The federal government has finally decided to take action against the illegal alien invasion. Everyone who has demanded deportation should be happy, for deportation it will be. Our government, in its infinite wisdom, has adopted a program where illegal aliens can volunteer for deportation. What a great idea! Let's see if we can apply this logic to other areas in which rules are routinely broken.

I propose that the NFL adopt a program where offensive linemen can call holding on themselves, or where defensive backs and wide receivers can call pass interference on themselves. Maybe Major League Baseball can institute a program that allows hitters to call themselves out on strikes, or pitchers can call their own balks.

On the legal end, why not establish a program where serial killers, rapists, child molesters and child pornographers can turn themselves in to the police? Surely they are all honorable people. We can expect them to do the right thing, can't we?

This program is just as foolish as the gun buy-back programs that big city politicians claim will reduce their crime rates. Anyone who trusts government to provide for their needs should stop and take a good look at this idea. You decide who or what is most capable of providing for you and your family. Is it you, or is it a government that expects illegal aliens to simply turn themselves in for deportation?

This voluntary deportation program was implemented in several major cites this past week. Would you believe it, there were no takers. Only a bureaucrat could've believed otherwise.

Rap stare Ludacris has released a rant in support of Barak Obama's presidential candidacy. If you're unfamiliar with this “song” you can read the words and view the video on the Internet. What is most disturbing, however, is not the lyric, which Obama himself has denounced.

Most disturbing is the fact that the people who consider this art are the same mindless dolts who clamor for a bigger government in the name of freedom. They are the same people who will support a socialist candidate like Barak Obama. Before accepting this “art” as a legitimate political statement, it would be a good idea for them to consider the source.

The performer's stage name, Ludacris, is obviously a combination of his given name, Christopher Bridges, and the word “ludicrous.” To gain a better understanding of the level to which popular political discourse has sunk, an understanding of the word is in order.

The word “ludicrous” describes something ridiculous. Or, as the Random House Unabridged Dictionary describes it: “causing laughter because of absurdity; provoking or deserving derision; ridiculous; laughable.” Synonyms are as follows: nonsensical, foolish, stupid, and daft. The antonym is anything sensible.

Since this performer's chosen name parlays a word meaning a lack of reasonable and intellectual content, it's no wonder that his statements follow suit. Therefore it is his “musical” endorsement of Obama-not necessarily Hillary Clinton or George Bush-that is “irrelevant.”

It's true that Obama's “hope and change” is a mere repackaging of the same old divisive, class envy politics that Democrats have long employed. He supports higher taxation. He supports more government regulation. He supports more anti-poverty federal spending, meaning more wealth redistribution. Obama offers no hope, he offers no change. He merely offers the same old thing is a slick, teleprompter message.

Sadly, there are people who will take Ludacris' words as an authoritative political message and vote accordingly. That, my friends, should send a shiver down your spine.

When I was a child my parents taught me to move out of the way of passing cars. Whether I was walking down the road or riding my bike, I was expected to yield the right of way to the automobile. Not only for safety's sake, but because it was the right thing to do.

I passed a kid who was walking on a rural road earlier this week. He wasn't walking on the side of the road. He wasn't even walking on the white line. He was at least two steps to the left of the white line. Did he move? No! He didn't move. He didn't move a bit more than the man on the moon. He maintained his position as if he were a 40-ton tractor-trailer.

He had nerve; I'll give him that. Nerve yes, but nerve isn't brains. Or perhaps he was never taught roadway safety and common courtesy to begin with.

Parents, get off your butts! Teach your kids to interact with traffic if you're going to allow them to walk or bike on roads meant for automobile traffic. Make sure your kids understand that they are in a vulnerable position.

However, I'll bet next month's rent and grocery money that if the kid had fallen and I had run over him his parents would've been on me like buzzards on carrion. Sue? Why, they would have dialed the Law Offices of James Sokolove so fast it would've made their fingers bleed.

The boy could've been hurt, or worse. I could've been financially ruined. And the parents who never bothered to impress upon this kid the uncompromised necessity of yielding the right of way to automobiles could've been rich. What's wrong with this picture? Everything!

It's time we tossed this guff about how discipline harms a child's self esteem and began teaching them how to get along in the world. Why not let it begin with teaching kids to observe common sense rules that could save their lives.

Yes, you read the headline correctly. Barak Obama cannot be elected President of the United States. He is, by his own admission, constitutionally disqualified. Let's look at it.

Obama told a German audience that he is a “citizen of the world.” Now, according to Article II, Section 1 of that little used document known as the U.S. Constitution, only “a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.” Since Obama obviously didn't become a citizen at the time the Constitution was adopted and is a “citizen of the world” rather than of the United States, he is constitutionally barred from filling the Office of President.

Yeah, I know, he didn't really mean that he's a citizen of the world. It's just a figure of speech, meant to show that all humanity is in this thing called life together. But can you imagine the reaction if a conservative made such a statement? The press would crucify him, as if he had claimed to have visited 58 states. Wait, Obama claimed that, too, and was given a pass.

All kidding aside, who wants a “citizen of the world” as our president? I want a president who will put the United States of America first on the world stage, and our Constitution first on the domestic stage. If we desire anything else from a president we are setting our selves, and our country, up for a disaster.

Last weekend's extended weather forecast for the Charlotte, NC area called for temps in the upper 90s with high humidity on Monday and Tuesday. This is not at all uncommon. In fact, it's expected in July and August. As long as I can recall, and I've lived here nearly all of my life, summer has been hot and sultry.

But when the forecast was given, meteorologists said the weather by week's end would be cooler. Highs were predicted to reach only the mid-80s and humidity was to be non-existent. By mid-week those predictions had changed. We were to reach the low 90s, but still with low humidity. When Thursday and Friday arrived, temperatures were a little bit lower than the original forecast had projected, and substantially lower than the altered mid-week forecast.

I bring this up because it highlights the fact that forecasters can't accurately and consistently predict local temperatures four days in advance. Yet according to Al Gore and the eco-warriors we're supposed to alter our entire way of life because the scientists who can't predict what the local temperature will be next weekend can predict what the global temperature will be in 2108. Put that in your globe and warm it.

Teen idols come in all shapes and forms. Most of them don't deserve the adulation bestowed upon them. In fact, few of them do. Dante Gardin does deserve adulation and I'll bet you've never heard of him.

Dante was home alone when two burglars broke into his home. He took the safe route and hid in his bedroom closet. But before he went into hiding he grabbed his pocketknife. Dante is now glad he did, and I am, too.

When one of the burglars broke down his bedroom door Dante decided that his best chance for survival was to take action. He charged from the bedroom, slashed the burglar across the stomach, grabbed the intruder's gun and sent the two thieves scurrying for the nearest door. Good for Dante.

How often do we hear high-ranking authorities tell us to simply let a criminal have what they want? “Don't resist,” they say. “Don't fight back,” they say. “Nothing is worth your life,” they say. Well, had Dante took that advice he may well have lost his family's property and his life to boot. If more people took the action Dante took criminals would soon get the message.

I have no idea what type of person Dante Gardin is overall. He could grow up to be a star athlete, a corporate CEO, or President of the United States. He could be a troublemaker and the next person in town to be arrested. But in this instance, at least, Dante is a teenage idol and he deserves the recognition that goes with it.

We live in a day of political correctness. Yes, I know that isn't exactly breaking news. It is, however, disturbing. More and more, our basic liberty is being sacrificed on the altar of political correctness. Too many Americans will forego their rights to avoid offending increasingly delicate sensitivities. What a shame. Yet, once in a while, something happens that restores your faith.

In Boise, Idaho a group of people dedicated to bearing arms toured the Boise zoo while packing heat. There was some initial resistance, but it faded when zoo officials realized that carrying an unconcealed handgun isn't against the law. So, would the presence of these pistol-packing patrons stress other visitors? It shouldn't, and here's why.

If someone intends to use a firearm to commit a firearm crime, do they announce it to the world? Do they walk around with their gun in plain sight? Of course not! It's like the old adage about snakes. It's not the snake you see that bites you. It's the snake you don't see. The same applies to guns.

“What about concealed carry?” you ask. That's another animal altogether, and I'm all for it. But again, no criminal will subject themselves to the scrutiny and time of obtaining a concealed weapons permit. They just hide their weapon and continue along their merry way, in complete disregard for the law. That's why they are criminals and concealed permit holders are law-abiding people.

However, arguing over concealed or open carry misses the point. The general public has nothing to fear from a lawful citizen exercising their right to bear arms whether concealed or in open carry, and they have nothing to fear from this group of Idahoans.

It's become politically incorrect to carry an unconcealed firearm in public. These guys have thumbed their noses at such politically correct nonsense. That alone makes them my kind of people.

Who would've thought panties could be dangerous? Macrida Patterson claims they are, if they're sold by Victoria's Secret, and she's suing to prove the point.

Patterson's suit claims that a Victoria's Secret v-string thong was so ill-conceived and poorly designed that it poses a danger to consumers. A small metal piece, attached to a studded heart on the right side string, popped off and struck her eye. She claims negligence on the part of the company.

I suppose she'll include mental anguish as well. From henceforth she'll no longer be able to put on undergarments without fear of an eye injury. Passing a ladies' underwear display in a department store will undoubtedly cause severe mental anguish. Poor Macrida will probably never be able to buy or wear underwear again.

Wouldn't it be interesting to see what size butt Macrida Patterson was trying to stuff into the v-string thong? Good luck finding out. All available pictures of Macrida are taken from the waist up (likely at the advice of her lawyer). Yet even with the limited views you might assume that she sports a rather hefty derriere. If she was stuffing a size 20 rump into a size 8 thong she has no one to blame but her self.

Even a properly fitted thong could've broken. The metal hook could've popped loose. But we've all seen such things happen before. We've had buttons pop off a shirt or a pair of pants. However, unless the clothes were excessively tight, the button didn't become a projectile. It merely fell off. The metallic object in Macrida's case must have been under extreme stress not only to become a projectile, but to fly upwards and with sufficient force as to damage her eye, which-if I remember my anatomy-is a good distance from a person's hip.

There's more here than meets the eye (pardon the pun). Maybe that's a good thing. If Macrida's booty is large enough to turn a thong into a slingshot, it's a sight better left unseen.

You'd likely bet that the headline tells you all you need to know about this column. I'll bet you're wrong. It has nothing to do with Islamic radicals, the ACLU, or prayer in public schools. It has to do with litigation, one man's irresponsibility, and the effect both have on our nation's future.

Matt Lincoln prayed for a unique experience while worshipping at Lakewind Church in Tennessee. He got what he asked for. In fact, Lincoln says he was so consumed with the Holy Ghost that he fell and hit his head. He now claims Lakewind should cover his medical bills, pain and suffering, and lost income to the tune of $2.5 million. When it comes to his settlement, I'm sure he'll give the customary ten percent to the Lord.

Lincoln should be tossed out of court right on his big, fat . . . uh, ear, and his lawsuit right after him. He has no basis to sue anyone, not even God. After all, he did pray for “a real experience”. But his explanation for bringing the suit indicates what a bum and a slob this guy must be.

Apparently, Matt has swooned under the influence of the “spirit” on previous occasions. He explained that, previously, someone had always broken his fall. That statement, right there, is a perfect indicator of the attitude that is tearing this nation apart.

Matt Lincoln hasn't suffered the consequences of his prior actions so he's come to expect others to bear his responsibility on all occasions. He reserves the right to flop around like a fish out of water. But someone else better put him back in the pond or else!

Friends, I have been mistaken. The greatest threat to our republic, to our nation, to our very way of life, doesn't lie in Islamic fundamentalist. It doesn't come in the form of liberal politicians or activists. And you can't find it in welfare programs or government handouts.

The greatest threat arises from our escalating refusal to take responsibility for our selves. Unless we begin telling people like Matt Lincoln to take a hike, and soon, there won't be anything left for the more noted enemies of freedom to destroy.

North Carolina's legislature is approaching recess. And, like most people, members can't wait for the vacation to start. In their haste they have revealed that we are getting far more government than we need.

House Speaker Joe Hackney said, “I really don't think there's anything else that's in a `has-to-happen' category. If the legislature has pending bills that don't “have to happen”, why were they introduced to begin with? How did they make it out of committee? We wonder why government is growing so intrusive and taxes are rising. Hackney's admission that government conducts business that doesn't “have to happen” should tell us all we need to know.

Senate Majority Leader Tony Rand (the same Sen. Rand who proposed enslaving college kids to perform the will of the state) said the only pressing business was “the adjournment resolution.” Hallelujah! The sooner the better! Once Hackney, Rand, and their colleagues are out of Raleigh our wallets and our freedom will breathe a huge sigh of relief.

Well, maybe you don't have to build it. Maybe you don't have to plan it, or even apply for the permits. Maybe all you have to do is talk about it. What is “it”? “It” is a nuclear power plant that Duke Energy plans to construct near Gaffney, South Carolina. And it proves once and for all that any talk of producing energy will bring the “greenies” out of the trees.

The Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League issued a list of grievances against the proposed nuclear station. They say it will not withstand massive earthquakes. There's no provision for preventing airplanes from hitting the cooling towers. It doesn't improve the general welfare and standard of living of nearby residents. The list could go on.

Suffice it to say that earthquakes aren't every day occurrences in South Carolina, and nothing is safe from an airplane crash. To argue those points are as stupid as banning interstates because trucks carrying hazardous materials can crash while traveling on them.

Constructing a nuclear plant can't help but improve the local economy. High-paying construction jobs will be added during that phase, and the staff of an operating nuclear plant earns a pretty fair wage. As for the general welfare, producing enough energy to keep the lights on would seem to benefit everyone, including the Blue Ridge activists. They have to power their compact florescent light bulbs somehow.

Friends, nuclear power plants aren't constructed willy-nilly. Duke Energy would not invite the litigation from a haphazard approach to nuclear construction or operation. What's more, there's been no calamitous nuclear accident in the United States since the introduction of nuclear power, Three Mile Island included.

Whether it's a coal plant, oil exploration, natural gas, or nuclear power, any attempt to provide efficient power to the general population will bring a howl from environmental groups. Keep that in mind when the power bills rise and the energy delivery subsides.

Mark Dean Schwab is dead. And no, it isn't a shame. Following his unsuccessful appeal, Schwab became the first convict to die under Florida's revised execution method. Schwab had claimed that the method of execution would cause him pain and suffering.

Back in the 1980s, when I was in high school, we had a saying for times like this. We'd extend a cupped palm to the whiner and invite him or her to cry us a handful. The phrase always seemed to fit the situation. How much more in this case?

Don't misunderstand. I hope Schwab made his peace with the Lord before taking his seat on the eternity express. But I have a tough time feeling sympathy for this pathetic murderer. Who cares if he suffered a little discomfort? He displayed no major concern for his victim's well-being. Therefore, we need have no major concern for his.

Don't you think 11-year-old Junny Rios-Martinez suffered great stress when Mark David Schwab kidnapped him? He must have experienced anxiety beyond belief. How much physical pain and emotional embarrassment did Junny experience while this slob, Mark David Schwab, was raping him? How much pain did Martinez feel while Schwab was killing him? And now we're supposed to be concerned with making murderous pedophile's death as comfortable and pleasant as possible? Hogwash!

I'm not for torturing convicts, no matter how heinous their crime. But I really don't care about the comfort of a kidnapping, child-raping, murdering homosexual-one Mark David Schwab-who had previously served prison time for raping another boy at knifepoint. So what if he suffered a minute or two! He received nothing less than his just due.

Leftists are incessantly comparing the United States to Europe, encouraging us to adopt the collectivism and political correctness that has run amok on that once great continent. Is the following what the leftists would have us adopt? I'm afraid so.

A Swedish school confiscated invitations to an 8-year-old boy's birthday party. The boy had distributed the invitations in class. However, he didn't invite two boys who weren't his friends. The school said it objected because it had a duty to prevent discrimination. Their decision presents the rational mind with a couple of problems.

First of all, a school is an inanimate object; a school has never confiscated anything. A school cannot object, nor can a school prevent discrimination. It is the people behind the school who make such judgments. People who can allegedly instruct and think and reason made this ignorant, thoughtless and illogical decision. Isn't it sad that such minds are instructing (perhaps indoctrinating is a better description) the next generation of Swedes?

Secondly, this boy and his family have every right to choose who attends their party. Unless the boy disrupted class while distributing the invitations, what place do school officials have in determining which kids are included or excluded at a private gathering? Simply put, they should've kept their meddlesome noses out of the situation.

Discrimination, if you can apply the term to this matter without laughing, is a fact of life. Everyone discriminates in some way, and it doesn't make us evil people to do so. It doesn't make us racist, or sexist, or homophobic, or Islamophobic, or anything else. It merely means that we are emancipated and capable of choosing with whom we will associate.

So what if this kid didn't want people he doesn't know or like at his birthday party? What business is that of the school system or of government in general?

American schools have enough busybody administrators clamoring to control our children, molding them in their own self-righteous images. Do we really want to follow the example of their European counterparts? Do we really want to be like Europe? With this episode as an example, I hope to God that's not the case.

Al Sharpton. Jesse Jackson. Jeremiah Wright. They could be three sons separated at birth, or three stooges separated at Columbia Pictures. Wright joined the club when some of his, shall we say, eccentric sermons came to light. But his accusation that the US government is responsible for developing the AIDS virus to infect black men is downright ridiculous.

Even if his wild accusations were true, who is being promiscuous? Who is out getting the AIDS virus? It doesn't fall upon its victims out of the clear, blue sky. One must actively pursue an AIDS infection. It isn't a disease contracted passively.

I suppose the government could develop heinous sexually-transmitted diseases by the test tube full. Government scientists could create viruses that would make us cringe at the thought of their potency. But if intimate contact is required to get the virus, and you avoid the activity that causes the disease to spread, what danger can it be to you? AIDS is the same thing. It is a wholly preventable disease, unlike Jeremiah Wright.

If Wright were serious about combating the rise of HIV/AIDS in black males he would use his pulpit to preach a little responsibility and abstinence, not portray the infected people as victims of a sinister government plot. But like his counterparts in the “civil rights” movement, he is about solidifying his power, influence and standing.

Say what you will about the Bush administration. You can question the response to 9/11. You can debate the wisdom and success of the Iraq War. You can call him a warmonger who planned the Iraq invasion from the get-go, all for the sake of his powerful oil buddies. You can accuse him of allowing 9/11, unless you believe that he personally planned the entire attack. You can even accuse him of bombing the levies in New Orleans so black neighborhoods would be flooded.

When a group of these religious eccentrics holed up on a Texas ranch with harems full of wives and hundreds of kids, George Bush didn't order an invasion. His administration didn't assault the compound with machine guns and tanks. And his justice department didn't conduct an operation that culminated with hundreds of people, including women and children, burned alive.

Barak Obama is vehemently against eliminating the federal gasoline tax this summer. He says it's nothing more than pandering, an election year political ploy. And in reality, saving eighteen cents per gallon isn't that much. If you purchase 40 gallons of gasoline each week for the twelve weeks between the first of June and the end of August, the gas tax repeal will save you less than a hundred bucks.

Obama considers this amount insignificant, and to most Americans it won't make much difference. However, if he thinks the government's eighteen cents per gallon tax on gasoline purchases is an inconsequential amount, why does he favor price-gouging legislation and windfall profits taxes on oil producers?

Oil companies make ten cents per gallon on the products they produce and Obama thinks it's outrageous. Yet, the federal government makes eight cents more per gallon than the oil companies on a product they neither produce nor market and it's considered insignificant.

If anyone is pandering it is Barak Obama. He's using an emotional subject (gasoline prices) to enhance his political position, which is the modus operandi of the Democratic Party. Anyone who will publicly ignore such basic economics-no, make that basic mathematics-should only enter the White House on a guided tour.

The old saying holds that everyone complains about the weather but nobody does anything about it. Well, don't apply that adage to oil prices; I'm going to do something about them. But I'll need your help.

Here's the plan. Each person who reads this column should send me a dollar bill. I'll invest the money in crude oil futures for July or August delivery. Crude prices will begin to drop almost instantly, and will likely fall at least 25-percent in the next month. If you'll extend this invitation to your family and friends, and raise enough money for me to invest long-term, it's possible that crude could be down to $60 a barrel by Thanksgiving.

How do I know this will work? Well, when I first invested in mutual funds the stock market took a severe downturn. When I invested in futures once before the price tumbled and I lost the investment. I purchased a home a few years ago and now the value of real property is faltering. I may be the only person alive who could make gold be worth nothing.

Past performance is no guarantee of future results. But whenever I make an investment it immediately goes south. There's no reason that you can't enjoy lower gasoline prices by following my plan. And it'll only cost you a buck.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind behind 9/11, wants to be executed, to die the death of a martyr. This raises two lines of thought.

First, do we want to make him a martyr in the world of Islamic fundamentalism? Do we want his name to serve as motivation for a new generation of America-hating, bomb-wearing radicals? But the fact is that he'll be a martyr no matter what we do with him. If we execute him he has died for the cause. If we keep in jail for life he's a political prisoner who will serve as motivation for further jihad. So it matters little in way of public relations what we do with Sheikh Mohammed.

I say we call his bluff and honor his request. Let him have his opportunity for martyrdom and we'll see how quick he changes his tune. If he was so gung-ho about dying for Allah, why didn't he board one of those fuel-laden jetliners on September 11, 2001? Oh no, he doesn't want to die a martyr. He doesn't want to die at all. He figures that this request will get him off the easy way; that we'll reject the idea of granting him martyrdom at his request, and therefore he'll live.

Let's oblige this man his last request. Let's send him to the hereafter. Let his stand before his Maker. There he can explain how it glorifies God to kill nearly 3000 people who didn't know what was happening or why they were being killed.

Record highs are forecasted for the next few days. The temperatures are already well into the 90s, and that is unusual for this area at this time of the year. In fact, we're going to challenge the record high for June 6th (98 degrees) set in 1943. The weekend forecast claims that we'll chase record highs of 98 and 99 degrees, which were established in 1899. What was causing such high temperatures so long ago?

The Saturday and Sunday records were established even before the advent of the internal combustion engine, which is now demonized as the ultimate enemy of all things natural. It was set before the desire for modern convenience led to the demand for electricity, which in turn lead to the demand for coal.

Every day of hot weather is blamed on global warming. However, when record snows fell in Minnesota in late April no scientist, bureaucrat, or environmentalist lamented the onset of global cooling. No one wrote about it on the New York Times editorial page. No one claims cold weather events signal the onset of global cooling. But when there are record high temperatures, that's when Al Gore and his prophets of green gloom surface to decry capitalism.

Man-caused global warming is theory. It cannot be proven beyond reasonable doubt. It's ambiguous. It's duplicitous, and I'm sure a few other things. But one thing it's not is set science. If we continue to believe that it is we will surely sacrifice our economic future on the altar of what may be the greatest hoax in the history of mankind.

A video camera filmed an old man being struck by a car while attempting to cross the street. The impact flips him through the air and he lands in the middle of the road. The driver of the car that hit him keeps going. Worse yet, other cars simply drive around the old man's body. Not a one stops. Some passers-by call 9/11. But no one checks to see if the victim is alive. No one even tries to stop traffic to protect the old man. No one seems to care whether he's alive or dead.

People who live in my part of the county, the South, are constantly ridiculed by the people who live in the Northeast, people like those in Hartford, CT. We're called hillbillies, hicks and rednecks. We're asked if we married our sisters, or if we're cultured enough to have chosen our first cousin. And we're incessantly informed that the way we do things isn't the way it's done Up North.

If you're a Yankee and you want to know why Southerners don't want to do things “the way you did it up North” just watch that video from Hartford.

Guess what? It's an Election Year and Susan Sarandon is threatening to leave the country if John McCain gets elected. She reminds me of the kid on the playground who always threatened to go home if he didn't get his way. He never got his way, and he always stayed. The same holds true for Susan Sarandon. This actress knows only one role, and it would be exceedingly boring if it weren't so laughable.

How many times has she tried this tripe? She was leaving the country in 1992 if George H.W. Bush won. She was leaving the country in 1996 if Bob Dole won. Sarandon was saved both times. But she threatened to leave in both 2000 and 2004 if G.W. Bush won. He did, both times. Did she make good on her threat? I guess not. If she had, she wouldn't be here to make the same, tired, childish threat in 2008.

If you're a regular reader you've figured out that I'm no big fan of Sen. McCain. However, I'll vote for him if Susan Sarandon will be true to her word this time around. Heck, I'll vote for Obama if she'll promise to leave the country, and take Tim Robbins with her. If they'll pick up Jane Fonda and leave as a trio I'll write in Karl Marx. It would be worth that dirty, used, one-night-stand feeling to finally get rid of these three stooges.

Remember how liberals accused our soldiers of abusing prisoners? American troops allowed dogs to bark in the face of Islamic terrorists. They stacked naked Iraqi prisoners in piles. They held them in solitary confinement and gave them only one helping of lemon-baked chicken for dinner. Marines and Rangers actually had the gall to shoot their enemies before their enemies shot them.

All told, American liberals concluded that the US Military constitutes the greatest force for evil and threat to peace in the world today. Liberals claimed that if only we would subjugate our armed forces and national sovereignty to the United Nations the world would be a better place. As usual, liberals were wrong.

The United Nations has not only failed every time it has tried to fight a war, it has failed every time it has tried to keep the peace. And now, as if its history of accomplishment weren't sordid enough, UN peacekeepers and aid workers are abusing children in the nations they're supposed to be helping.

According to Save the Children, UN workers have forced kids as young as six-years-old to perform sexual acts and engage in child pornography. They've groped kids. They've kissed kids, and not like you kiss your kid after they've said their nightly prayers. Most disgusting of all, UN aid workers are reported to have denied food aid to children unless they first performed sexual favors. Where is the liberal outrage against this most vile and useless of governmental organizations?

I can forgive Barak Obama for using the wrong concentration camp name when telling a story about his uncle's war service. Auschwitz, Treblinka, Buchenwald, Dachau. What's the difference? But he made another statement during his Memorial Day speech that isn't so easily overlooked.

Obama said, "On this Memorial Day, as our nation honors its unbroken line of fallen heroes-and I see many of them in the audience here today-our sense of patriotism is particularly strong." If we don't understand what's wrong with this statement then we have lost our concept of Memorial Day's meaning.

Memorial Day isn't Veteran's Day. It isn't a day to honor every one who has served in the military, nor even those who were wounded in combat. A memorial by its very nature remembers those who are dead. Honor is bestowed on the living. Veteran's Day honors our countrymen who've served in our nation's defense, whether wounded or not in both war and in peace. Memorial Day is set aside to remember our fellow Americans who were killed in action, and those who survived beyond their service but have since passed on.

For a presidential candidate, of any party, not to understand that distinction is an abysmal indictment not only on the candidate but on this nation as a whole. We're the suckers who may soon elect this clod to the highest office in the land.

A Florida man needed the house cleaned before his wife arrived home from her vacation. He turned to the Internet and found a nice cleaning service. He hired the service, at $100 per hour, and a young maid arrived at his home wearing a one-piece dress. Soon thereafter the young maid was as naked as the day she was born and cleaning house to beat the band.

She was doing such a wonderful job that the man left her alone while she cleaned the bedroom. She finished her chores, put her clothes on once again and left. But she left with a bonus.

When the wife returned home she found $40,000 worth of jewelry missing. You all know how nosy the police can be when it comes to taking a crime report, especially when the crime involves theft on so great a scale. Now, married men, how'd you like to explain the presence of a naked maid working in your bedroom while your wife's on vacation? Yeah, how'd you like to explain that?

Germany has memorialized the homosexuals who were persecuted by the Nazis during World War II. It is said that 50,000 homosexuals were tried in Nazi courts and shipped off to concentration camps. I wonder how many people remember, or ever knew, that many SA leaders (Nazi storm troopers, or brown shirts, who aided Hitler's ascent to power) were homosexual?

Ernst Rohm was known to swing from the other side of the tree. He was the head man in the SA and an ally from the very beginning of Hitler's ambitious rise to dictator. Edmund Heines was also known to be gay. In fact, he was found in bed with a man on the night of his execution. Karl Ernst was a part of the Reichstag arson in 1933. Was he homosexual, too, and now memorialized? Indeed, some of the persecuted homosexuals now honored in Germany were also some the most notorious of Hitler's henchmen.

Sen. Ted Kennedy's brain cancer is no cause for a conservative celebration. I remember how the Left reacted when Ronald Reagan announced his coming bout with Alzheimer's. I remember the tasteless jokes and the childish sarcasm. The vitriolic hatred the Left had for Reagan went beyond political ideology to the very core of their, and his, existence. The hated him personally and passionately because he dared confront their erroneous version of reality. Charlton Heston was treated likewise.

Conservatives hold no such ill feelings toward political adversaries. I'll never be accused of supporting Sen. Kennedy's policies. I consider him an enemy of all America should hold dear. However, personally, I don't hate the man. In fact, I hope and pray that he makes a full recovery. I hope he continues to enjoy life, his family, and whatever else may be important to him.

However, if his illness were to force him to relinquish his Senate seat, that's not such a bad thing. The fact that he's sick, though no cause for joy, shouldn't change the impression of Sen. Ted Kennedy, the way he pursued his job, his policies, or the way he promoted them. His illness doesn't change the fact that he's dead wrong on the role of government, that he's a socialist, and that he's been bad for America during his entire 40-plus years in the Senate.

Martin Mustapha found a dead fly in a bottle of water, and did he ever suffer. He claimed depression, anxiety, and some kind of phobia resulting from his “ordeal”. He sued, of course, and won $345,000. But Martin's depression, anxiety, and phobia had just begun.

The Supreme Court of Canada agreed, in a 9-0 ruling, that Mustapha does indeed suffer from the calamitous mental disorders he claims. Now-Paul Harvey forgive me-comes the rest of the story. The court also ruled that a fly in a water bottle wouldn't have so affected a well-adjusted person, meaning that Martin was nuts to begin with. Therefore, the bottled water company isn't obligated to compensate Martin. What's more, he will have to pay thousands of dollars in court costs.

Finally there's a sign that common sense and rationale aren't dead in judicial rulings, even if the ruling wasn't issued in a US court. This same breed of frivolous litigation imposes untold millions of dollars on our country each year.

We're always told that we should be more like Canada, France, and Britain. Here's our chance to do it. Hopefully, our courts will soon begin telling such frivolous and unwarranted plaintiffs to take a hike, just like Canada did.

I feel for people with disabilities. I really do, and I have some idea what it's like. My sister was born deaf. The special attention and consideration she needed was obvious. But that didn't mean that the entire world changed to suit her. Nowadays, everyone and everything must change to accommodate the disabled or the handicapped.

A federal court has ruled that US currency discriminates against the blind. The ruling resulted from a lawsuit filed by the American Council of the Blind. The suit claimed that paper money denies the blind “meaningful access to currency”. Thus, they want the government to print denominations in different sizes. The ruling raises a few questions.

First, how have blind people managed money up until now, before the court ruling? Second, what will be the taxpayer's cost for printing the new money? Will it simply place an undue financial burden on taxpayers in return for a very limited benefit? Third, is society as a whole obligated to make accommodation for each and every disability? If so, nearly anyone can claim some form of handicap and demand forced sacrifice from everyone else. And if you leave anyone out, that is a form of discrimination in itself.

When the Americans with Disabilities Act passed years ago, opponents warned that it would grow far beyond its good intentions. It appears to be doing just that. But in this age of political correctness anyone who questions the legal idea that currency discriminates against the blind will be quickly labeled “blindaphobic”. Who wants to wear that label?

Every reader knows that I'm no fan of government, and of politicians to an even lesser extent. However, both are a fact of civilization. Therefore, we must analyze leaders to determine which one is most worthy of our faith.

Osama bin Laden has allegedly released another statement, this time claiming the heart of al-Qaida's jihad against the West is the plight of the Palestinians. If the news accounts are accurate, all bin Laden and his henchmen desire is a Palestinian state and all will be well. However, his promise to not surrender “an inch of the land of Palestine” tells the true story. Where is the area of Palestine? Osama is reaffirming the jihad mantra for Israel's destruction. Even this is misleading, for Quranic passages teach Muslims to kill the unbeliever. Even if we helped Islam eradicate Israel we would remain in their crosshairs and the jihad would continue.

Yet pointy-headed Western intellectuals and “progressives” will believe that bin Laden's claim is reasonable even if bin Laden himself is not. Those intellectuals will say that we now have an opportunity to create dialogue with this enemy, all the while ignoring the fact that anyone who doesn't accept bin Laden's message of surrender and dhimmitude is subject to the sword. Finally, they will insist that President Bush is the great threat to civility, humanity, and peace.

What does it say about leftists when the words of a rogue terrorist living in a cave and ordering wholesale death and destruction is accepted more readily than an American president?

Matthis Chiroux will not be going to Iraq when his unit deploys next month. Instead, Chiroux will face the possibility of courts martial for desertion, saying he cannot be a part of what he considers an illegal war and occupation. The problem is that Chiroux wasn't shanghaied; he enlisted. When he did so he became the property of the military. Everyone who has enlisted or accepted commission in the U.S. armed forces knows this fact.

The Constitution doesn't address the rights or govern the lives of a soldier, sailor, airman, or marine. He or she falls under the jurisdiction of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). There is no freedom of speech, and no freedom to determine one's duty or chose one's assignment, as exists in the civilian world. A soldier has surrendered his or her self to the lawful orders of their superiors. Whether or not they agree with their assignment is inconsequential. Deploying with your unit is a lawful order.

North Carolina Governor Mike Easley has submitted his last budget. Wouldn't you just know it would include a tax increase? North Carolinians will pay an extra 20 cents on a pack of cigarettes, an extra four cents on a can of beer and an extra three cents on a bottle of wine if Gov. Easley's plan becomes law. He says it will generate an additional $160 million each year that will, predictably, be spent on education.

Just a few years ago Gov. Easley was instrumental in railroading North Carolina into the education lottery era. We were told that the lottery would make our schools strong while holding the line on tax increases. Now we have a proposed tax increase to keep the school system strong and the “education” lottery is exposed as the fraud its detractors predicted.

I don't know what odds Vegas would've placed on the possibility of government promising one thing and then doing another, or of a politician promising one thing and delivering another. But I suspect it would've been, at worst, even money.

McRuff the crime dog used to say, “Help us take a bite out of crime.” If only we had the courage to do so. Instead, we seem content to let criminals roam free while we take a bite out of our freedom in the name of combating crime. I know it makes no sense. But when was the last time a government solution made sense?

I'm all for police officers. They have a tough job and must make split second decisions that can alter not only the lives of the suspects they pursue but their own lives as well. It's a job most of us wouldn't have for twice the average cop on the beat's salary. Yet there are some troubling responses to crime that appear to be placing police departments at odds with the laws and, subsequently, the liberties they are to serve.

Everyone saw the footage of the arrest in Philadelphia where several officers gave a few toughs a good beating. Then there was the acquittal of the New York officers who killed an unarmed suspect at a wedding party. But these are just symptoms, and perhaps justifiable when all the facts are presented. It is in Chicago where an ominous precedent is being established. A recent spike in shootings has left dozens dead, prompting the police department to step up patrols. Among their new tactics is equipping the city's 13,500 officers with combat rifles.

Friends, the streets of large American cities are rife with gangs, thugs, drugs and goons. Frankly, if I were a police officer I wouldn't patrol the streets of Chicago with anything less than grenades, bazookas, and machine guns. I would prefer the M-1 Abrams, or at least a Bradley fighting vehicle, as a patrol cruiser. Even so, there is something unnerving about normal patrol officers toting combat rifles around town.

Government officials will declare that a tough show of force is the only way to control a growing crime problem. All the while convicted felons are turned out onto the streets due to prison overcrowding, a lack of funding for prosecutors, or some bedwetting psychobabbler's gimmickry. If you don't believe it, take a look at the Eve Carson case in Chapel Hill, NC. Along the way lawful citizens will become accustomed to a military-style police presence, possibly setting the stage for a future police state.

Keep these words from the prophet Isaiah, chapter 32, verses six and seven, in mind as you consider the Burmese government's response to Cyclone Nargis:

For the fool speaks folly, his mind is busy with evil: He practices ungodliness and spreads error concerning the LORD; the hungry he leaves empty and from the thirsty he withholds water. The scoundrel's methods are wicked, he makes up evil schemes to destroy the poor with lies, even when the plea of the needy is just.

What little bit of food and aid the Burma dictatorship has allowed into the storm-ravaged nation was immediately confiscated by government officials. That aid was subsequently halted altogether, prompting shock and outrage around the world. But we shouldn't be surprised at all.

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

The Burmese government has faced unrest within its population and will take no chance that its power will be challenged. Therefore, it shouldn't surprise us that all packages entering Burma, even packages of humanitarian assistance, would be subject to government confiscation and inspection. Burma's dictators will take no chance on weapons being smuggled into the country that could aid an armed rebellion by an oppressed and desperate population.

The Burmese military junta would rather see millions of its own people starve to death than risk the slightest threat to its absolute control. Does that sound harsh and incomprehensible? You bet it does. But it is a natural progression of government. We've seen it happen in the Soviet Union, China, Cambodia, Laos, North Korea, and any other nation where collectivist government is or was considered superior to individual liberty.

Leftists are fond of berating the United States in general and conservatives in particular for imperialist attitudes. Of course, a thinking person realizes that America is not trying to colonize the world. If we were, we'd have kept Germany, Japan, South Korea, etc. under US control, not help them establish their own governments in the aftermath of war. Now we see that the imperialism may be on the other foot.

Socialist, panderer, agent of change, purveyor of hope, quasi-messiah and absolute politician Barak Obama said his campaign has taken him to “57 states”, with “only one left to go.” And the now 58 United States of America doesn't included Alaska and Hawaii. Did he simply misspeak? Or, has he revealed a secret leftist agenda to colonize Pakistan (a nation he once promised to invade), Mexico, Cuba, Guatemala, Honduras, Haiti and the Dominican Republic, and grant statehood to Puerto Rico, Guam and the District of Columbia?

You can bet that this statement will be passed off with a wink and a nod in a leftist-dominated media that is enamored with Obama. It will be contributed to the stress and fatigue of a long campaign. However, if a Republican candidate made such a statement it would be taken as a Freudian slip, an unauthorized peek inside the mind of the conservative's world domination mentality. At the very least, the offending speaker would be ridiculed as a clueless stooge who's mentally incompetent to fill the nation's highest office. If you don't believe so, just ask Dan Quayle.

Ethanol's recent fall from grace was inevitable. It just makes no sense to turn a staple food product into an inefficient fuel source. However, even with worldwide food shortages, some ethanol proponents are rising to its defense. Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA) is at the front of the parade.

Sen. Grassley is a long-time supporter of ethanol. Apparently, he has a problem with critics of this persistent cash cow. Grassley finds it unbelievable that ethanol is being lambasted for its affect on high food prices. In fact, he wonders what the cost of corn has to do with the price of wheat and rice. Sen. Grassley, I have an answer for you.

As ethanol produced a greater demand on corn supplies, driving corn's cost up, more farmers committed more acreage to corn cultivation. Since there are just so many farms with so many much arable lands, less acreage is now devoted to wheat, rice, and other food staples. As less of these grains are produced, speculators will bid up the price on the futures markets. And, since corn is now sought not only by food producers but fuel producers, its price is driven up in like manner.

Sen. Grassley is a recognizable name within the Republican Party. He has represented Iowa for 28 years, and he looks like a nice guy. However, the fact that he's placed devotion to federal subsidies above the facts about ethanol and the Republican dedication to free markets is indicative of why the GOP is in trouble. He is a prime example of a political party that has lost its way.

When oil prices surge consumers immediately feel the hit at the pump. The price spike prompts buyers to complain about price-gouging. The gasoline presently in the tanks was purchased while oil was at a lower price. Why should it go up just because next month's gasoline might cost more? Pump prices don't drop immediately when crude's price declines. That means the consumer is getting the shaft from both ends. No we aren't, and here's a quick explanation for why.

Gas station owners must plan for their next shipment of gasoline. If they do not make sufficient profit from their existing gasoline supply to cover the cost of the next shipment their tanks will run dry and they're out of business. When the price of crude spikes, station owners must conclude that the next shipment of fuel will cost more money. Therefore, the current pump price rises accordingly.

So, why doesn't the pump price fall immediately when the price of crude declines? There are two reasons. First, retailers can't sell existing fuel supplies at a loss and stay in business. If their wholesale cost demands a retail price of $3.50 per gallon, then they must sell at that cost to cover their investmentment. Second, the retailer must also consider that any slide in crude prices could be short-lived. If retailers drop the price of current, refined inventory based on a falling crude price and the future crude price escalates, that retailer has no funds to buy at the higher cost. The retailer's tanks run dry and the station is out of business, or takes on a needless debt based on a lack of vision.

You may not like this explanation, and you may not consider it fair. But before you argue about it, apply the same analogy to whatever product or service you're selling or providing. Would you sell your goods at a loss?

I've been at odds with Sen. John McCain for years. I was at odds with him over illegal alien amnesty, which he condescendingly called immigration reform. I was at odds with him over tax cuts, court justice nominees, global warming and campaign finance reform. But when he gets it right I'm big enough to give him credit.

McCain stood in Iowa (a farm state) and told an Iowa crowd (a farm audience) that he opposes farm subsidies and, if president, would veto farm bills that include subsidies. If that means he'd veto subsidies for corn and ethanol fuels, then McCain is absolutely right.

Subsidizing corn and ethanol production is degenerative at best. At worst, it is downright criminal. As the Corn Belt turns more and more efficient foods, such as corn, into more and more inefficient fuels, such as ethanol, prices for corn and grain-based foods escalate. In some parts of the world food shortages are becoming common, and it isn't just in underdeveloped, third world countries. Right here in America retailers are rationing grain-based staples such as rice. And there are reports of Americans hoarding grains and cereals.

Whether or not this is a hyperbolic run on the grocers, somewhat like the run on the banks in 1929, doesn't matter. The affects of such a run are real even if the fears behind them aren't. And we can place much of the responsibility at the feet of governmental leaders who've caved to environmentalist's demands for bio-fuel to combat the unknown and unpredictable effects of climate change. Congress may be using the taxpayer's money to subsidize food shortages, which is a far more imminent threat to mankind than theoretical global warming.

I was listening to a radio program when a man named Dwayne called in. He is a self-described black man, and he has an interesting take on the Democratic primaries. According to Dwayne, it doesn't matter whether Hillary or Barak becomes the party's presidential nominee. If it's Clinton, blacks will be offended for a while. But come November they'll be right back on the plantation, voting Democratic, no matter how much they've been taken for granted. Dwayne made that statement because he's watched how black people have voted for the last 40-plus years, ever since the Democrats became their alleged saviors.

Dwayne added that the only solution for seeing his race elevate is for each individual to stand on their two feet and take responsibility for their actions. Dwayne is more right than he realizes, for his advice is good not only for blacks but for whites and Hispanics, too. Far too many people have abdicated their responsibilities, and that attitude has become a monumental drain on our nation, our economy, and our freedom.

One day's police blotter does not a crime wave make. However, it can provide us with a snapshot of where we stand as a culture. That snapshot isn't a very pretty picture.

On April 29 the Gastonia (NC) Police Department responded to forty reported crimes. Thirty of those crimes involved larceny, burglary, counterfeiting, fraud, or forgery. In short, three-quarters of the reported crimes on that single day involved some form of stealing, an attempt to get something for nothing. Many people will find such a police blotter surprising, even appalling. But the only thing about it that surprises me is that it surprises anyone.

For more than forty years our governments--at all levels and in direct opposition to government's legitimate duties--have sold Americans on the idea that there is a free lunch. Politicians have convinced people that they have the right to live at their neighbor's expense. As more and more people have adopted this concept they have simply cut out the middleman. Instead of waiting on government to take their neighbor's wealth and property and redistribute it to them, they have decided to steal it on their own.

Thanks to the programs initiated by Lyndon Baines Johnson, an ever-increasing number of Americans have no respect for private property, no sense of responsibility and little concern for anything other than their own greed. Don't believe it? Just read your local police blotter.

Are you familiar with Larry Lessig? He is a friend, technology adviser and former colleague of Barak Obama. He has also used his technological prowess to build a YouTube video depicting an effeminate “Jesus Christ” carousing through the streets of an American city singing “I Will Survive”, a rather poor song that is forgotten but apparently not gone. This “Jesus” comes complete with a crown of thorns, and when he removes his robe he reveals a loin cloth similar to ones depicted in crucifixion paintings. In the end, “Jesus” is creamed by a speeding bus.

What if Lessig had made this video about Mohammad, no peace be upon him? Imagine what you will, but I'll wager that Lessig would be publicly disgraced, charged with Islamophobia, and disavowed by Obama. Furthermore, Islamic fanatics would demand his head on a platter. There would be riots and calls for jihad, terror and death. But, since its intent is to belittle Christ, the world is at rest.

There are two simple lessons to learn from Lessig's video. First, Christianity is the only faith or religion that can be insulted with impunity. Second, Christianity, not Islam, is the religion of peace.

The electronic lexicon is making its way into formal schoolwork. Emoticons are taking the place of Standard English in more and more middle and high school writing assignments, so says a Pew Internet and American Life Project study. The combination of ;) for a winking smiley face or LOL for laughing out loud is becoming all too common in schoolwork and it bodes poorly for the offending student's future.

There is a time for clowning around. But there's a time for serious work, too. Pig Latin has its place; but it isn't appropriate speech when one addresses the Pope at the Vatican. The same holds true for techno-lingo. If such a casual style becomes acceptable writing for youths, their future business or project managers will be LOL right in their faces, followed closely by the emoticon “=”, which means, “Get out of my office. You're fired!”

Pew researcher Amanda Lenhart says, “If you find that [emoticons] in a child's or student's writing, that's an opportunity to address the differences between formal and informal writing.” Fair enough, but let's make an indelible impression. Instead of trying so hard not to harm the student's “self-esteem” let's let them know that proper English is the only standard for formal writing. “How,” you ask? We resurrect an old schoolhouse emoticon.

When a paper filled with shortcuts and smiley faces crosses a teacher's desk, that paper should be returned with a big, red “F” at the top of the page. For a generation raised on email and text messages, “F” is “emoticon” for you flunked! That should result in “message received”, don't you think?

A new study released by a University of Chicago sociologist has found that older Americans are happier than any other age group. The results are based on 32 years worth of individual interviews with nearly 28,000 people from the ages of 18 to 88. At every stage the older people were happier, more content and socially active than other age groups. What does this do to the carefully crafted, politicized portrait of senior citizens?

We're told that we must have federally funded food for the elderly or they will have to eat dog food. Hence, old people are miserable. We're told that we must have a nationalized prescription drug plan or seniors will have to choose between their medications and their dog food. Hence, old people are miserable. We're told that we must have federal energy programs or seniors will bake during the summer and freeze during the winter. Hence, old people are miserable. We're told that we must have federal housing and social programs or seniors will be tossed out in the streets to fend for their selves. Hence, old people are miserable. Then along comes this study, which tells us that old people really aren't miserable at all.

Liberalism has long sold Americans a bad bill of goods. The entire agenda is based on misinformation and outright lies. The study highlights another example of how this devious political philosophy has constructed the welfare state in direct contradiction to the Constitution. Either they've compelled the country to a false sense of duty, or they have played one set of Americans against another through greed and envy. In any case, liberalism is based on a totally false premise.

Government has certain legitimate functions to perform. To that end taxes are levied upon the citizens. Most people, even the most anti-government zealots you'd care to meet (like me), understand that taxation is a necessary evil in maintaining civilization. However, government isn't competing in the private sector and should never take in more revenue than it needs to fulfill its obligations. With that understood, the State of North Carolina's whining about slowing revenue is a bitter pill to swallow.

The General Assembly was recently informed that the state is only $15 to $20 million dollars ahead of its revenue projections through March. In January, that surplus was $140 million, meaning that the surplus has dwindled approximately $120 million.

There can be many reasons for the decline in the state's revenue surpluses, far too many to address in one short article. But one thing is beyond debate. The state has thus far collected more money from North Carolina's taxpayers than they expected to need. If that holds true through the end of the fiscal year, and holding to the premise previously stated, North Carolinians will be due a tax refund.

There is no one as arrogant as the one who would determine the goals and desires of their neighbors. With that in mind let's look at a few quotes. “Folks don't mind working hard. They don't mind a high bar. Some just want to know that the bar will be still-that's all they want to know,” said a well-known person. “The truth is most Americans don't want much. Folks don't want the whole pie. Most Americans feel blessed to thrive a little bit.”

So, most of us here in the great unwashed really don't want success. All we want is enough money to pay the rent, the utility bill, and keep the cable TV operational. Oh, and of course we need enough money to buy a case of Pabst Blue Ribbon and a carton of smokes down at the Tiny Giant convenience store every Friday night. That's all we want, and we want to know that it's accessible.

Success and achievement are only for a select few. Success and achievement are only for those who have attended Harvard Law School or have written a book. Success and achievement are only for those who are running for president on a plank of undetermined hope and ambiguous change. Success and achievement are only for Michelle Obama and her husband Barak.

The words are those of Michelle Obama, uttered at a campaign appearance in Winston-Salem, NC. They reveal much about the Obamas' attitude and how they perceive their supporters. The Obamas are two of the privileged few for whom success and achievement are permissible.

For the rest of you, just be satisfied with what you have and don't try to reach any higher. Don't try to improve your lot in life so you and your family can live independently. That way, the people who are smarter than you, more industrious than you, and more deserving of success than you-people like Barak and Michelle Obama-can meet your needs and provide you with a false sense of security. After all, higher achievement is fine for them. What's fine for you is to live hand to mouth and grovel at their feet for the duration of this campaign.

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

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

In reality, both men are correct. The American people are being played for fools and the up cycle has gone on too long. Only it's not Big Oil that is the culprit. It's Big Gov. Government has been on an up cycle since the New Deal. That up cycle accelerated with the Great Society. As of now, 2008, the era of big government has raged on for 76 years with no end or deceleration in sight. I maintain that Big Gov is playing “the biggest joke of all” on the American people.

I know gasoline is a necessity for most people. But we do have some options. We can buy different brands from different stores, seeking the best price available. We can combine trips to maximize our fuel efficiency. We can drive less. We can carpool. We can trade our large vehicles for smaller ones. All of these options and others are available in the marketplace. The options available may not be preferable to low gasoline prices, but at least we have options of some sort.

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

To hear Rep. Markey and Rep. Cleaver moan about gasoline prices while they preside over an ever-expanding, unresponsive, and overpriced government machine that dwarf's Big Oil in terms of excess is the height of chutzpah. Isn't it time we quit worrying about Big Oil and demanded hearings on Big Gov's price-gouging practices?

Pineview Elementary School in Reedsburg, Wisconsin had Wacky Week recently. Such events aren't new in schools. But this wacky week had a twist that's a bit wackier than usual. Not only is its wackiness worth questioning but also the double standard it represents.

On the last day of Wacky Week students had the option of dressing like a senior citizen or a member of the opposite sex. The obvious conclusion is that this is another attempt to legitimize the gay agenda and feed it to children at a young, impressionable age. Tom Benson, the school district administrator, said the dress-up day was merely an attempt to have some fun for the kids, not pay homage to cross-dressing or homosexuality.

Alright; I don't know Tom so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. But how would dress-up day go if a kid decided to attend school dressed as a U.S. Marine, complete with a toy M-16 and hand grenades? How would such a dress-up day go if a kid came to school as a Wayne LaPierre, Ronald Reagan, or one of the Founding Fathers? And, worst of all, what would happen if a kid came to dress-up day as Moses, King David, the Apostle Paul or-worst of all-Jesus Christ?

Friends, you and I both know that the school district would have entered bovine labor. That means they would've had a cow. Furthermore, the ACLU would have descended like vultures on carrion-not a bad analogy if I do say so myself-to denounce the blatant disregard for the separation of church and state.

Fortunately, concerned parents flooded the school with complaints. Good, for if we do nothing when such foolishness occurs we have no one to blame but ourselves for the decline of our culture. And you just know that had the parents not complained the cross-dressing day would've gone off without a hitch. Maybe the next such event would've gone just a little bit farther.

I'm no supporter of either socialist candidate for president, be it Clinton or Obama. In fact, I trust neither of them, considering them both to be lying politicians of the worst order who carefully conceal their agenda with flowery phrases and populist sound bites. Considering this level of dishonesty, what would you make of a black woman being shackled and dragged from a Clinton campaign appearance?

A black woman was indeed shackled and dragged from the Wilshire Theatre in Los Angeles after she went berserk. She claimed to be the only black Hillary supporter in attendance, which is disputed by eyewitness accounts, and that her treatment was wholly undeserved. In fact, she was insolent, violent and totally out of control. She should've been hauled away, preferably to the nuthouse. But friends, I smell a plant and it ain't no rose.

Would anyone put it passed the Obama campaign to send this woman to a Clinton event for the sole purpose of creating a scene? Is it beyond belief that she was there to disrupt the event and then scream about a “black woman in shackles” on the eve of the 40th anniversary of Dr. King's murder, knowing that every word would be caught on audio or video? For all of this to happen during such a racially-charged campaign is a bit too coincidental to chalk up to coincidence. What better way to portray Hillary as the Satan of “white America” than to have a distraught black woman dragged from a public place in a manner reminiscent to 19th Century slavery?

Conversely, Hillary Clinton is no jewel of integrity either. Who's to say this wasn't her campaign's idea? It is entirely believable for the Clintons to have staged the entire sequence, understanding that the first impression would be to blame Obama.

Either way, this episode speaks volumes to the quality of the Democratic candidates for this nation's highest office. The shackled woman could simply be a nut; there are plenty of them to go around at any Democratic gathering. Yet the fact that neither the Clinton nor Obama campaigns are above suspicion allude to the total lack of integrity found in both candidates.

Gun control activists are an interesting bunch. Never has a group of people so contradicted by common sense considered their untenable position so authoritative. You would expect such folks to oppose South Carolina's move to lower the age for owning a handgun from 21 to 18. And you would expect basic logic to be deleted from their argument.

An 18-year-old American can go to their local military recruiter's office and enlist in the Marines or the Army. That 18-year-old recruit will be trusted to properly and effectively handle weaponry ranging from fully automatic M-16s and grenade launchers to missile batteries and battle tanks. And they can use each of them in hostile situations for the defense of our Constitution and the rights it represents, including the right to bear arms. Yet liberal activists would have us believe that the 18-year-old recruit is too immature to buy a .22 pistol at the gun store downtown.

South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford should sign this bill into law immediately. If liberals can release criminals based on the Eighth Amendment then surely a young man or woman who actually defended the Eighth Amendment can buy a handgun under the protection of the Second.

Barak Obama can claim membership in Jeremiah Wright's church and Hillary Clinton can boast allegiance to whatever she boasts allegiance to. But their actions speak of their god, and it's a god that won't be found in any church of any denomination.

What is Barak's answer to Wall Street's recent stumble and the sub-prime mortgage situation? More government oversight, what else? Furthermore, he chided John McCain for opposing a government based program to address the mortgage malaise.

How does Clinton plan to stimulate the economy? Well, a Government-funded and managed job retraining program appears to her a good place to start. The government needs to take responsibility for helping laid-off or dismissed workers.

Our government should do this. Our government should do that. Our government should do this, that and the other. Government, government, government. Why don't Democrats set up an altar shaped like capital hill; a huge golden statue ala King Nebuchadnezzar? However, Democrats have routinely worshiped at government's golden calf for years. Therefore it should be no surprise when summon government to meet everyone's needs. But wouldn't it be nice if they would, just once, worship at a different altar for a change?