that was thus far made.

We have now arrived at day four, and we know that God has already made His version of day and night. But pay attention to what He did on the fourth day; for it tells us much about who God is and how He reacts to the physical bounds of time and place that affect us.

God made lights and placed them in the firmament, or sky. One was a great light to rule over the day. The other, lesser, light would rule over the night. Obviously, these are the sun and moon. Both were made to give light to the earth even though God had made light in some form on the first day. Things aren't quite so cut and dried now, are they?

These great lights served for more than lighting the earth. What else did they do? Look at the latter words of verse 14. This sun and moon were for signs. They would identify and mark the passing seasons. And for what other purpose would the sun and moon serve? Ah yes, they marked days and years. Here, on the fourth day of Creation, God finally made a day with which we can identify.

There was light, dark, and “days” before the creation of time. There's an interesting idea, for it tells us that a “day” in the mind of God is vastly different from a day in the mind of man.

Time is a human constraint. How can God, who would eventually make humans, be bound by the constraints of what He created? In 2 Peter 3:8 we are told that a day is like a thousand years to God, and a thousand years like a day. God does not measure time, at least not in the same way man does.

There were occasions when time was used literally in Biblical text. Jesus rose from the tomb on the third day. We know this timeframe is commensurate with our accounting of time due to Christ's relative modernity. But there were also times when numbers were used for symbolic purposes. Seven and forty appear several times in the Bible, generally to convey an image of completion or perfection.

Can we now conclude that our day is 1000 years to God? Did He create the world, the sky, etc., in 6000 human years? I suppose it could be so. But then again, can we place this kind of time restriction on God? Or is the number 1000 symbolic, indicating that time does not restrain God? A god that is controlled by time is not an all-powerful God. A day to God can be a second, a week, or a billion years. It is also possible that a day can be a combination of any human time wound together as He sees fit. Who are we to impose our feeble concept of time on He who invented it? We can't even know for certain that the days of Creation were consecutive.

If we know that God is not bound by time, as we humans are, we can understand that otherwise controversial scientific theory can fit neatly into Creationism, even to the point of evolution and the Big Bang.

I can almost hear the howls of protest. Adherents to my own faith will charge heresy and blasphemy while others will decry my thoughts as superstitious poppycock. But please, allow me to finish before deriding me as either an apostate or an ignorant caveman. Let's go back to Genesis.

God made an expanse between the waters known as the heavens, which could comprise the skies, atmosphere and space itself. Should we conclude that an act of such magnitude would be the model of tranquility? Or, would it be a violent separation of elements accompanied by great shaking, rumbling and noise? If these elements were torn apart to create that separation it could've resulted in a massive explosion, a “big bang.”

Creationists, such as I, must now ask if God created a static world. Does the earth and everything in it exist today just as it did at the dawn of time, whenever that may have been? How would that sit with the idea of continental drift? Where are the mammoths, the saber-tooth, the do-do birds, and the Allosaurus? It seems obvious that a thinking God would create a resilient, changing world.

The fact is that we do not live in a static world, but one that is ever-changing. Species, habitats, and eco-systems adapt or disappear. It is natural selection, survival of the fittest, which in turn is a form of evolution. Why should we think that an all-knowing God would not account for such change?

The creationist must have faith in the unseen hand of an unseen God. He or she must believe that God made this world and universe, setting it on a course that has sustained it to this day. Yet, the creationist cannot show absolute proof of God's existence, meaning that one cannot introduce another person to a physical, touchable, God with whom you can shake hands. If that could be done there would be no need for faith.

The evolutionist is in the same boat. He or she must have faith in theories that cannot be proven with absolute accuracy. For example, they must have faith in the evolutionary process, and that the assumptions and allowances are accurate throughout. What if those ideas aren't correct? The evolutionist must believe that all life just happened in order to set evolution in motion. Does this not require faith?

It is possible for evolution to exist within Creation. But Creationism cannot exist within evolution. Since both require faith in things unseen and unproven via physical evidence we must ask which idea is most logically accepted by faith.

The Creationist thinks that this intricately balanced but resilient world was planned by a Supreme Being, a Great Architect. This architect that we call God is of far greater strength, power, and knowledge than man. Creationists believe that God meticulously organized this universe from its inception and provided a thoroughly logical process for its survivability. In fact, Creationists believe God tends to that survivability each and every day.

Big Bang and evolutionary advocates believe that all existence is the derivative of chance. For the Big Bang to work it had to happen at just the right time, even though there was no time before the universe's inception. It had to occur with just the right force to propel all applicable matter at just the right speed and in just the right direction so as to arrive at just the right spot in expanding space. What are the odds that everything could happen at just the right moment and the resulting matter could congregate at just the right time to eventually produce the world we know? Sir Frederick Hoyle likened the Big Bang and subsequent evolutionary processes to the chances that a tornado plowing through a junkyard would assemble a functional 747. Regardless of Hoyle's other eccentricity, the analogy makes sense. Furthermore, if nothing existed before the Big Bang then we must assume something that doesn't exist can explode.

The Big Bang apparently holds that the universe emerged from a space far smaller than a single electron. If that is accurate then the Big Bang isn't responsible for creating the universe, only fueling its expansion. Where did that original matter come from? How did it get there? How could any hypothesis of that origin be proven?

We are now faced with a choice. We can accept that an ultimate being known as God made this universe, this world, and all that is in it. We can accept that God set in place an evolutionary process that allows the world to grow and change. Or, we can believe that everything just happened. Seems to me that it's more faithful to believe the science and more scientific to believe the faith.

Sports are about competition, meaning score and statistics must be kept. Naturally, this leads to winners and losers, excellence and mediocrity. This is the reality of sports and, in fact, life itself. Wo