OBAMA’S FIRST BLUNDER

By DICK MORRIS

January 17, 2006 -- Presidential hopeful Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) made his first misstep a few days ago when he joined only a handful of Democrats in opposing a Senate reform banning the increasingly widespread practice of legislators hiring their family members on their campaign or PAC payrolls. Obama has not heard the last of this vote. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), who opposes wives cashing in on their husbands’ positions, voted righteously in favor of the reform and will probably use the Illinois senator’s vote against him in the presidential primaries.

When a legislator hires his or her spouse on the campaign or PAC payroll, he is effectively converting contributions to his campaign committee into personal income that flows into the family’s checking account, blurring the line between contribution and bribe.

In the past, senators and House members routinely hired their spouses and other family members on their public payrolls. In the early 1940s, for example, Harry S. Truman hired his wife, Bess, to work on his Senate staff. She got $2,500 a year in salary at a time when senators themselves only earned $8,500. But nepotism on the public payroll is now banned. So inventive congressmen and senators have filled the void by hiring family on their campaign or PAC payrolls.

Hiring family members and paying them with campaign donations is, if anything, more pernicious than doing so with public funds. Where tax money is involved, the sin is against the taxpayer for wasting his funds. But where campaign contributions are involved, the congressman is profiting personally from the largesse of special interest donors. In plain English, that’s a payoff.

There is, of course, a certain hypocrisy in the Senate action since very few senators, in fact, hire their families on their payrolls. It is, though, widely practiced in the House of Representatives, where 30 members have their families on their payrolls. But senators are much less likely to do so. Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), who voted “present” on the reform, hired her son, Douglas, a lobbyist, to manage her PAC, paying him $130,000 over a four-year period. Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman, then a Democrat, hired his son, Matthew, for $34,000 and his daughter, Rebecca, for $36,000 to work on his 2004 presidential campaign.

So the congressional ethics reform of 2007 boils down to this: The House banned the use of corporate jets but the Senate did not, even though senators are more likely to avail themselves of the luxury than is the average House member. The Senate banned hiring family members but the House did not, even though House members are far more likely to hire their significant others to work for them.

Obama’s inexplicable pro-nepotism vote may have been cast in sympathy with Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-Ill.), whose hiring of his wife, Sandi, to work on his campaign prompted an FEC ruling allowing the practice. Jackson might be afraid that the Senate action will catalyze a similar reform in the House, which could cut way back on his disposable family income.

But whatever the reason for his vote, Obama has screwed up. The public will not take kindly to a senator who pledged to clean up the political process voting to allow wives to be hired with special-interest campaign funds.

The FEC required, in allowing the practice, that the contract for the services of the family member contain the language customarily used between campaign committees and consultants. The FEC also ruled that any payment to a family member in excess of the fair market value of the services would be considered to be a “personal use of campaign funds.”

But, as usual, the FEC has missed the point. Any payment from campaign money to a spouse is, in fact, an appropriation of campaign funds by the member of Congress for his own personal use, however camouflaged or disguised. The Senate was right to ban the practice and the House should follow suit.




Jimmy Carter: A Weak, Ineffectual President And An Embarrassing And Dishonest Ex-President

By Rev. Louis P. Sheldon
Chairman, Traditional Values Coalition

January 16, 2007 - If historians accurately describe the record of ex-President Jimmy Carter, they will be forced to conclude that Carter was probably the worst President in America’s history.

Why? A bit of history is in order. Those old enough to remember Carter’s four dismal years in the White House should recall that it was Carter who withdrew American support for the pro-Western Shah of Iran for his alleged "human rights" violations.

As a result of Carter’s withdrawal of support from the Shah, the pro-Western nation fell into the hands of the radical Islamist Ayatollah Khomeini, who promptly murdered more than 20,000 pro-Western Iranians by firing squad. Iran became a stronghold for Islamists and destabilized the entire Middle East.

One of Khomeini’s henchmen at the time is now the current President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. In 1979, Ahmadinejad was a rabid college student who helped organize the storming of the American Embassy on November 4. He was joined in this attack by 400 Iranians wielding sticks and chains. They invaded the embassy in Tehran and held the embassy personnel until January 1981. Ahmadinejad served as a liaison between the hostage-takers and Ali Khamenei, who currently serves as Iran’s Supreme (spiritual) Leader.

By subverting the pro-Western Shah, Jimmy Carter gave us Islamic radicalism in Iran – and a dangerous nuclear threat. Within a year after Khomeini seized power in Iran, it was at war with Iraq. More than 500,000 died in this war. These people died because of Carter’s personal weakness and his outright subversion of the Shah.

In addition, the Soviet Union recognized the weakness of Carter and invaded Afghanistan. In an attempt to protect the Afghans from Soviet oppression, America helped the Mullahs fight back. One of those Muslim leaders was Osama Bin Laden. Carter can be indirectly linked to the empowerment of Bin Laden in Afghanistan and the spread of the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

Now, the ex-President is in the news again. This time it’s about his anti-Israel book, probable plagiarism and the resignation of 14 Carter Center leaders over his pro-Islamic terrorist comments. They have resigned over concern about lies and distortions in his book. In addition, former Ambassador Dennis Ross is also concerned that Carter ripped off maps that he had created and never credited him in the book. Ross is calling for a correction and attribution.

The 14 Carter Center officials who resigned sent a joint letter to Carter. In it, they said: "We can no longer endorse your strident and uncompromising position. This is not the Carter Center or the Jimmy Carter we came to respect and support."

But, wait. There’s more! Not only is Carter in the news over his anti-Israel, pro-Islamist screed, but he and Bill Clinton have decided to create a broad and "inclusive" Baptist movement to overcome what they see as a negative image of Baptists. Carter and Clinton announced their new project at the Carter Center on January 9.

They claim they want a Baptist movement that is more concerned about the environment and global conflicts. Jimmy Carter should know about global conflicts. He helped foment several wars while President. And perhaps Bill Clinton wishes to create an inclusive Ten Commandments that does away with such negative commands as "do not commit adultery," and "do not lie."

Carter and Clinton are the perfect pair for subverting Baptists because both of them have difficulty telling the truth. The world would be better off if both of them kept their mouths shut, but this is unlikely to happen. Both are ego-driven and can’t stand to be out of the limelight—even if it’s negative publicity.

I’m afraid we’re going to be enduring their underhanded activities for years to come. Let’s pray that they fail in all of their efforts.




SCROOGE WAS A LIBERAL

by Nathan Tabor*

For a liberal, Scrooge is supposed to be the ultimate corporate villain. After all, the tight-fisted codger insisted that poor Tiny Tim’s dad slave away at the office when he should have been conducting winter tests for global warming. At the start of "A Christmas Carol," old Ebenezer believes firmly that his fellow man should be exploited for every penny.

Christmas, Ebenezer complains, is "a time for finding yourself a year older, and not an hour richer." And yet, it seems to me that Ebenezer—before his transformation into a turkey-loving philanthropist—is really the model for modern liberalism.

How can that possibly be? Wasn't Scrooge the poster-boy for corporate greed, for the fallen Enron executives of our time? Doesn’t he represent everything that makes capitalism distasteful to the Utopian theorists of the 21st century?

To answer these burning yuletide questions, let’s draw a sketch of the average American liberal. To begin with, he’ll be the first to raise an objection to the mention of the word "Christmas"—even by a clergyman. He’ll file suit to prevent Nativity scenes from being placed in front of City Hall; Christmas carols from being sung at school concerts; and the Salvation Army from taking up Christmas collections outside discount department stores.

He says "bah, humbug" to anything that reminds us of the miracle of Christ’s birth. He complains that the Virgin Mary is anti-feminist and that the whole Nativity story is paternalistic. The liberal bitterly decries the economy of George W. Bush, lambasting the President as being insensitive to the needs of working families. But, let’s check the record. The economy under a Republican President is never good enough for the liberal. He issued the same complaints during the Reagan Years, when a sunny idealistic leader took us from malaise to Morning in America.

It’s hard to argue with statistics, though, and the statistics this Christmas season indicate that the economy couldn’t possibly be in the dire straits that the liberals would have us believe. For instance, the National Retail Federation estimates that the average consumer will spend $30 on Christmas cards and postage this year. I doubt whether these consumers are being forced to choose between a Christmas turkey and a box of greeting cards. And they’re certainly not scrimping when it comes to postage—on Dec. 18 alone, an estimated 900 million pieces of mail will be processed. What is the average American teenager requesting for Christmas this year? It certainly isn’t knitting needles to darn the only pair of socks in the drawer. No, teens in 2006 are requesting high-end gifts such as electronics and cell phones. And I don’t think it’s out of the realm of possibility that Santa will end up filling many of those orders.

Retailers say that more than two-thirds of American shoppers expect to buy at least five gift cards this year. I would hazard a guess that each of those cards is likely to be worth at least $25 or so. One consumer research outfit, Unity Marketing, estimates that Americans will spend nearly $8 billion this year on Christmas and Hanukah decorations alone. That’s up five percent from last year.

While it’s obviously wrong to turn Christmas into some sort of materialistic ritual, the fact is that consumers are expressing confidence in their economic futures with their dollars this Christmas. Anyone who denies that is as clueless as Ebenezer was before he turned into a compassionate conservative.



Oust Boehner and Blunt

by Dick Morris & Eileen McGann

November 14, 2006 -- Did the Republican leadership learn anything on Election Day? Did they finally get it that voters are fed up with politicians who use their office to raise money and get perks? Will the GOP return to the lean, ascetic, committed politics that animated its 1994 surge to power or will it resist change and choose leaders who skate on the edge of corruption in their bid for privilege? And, in the Senate, will the Republicans realize that they need a mechanic who can make the trains run on time to tie the Democrats in knots?

And do the Democrats realize that their surge to the top was not due to the outpouring of true leftist believers but because centrist, moderate candidates won swing states and districts, just as Clinton did in 1996?

The answer to these questions will be apparent in the leadership elections coming soon in both houses of Congress.

In the House, Majority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) will try to take Dennis Hastert’s place at the head of the diminished ranks of Republicans. This is the same John Boehner who took to the House floor a few years back and distributed checks from tobacco PACs to those congressmen who put their desire for cigarette money ahead of the health of their constituents and voted against government regulation of this hideous industry. This kind of self-serving, money-focused politics is just what landed the GOP in sufficient trouble to lose the House in the first place. Letting the escalator move up one notch and inviting Boehner to head the party’s House delegation will send a clear signal that House Republicans have, like the Bourbon kings of France, in Talleyrand’s words, "learned nothing and forgotten nothing."

Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) represents the kind of politics that puts ideas ahead of cash and privilege. Electing a man with his kind of conservative principles would show that the Republican minority understands the frustration of their base voters who ejected them from the leadership.

By the same token, Rep. John Shadegg (R-Ariz.) also stands for principled politics and deserves the support of those who understand what hit them on Nov. 7. Not so of his opponent. Majority Whip Roy Blunt’s (R-Mo.) wife, Abigail Perlman, and his son, Andrew, both lobby for Altria, which is the newly sanitized name for Philip Morris. If Blunt is limited to the standard congressional salary of $165,500, there is no reason why he shouldn’t take care of his family finances by letting lobbying firms that represent this death-dealing industry hire his son.

Blunt and Boehner deserve to be thrown out of leadership.

In the Senate, Republicans must realize that they lost power because Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) couldn’t find the men’s room, much less understand how to run the floor. He just never understood how to use the arcane rules and traditions of the Senate to get things done. The consensus that the 109th Congress passed almost nothing was not the fault of the House but of the Senate. The lack of a skilled Senate practitioner undermined the Republican Party badly.

Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) will be a vast improvement over Frist. At least he is a politician, not a misplaced doctor. But McConnell will be Mr. Outside, the party’s face to the media. Like former Sen. Phil Gramm (R-Texas), he will be an aggressive partisan who will shape the Republican case to the voters and the press. McConnell and the Republicans need to bring back the man who is their answer to Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.): Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss). Lott is a Lyndon Johnson/Richard Russell kind of character who knows how to use the Senate to get things done and enjoys twisting the Democrats into a pretzel.

Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), Lott’s opponent for minority whip, just got to the Senate four years ago after a disastrous run for president. He would make a fine Mr. Outside, but to give him the task of running the vote counts and making the trains run on time is to minimize the importance of this vital function. Lott has been in the Senate 18 years and knows how to implement the wishes of the Republican conference and McConnell, the minority leader.

House Speaker-to-be Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) showed that she is determined to hijack an election won by Democratic moderates and interpret it as a mandate for the extreme left. Her support of Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) for majority leader signals that she values ideology over cohesiveness.

Murtha’s rival, Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) is a moderate who can work to smooth out Pelosi’s rough edges. But Pelosi apparently doesn’t want to be smoothed. She would rather be the Madame Lafarge of the House, knitting an extra stitch for each swipe of the guillotine as it slices off the heads of the very moderates who made her Speaker.




DC CONFIDENTIAL

by Chuck Muth
November 8, 2006

ELECTION POST-MORTEM

While most Republicans woke up this morning lamenting Armageddon Tuesday, some of us didn't lose any sleep over the election results. Happy at the prospect of two years with Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi running Congress? Hardly. But there are a lot of silver linings behind these otherwise dark clouds.

  • The single, most important lesson here: Democrats didn't win; Republicans lost. And they didn't just lose; they were routed. Voters didn't reward Democrats, they punished Republicans. Badly. This wasn't the country saying it wanted to go further Left; it was the country saying Republicans had already taken the country too far Left. This wasn't about taking the country in a new direction; it was about correcting the GOP's course.
  • This wasn't swing voters swinging over to the Left. This was conservative voters swinging back to the Right. This was "burning the village down to save it." Conservatives didn't necessarily stay home, though certainly many did. But they did find other ways to protest the GOP's leftward tilt. It'll be interesting to see the "under-vote" in this year's congressional races. That would be the number of ballots cast where a vote in the congressional race was left blank.
  • Yesterday's election was a repudiation of George W. Bush's brand of "compassionate conservatism." It was also a repudiation of waging a politically correct war with one hand self-tied behind your back. No American soldier's life is worth a mosque. And American generals, not American lawyers should be running the war. You're either all in...or get out.
  • The Democrats, of course, are taking all the wrong lessons out of yesterday's results, a fact which can't help but help Republicans regain their bearings and regain their majorities two years from now. Democrats will over-reach, as is their nature. The big question is whether or not the GOP will reposition itself to take advantage of the opportunity sure to come in 2008.
  • Had yesterday's reckoning with conservatives happened in 2008 instead of 2006, Republicans would have likely lost not only Congress, but the White House, as well. Best that the lesson was taught to Republicans now than later.
  • The entire House Republican leadership team should now resign - from Denny Hastert on down. It's time to hand the ball off to Reps. John Shadegg and Mike Pence. Had House GOP members done that last January when they had the chance, they may have avoided the disaster they suffered yesterday.
  • Question: Now that Democrats have wrested control of Congress from the Republicans, how long do you think it will be before we see helicopters airlifting the last U.S. service personnel from the roof of the American embassy in Baghdad?
  • Do you think the Republican establishment will FINALLY have learned not to put its fate in the hands of a Dole? Bob Dole gave Republicans the embarrassing 1996 presidential defeat, and his wife Liddy, who was put in charge of the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) this cycle, coached the team to the crushing Senate losses a decade later.
  • The biggest victory in losing yesterday? The defeat of liberal Sen. Lincoln Chafee (ACU Lifetime Rating: 37) in Rhode Island. Not only was the Senate's most liberal Republican purged from the ranks, but the Republican Party's establishment got a kick right in the shorts, as well. Recall that the NRSC, the RNC and the White House pulled out all the stops to defeat Chafee's conservative challenger in the GOP primary just two months ago, saying the party had to sacrifice principle for electoral victory. As it turned out, they got neither. Conservative Republican voters in Rhode Island got their revenge.
  • As did conservative Republican voters in Pennsylvania, where Sen. Rick Santorum was upbraided for famously saving liberal Republican Sen. Arlen Specter's bacon two years ago in his GOP primary race against conservative Rep. Pat Toomey. Payback's a...
  • As did conservative voters in Ohio, where Sen. Mike DeWine (ACU Lifetime Rating: 80) got spanked, at least in part, for his role in the infamous Gang of 14 which stopped the Republican majority from deploying the "nuclear option" and ending the Democrat blockade of judicial nominations.
  • Republican Sen. Conrad Burns out in Montana got hit by conservatives for not only drifting too far left on the Earmark Express, but for getting too tied up in the Jack Abramoff insider scandal. Any Montanan who "goes native" in Washington, DC is gonna have some big problems.
  • When a strong social conservative such as Sen. Jim Talent loses in a bedrock state of social conservatism such as Missouri over the social issue of embryonic stem cell research, it's time to rejigger the conservative legislative priorities and get back to the basics of taxes, spending and national defense.
  • Perhaps the most devastating loss of the evening will end up being Sen. George Allen in Virginia, a race which will likely be "too close to call" for quite some time...with the balance of power in the Senate on the line. Allen was the toast of the town just two short year's ago after riding herd on the extremely successful GOP effort that resulted in a 55-45 Republican majority in the Senate in 2004. And he was fast-tracked to be the conservative choice in the early 2008 GOP presidential contest. Those hopes are now gone, even if he does somehow miraculously hold onto his Senate seat. Oh, how the mighty have fallen.
  • Republicans wouldn't have lost the Senate, if in fact they do end up losing the Senate, had Republican Tom Kean Jr. won in New Jersey. Kean, you'll recall, is the Republican candidate who called for Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's resignation in the campaign. Now the Left might hate Rumsfeld, but conservatives don't. Not a smart political move there.
  • One bright light in the Senate contests: conservative Republican Sen. John Ensign whupped Jimmy Carter's kid's butt in Nevada. There's nothing quite like beating a Carter for conservatives.
  • Oh, and let's not forget that little Democrat dust-up in Connecticut. Remember, Democrats are crowing that yesterday's victories were a victory for the anti-war movement. But former Democrat Sen. Joe Lieberman came back as an Independent to crush the Left's anti-war candidate yesterday, 50-40 percent.
  • You gotta believe there was a serious anti-Republican backlash out in the Colorado gubernatorial race, where outgoing Gov. Bill Owens sold out the Right by supporting efforts to suspend the state's government-restraint TABOR law last year. A strong GOP candidate, Rep. Bob Beauprez - who once served as the state's Republican Party chairman - went down in flames. Thanks, Gov. Owen.
  • Asa Hutchinson was best known as George Bush's drug czar for a time, before doing a stint at the poorly-regarded...at least as far as conservatives are concerned...Department of Homeland Security. He lost his bid for governor in Arkansas.
  • Republican Rep. Jim Nussle lost his bid for the governor's office in Iowa. Nussle married a lobbyist a few years back.
  • Republican Dick DeVos lost his bid against the job-killing Democrat governor in Michigan. The DeVos family was well-known for their opposition to the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative which would have banned the use of affirmative action in government hiring and college admissions. Voters passed MCRI and abolished affirmative action by an overwhelming margin yesterday. A HUGE victory for my friend Ward Connerly, who I hope to have on this week's radio show Friday night.
  • The best doggone victory yesterday for limited-government conservatives was Gov. Mark Sanford winning re-election in South Carolina. Sanford was under fire for being too "libertarian" - including supporting school vouchers and vetoing Republican-passed spending bills. In fact, the GOP majority leader did ads for the Democrat candidate because he was ticked off that Sanford showed up one day in the Legislature holding two pigs under his arms - one called "Pork" and the other called "Barrel." Sanford was also criticized roundly for not compromising his principles or cutting deals on core issues. He won with 55 percent of the vote.
  • The worst defeat for conservatives yesterday was the loss of Rep. J.D. Hayworth in Arizona. Not only did the GOP lose a true limited-government conservative, but a leader in the fight against illegal immigration as well as an articulate spokesman. Most Republicans are tongue-tied, wishy-washy weenies when on TV. Hayworth was a notable exception. But something tells me J.D. won't be off the stage for long. Gov. Hayworth or Sen. Hayworth has a nice ring to it.
  • Whether you call it a house-cleaning or thinning the herd, there's no mistaking the fact that a number of well-know moderate-to-liberal Republicans in the House of Representatives were booted yesterday. Robert Simmons (ACU Lifetime Rating: 54) in Connecticut was trailing this morning, though the race was still too close to call. Fellow Connecticutian (or is it Connecticutite) Nancy Johnson (ACU Lifetime Rating: 47) lost. Charlie Bass (ACU Lifetime Rating: 71) in New Hampshire lost. John Sweeney (ACU Lifetime Rating: 77) in New York lost. Deborah Pryce (ACU Lifetime Rating: 79) in Ohio lost. Curt Weldon (ACU Lifetime Rating 70) in Pennsylvania lost.

There's much, much more to go over, but I'm off to the radio studio for some post-election analysis on NPR. We'll pick this back up later. But believe you me, this is not as bad for limited-government conservatives as many folks would have you think. This was a much-needed pruning which will allow the GOP to come back much healthier in the future...

This was, indeed, a loss for Republicans. But they asked for it. Serves 'em right. And in the long run, this may yet prove to be a huge victory for limited government conservatism. Onward and rightward!




What’s the Problem with Celebrity Crucifixions?

by Nathan Tabor

Now that so much ink has been spilled over Madonna’s foreign adoption, some folks have all but forgotten about the on-going debate over whether the Material Star should be permitted to crucify herself on NBC.

At issue is a scene in Madonna’s concert in which she’s hung on a cross wearing a crown of thorns while she belts out "Live to Tell." Madonna and her representatives claim the scene is not disrespectful to the Christian church. In fact, the Associated Press reported that the singer who likes to shock said the performance is a "plea to the audience to encourage mankind to help one another and to see the world as a unified whole. I believe in my heart that if Jesus were alive today He would be doing the same thing."

Message to Madonna: Christians do believe that Jesus is alive today—alive and well and living in heaven and in the hearts of all believers. Upset by Madonna’s New Age hypocrisy, a number of church-goers and members of the clergy managed to wage a successful e-mail protest campaign, flooding NBC with electronic objections to Madonna’s shameless attack on the Christian faith.

Now, there are some who say that the wise thing for Christians to do is to simply ignore Madonna’s latest tirade. They say that, by drawing attention to Madonna’s act, the American Family Association and other family-oriented and faith-based groups could simply be boosting Madonna’s ratings. Also, liberal critics say that, in a pluralistic society, people should be free to view whatever they want on television—even if it involves a pop star desecrating an image considered to be sacred by Christians. According to this line of thought, the First Amendment guarantees the right to free expression—even if the expression is highly offensive to some people.

And who is the American Family Association to judge what should and should not be shown on television? But this type of reasoning fails to recognize the fact that there are certain lines that should not be crossed—especially in a medium that is freely accessible to children. What if Madonna had decided to burn a model of Mohammed in effigy during her concert? Or re-enact the killing of the courageous Holocaust victim Anne Frank? Or take a rifle and shooting a statue of Buddha?

I also have to wonder what some free speech enthusiasts would think if NBC aired footage of a homosexual activist being hanged? Or an abortionist being put to death in an electric chair? It seems in our society today that it is perfectly acceptable among the media elites to "Christian-bash." Christians can be routinely mocked for their faith and their images can be degraded. So-called artists routinely find ways to depict Jesus and His mother in some of the vilest ways possible—soaked in urine, in sexual poses, and the like. If we do, indeed, live in a pluralistic society, shouldn’t religious imagery from all faiths be treated with respect? How can the media show respect for one faith and contempt for another?

According to the Christian faith, anyone who follows Jesus may face persecution. But to be a persecutor undermines one’s humanity and leads to a society in which life seems brutish and short.

A little more compassion from media executives for people of the Christian persuasion will go a long way toward healing the wounds that divide America.

Madonna has the free will to do whatever she wants onstage—but that doesn’t mean that the networks have any obligation to air it—especially when it represents a blatant form of hate speech.




Another Liberal Fairy Tale

By Nathan Tabor

The nation of Norway has now given us the first museum exhibition that claims that the birds, the bees, and other animals may be homosexuals.

The Oslo Natural History Museum exhibit is just one more example of propaganda invading the scientific world. Based on its assessment of same-sex attraction in the animal kingdom, the museum draws the conclusion that homosexuality cannot be considered "unnatural."

The exhibit’s project leader, Geir Soeli, was quoted as saying, "The sexual urge is strong in all animals…It’s a part of life, it’s fun to have sex," Soeli made this statement in trying to explain the bizarre conclusion that homosexuality is rampant among animals.

In one exhibit, two stuffed female swans are depicted on a nest—a clear effort to promote the "Heather Has Two Mommies" school of thought. Meanwhile, a photograph shows a male giraffe mounting another giraffe—supposedly in expectation of sex. There would seem to be a clear political reason for this kind of exhibition. In some countries, laws are on the books which call homosexuality a "crime against nature." One Reuters report conceded that researchers haven’t paid much attention to animal homosexuality. The Reuters report concludes the disinterest might be the result of "distaste, lack of interest or fear or ridicule."

But perhaps the real reason for the disinterest is because it doesn’t pass the laugh test. If homosexuality were truly strong in the animal kingdom, there would be no animals left, since they would be unable and unwilling to reproduce. As the Reuters report points out, homosexuality would seem to be a genetic dead-end.

Soeli claims that bonobos, a type of chimpanzee, are all bisexuals. This is significant, because those who believe in evolution rather than in intelligent design can then make the case that we humans must all have bisexual tendencies too, since, in their view, we’re all descended from apes.

For years, homosexual activists have tried to make the case that there’s a special homosexual gene hiding in the gene pool. Yet, that simply doesn’t explain why one human twin might pursue a homosexual lifestyle and another would not.

The trouble with museum exhibits like this one is that they try to sell children on the idea that homosexual sex is not an aberration—a claim that can lead to justification of same sex marriage. With liberals such as these running scientific exhibits and some schools, we can fully expect a version of the beloved storybook "The Three Little Pigs" to give rise to "The Three Gay Pigs."

It’s the natural progression, after all.




Scandal Is The Rule, Not The Exception

by Paul Nelson

Pundits are still preoccupied with the question, "How much did Hastert know and when did he know it?"

That's the wrong question!

As more details come out, it is becoming clear that the more appropriate questions are:

"How many Members of Congress on both sides of the political aisle knew about Foley's behavior and did nothing?"

"How many Members of Congress were motivated to speak up and take action because of morals or decency and how many held their tongues for years and were ONLY motivated to speak up because of so-called political viability and opportunity?"

After all, Foley is not the first politician to flagrantly violate the public's trust -- and we're not just talking about "fixing" traffic tickets here.

In 1983, Congressman Gerry Studds of Massachusetts -- after admitting that he engaged in a sexual relationship with a 17 year-old congressional page -- had the audacity to chastise the House of Representative for calling for his censure, claiming that he had "broken no laws." Did Studds resign in shame? Not on your life! He stayed in Congress for another 12 years finally retiring in 1996!

Not too long ago, it was discovered that the boyfriend of Congressman Barney Frank was running a brothel from the basement of the apartment they shared. Frank's punishment? He's now a member of the Democratic leadership.

Congressman William Jefferson of Louisiana gave a new meaning to the term "cold hard cash" when federal investigators found a stash of $90,000.00 in his freezer. To make matters worse, when federal investigators tried to execute a search warrant on Jefferson's office, Congressmen of both political parties screamed that allowing the search would violate the "separation of powers" provision of the Constitution!

Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney assaulted a police officer several months ago. When her transgression became public -- instead of apologizing -- McKinney made what can only be described as a very lame attempt to play the race card!

Patrick Kennedy, Ted Kennedy, Gary Conduit, Bill Clinton, Randy "Duke" Cunningham, the congressional check-kiting scandal, the congressional post office scandal... the list goes on and on and on... it's as long as your arm... and the stench of corruption and scandal is so thick you could cut it with a knife!




Mark Foley Pederasty Scandal Reveals Stark Double Standard

By Rev. Louis P. Sheldon
Chairman, Traditional Values Coalition

October 11, 2006 - Disgraced Florida Republican Mark Foley’s sex scandal with congressional pages presents the Republican Party and Values Voters with historic teachable moments.

There are three significant lessons to be learned from the revelation that Foley was a closeted homosexual who was attracted to teenage boys.

First, the Republican Party needs to discuss how it should deal with homosexuals inside the leadership of the Party. Liberal Republicans constantly talk about the Republican Party being a "big tent open to everybody."

As radical homosexuals have been welcomed into "the big tent," it has become a less welcoming place for religious conservatives and a dark and dangerous place for children.

Today, Republicans need to take a long and hard look at what they have done by welcoming homosexuals into the GOP. Republicans need to make a simple choice between the innocent children and radical homosexuals who prey on them.

Second, Americans need to learn the difference between pedophilia and pederasty. Homosexual activists from the Log Cabin Republicans and other liberal radicals are making the TV talk show rounds claiming that pedophilia has nothing to do with homosexuality. This is a half-truth designed to confuse the viewer into thinking that adult homosexuals have no interest in boys.

The fact is that legally speaking, pedophilia is a sexual desire for boys or girls ages 13 or under. Pederasty, on the other hand, is the homosexual desire for anal sex with older teenage boys. The word comes from the Greek term "paiderastia," which means to "long for" or "love" a boy.

In 1998, David Thorstad, a founder of the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) told a group of homosexuals in Mexico City that "Pederasty is the main form that male homosexuality has acquired throughout Western civilization – and not only in the West! Pederasty is inseparable from the high points of Western culture—ancient Greece and the Renaissance."

The next time a homosexual activist claims on TV that homosexuality has no connection to pedophilia, remember David Thorstad’s statement and the definition of pederasty.

The third teachable moment in the Foley scandal is to recall how the Republican and Democrat parties have responded to past congressional sex scandals.

In 1983, Republican Congressman Daniel Crane and Democrat Congressman Gerry Studds both revealed on the same day that they had been involved in sex scandals. Crane had engaged in sex with a 17-year-old girl. He apologized for his behavior and was voted out by his constituents in 1984. Studds had engaged in sodomy with a 17-year-old boy. Studds refused to apologize and was re-elected in 1984 by a 56% margin by his Massachusetts Democrat voters and retired in 1996.

In 1980, Maryland Republican Bob Bauman was arrested for sodomizing a 16-year-old male prostitute. His constituents vote him out of office.

In 1989, Massachusetts Democrat Rep. Barney Frank was exposed for permitting homosexual partner Steve Gobie to operate a male prostitution ring out of Frank’s condo in Washington, DC. Frank was reprimanded by the House but won re-election in 1990 by 66% of the vote. He is re-elected every two years by his liberal voters.

In 1994, Illinois Democrat Mel Reynolds was convicted on charges of having sex with a 16-year-old female campaign worker. Reynolds was convicted of sexual assault, child abuse, possessing child pornography and obstruction of justice. He was sentenced to 5 years in prison and was forced to resign his seat from Congress. President Clinton pardoned Reynolds shortly before leaving the White House. Reynolds was then hired by Jesse Jackson.

There seems to be a pattern here. Republicans caught in sex scandals either resign or are voted out of office. Democrats caught in sex scandals stay in office and are re-elected time and time again by their constituents. In the case of Mel Reynolds, he got a "get out of jail free card" from Clinton, a fellow sex abuser and was then rewarded with a cushy job by the "Rev." Jesse Jackson, a confessed adulterer and father of a "love child."

What’s wrong with this picture? The November elections will give every American a chance to express his opinion about this drastic difference in how Democrats respond to sex scandals compared to how Republicans respond. Do we really want the party of Barney Frank, Mel Reynolds, Jesse Jackson or Bill Clinton to take control of the reigns of government?




THE ILLEGAL ALIEN DEBATE: UP CLOSE & PERSONAL

By Leo W. Banks

I know how to kill the McCain-Kennedy immigration bill and the illusions that inspire it. We need every citizen to spend a day at John and Pat King's Anvil Ranch in southern Arizona. The experience would create an overnight revolution in America's view of this domestic crisis.

The Kings live every day with barking dogs, vandalism, guns at their bedside, trash on their land, and most tragically, human remains. The bodies of seven illegals were found on the 50,000- acre Anvil last year.

"Can you imagine dying of heat prostration out there?" says Pat King, a 62-year-old former nurse. "It has got to be the most awful thing. I wish the two countries would get together and stop this. ! In this whole 50-mile area, there is no law. It's a frontier."

I've visited many Arizona ranches, and it always surprises me how quickly I can travel from Tucson to a combat zone. It takes 50 minutes to reach Anvil's headquarters in heavily-crossed Altar Valley, located to the southwest of the city. Even with that proximity, most people in Tucson-to say nothing of Maine or Washington, D.C.-live in blissful ignorance of the worsening situation here.

When Pat discusses the problem with friends, they say, "Don't you think you're exaggerating?" No one would ask that if they saw the 40 bicycles stacked against one of the Anvil's out-buildings. They're the favored means of transportation for drug smugglers, who pack their cargo onto saddlebags and pedal across our border, then abandon the bikes.

As for vandalism, Pat describes what they experience today as "wanton,"-water troughs filled with garbage, pipes cut, valves hammered to pieces. She jokes that they're thinking of putting a tetherball by the troughs to occupy the illegals so they aren't so destructive.

"You have to understand, we're under siege here," she says. "Every day my son and husband check water and fences and redo the damage they've done. Not to get on with our work, but to undo the damage everyday."

Micaela McGibbon, Pat's daughter, took me on a ranch tour, and in one mile we crossed 30 smuggling trails. In a wash, we inspected sophisticated brush huts in which illegals rest during trips north.

But this nightmare comes right to the Kings' doorstep. Imagine living under permanent stakeout. The Kings do. They removed mesquite trees from around their house because illegals would hide underneath them and wait for the house to empty.

Micaela can no longer do chores unless accompanied by her father or a brother, and taking her 4-year-old daughter out on horseback is forbidden. "We can't go anywhere without an escort," Micaela says.

The Kings have complained to politicians and law enforcement for years. "They talk this rule of law stuff, but it doesn't mean a thing," Pat says. "When you realize nothing's going to happen, you have to do self-protection."

During their April watch, Minutemen spotted 1,501 illegals on the Anvil, and of these the Border Patrol arrested 500. But it turned into a circus. ACLU volunteers showed up every day to monitor and harass the Minutemen, at times sounding car horns and flashing lights to alert the illegals that the Border Patrol was coming. This is the border crisis in microcosm-confused Americans rush to defend lawbreakers while ignoring, even demonizing, law-abiding citizens who suffer daily affronts to basic liberties on land their family has tended for 115 years.

The Anvil's location, 38 miles north of the border, means that by the time illegals arrive there, they've been walking for days and are sometimes in desperate shape.

Between May and August last year, cowboy Jason Cathcart found four sets of human remains. He came to dread spotting what looked like little white balls in the distance. Those "balls" turned out to be human skulls.

Certainly the McCain-Kennedy bill will do nothing to change life here. Pat likens the bill, with its plan for amnesty, a guest- worker program, and negligible enforcement, to swatting flies in your house with the doors and windows wide open.

Ask yourself: Would the Altar Valley be a war zone if McCain lived here? If Kennedy's Hyannis Port compound were magically transplanted to southern Arizona, how long do you think it'd be before he rewrote his bill? The first time Kennedy saw 30 illegals dashing across his property, he'd trip over his Guatemalan lawn guy rushing to the Senate floor to demand enforcement.

The resulting invasion has driven legal Arizona residents from their land, including John King's aunt. She lived south of the Anvil for more than 40 years, but sold out rather than keep fighting a battle the federal government has no intention of winning.

Pat thinks the street demonstrators, she calls them cowards-need to show their bravery by returning to Mexico and changing that country, not ours.

- Leo W. Banks is a writer in Tucson.




The 9/11 of Pope Benedict XVI

by Deal W. Hudson

Just as the 9/11 terrorist attacks dramatically altered the future of the Bush presidency, the 9/12 speech of Benedict XVI will shape the future of his papacy.

Ever since he emerged smiling through the doors of St. Peter's, as the Cardinals' choice to lead the Church, Benedict XVI has successfully avoided reinforcing the stereotype of a tradition-bound conservative academic. He was not unaware, however, that the Catholic Left was ready to pounce on any miscue and hold it up to the world as proof of the disaster they predicted his papacy to be.

The Left didn't wait long. No less a critic than John Cornwell, famous for his depiction of Pius XII as anti-Semitic, announced that the pope's speech at the University of Regensburg has "set back relations with Islam several eras"(The Australian, September 18, 2006).

Cornwell fails to mention how the 9/11 attacks with reports of terrorist pilots plowing into American targets while praying to Allah put a stain on Islam that will take "several eras" to remove.

Cornwell, not surprisingly, connects the pope's criticism of Islam with the U.S. President and the Prime Minister of Great Britain. He quotes from the spokesman of an extremist Muslim group, Hizb-ut-Tahrir, that the pope's comments "follow consistently negative, violent, and extreme descriptions of Islam: the use of the term Islamo-fascist by George W. Bush and evil ideology by Tony Blair."

Cornwell makes no attempt to dissociate himself from the opinion of this extremist group. Indeed, the Left would love to spin the present chaos in the Muslim world into an indictment of the three most important defenders of freedom in the Western world.

Try as they may, it will backfire. Here's why:

In my last Window, "The Ten Things Republicans Must Do to Win the Religious Vote" (August 27, 2006), I included the suggestion that the religion of Islam, as a whole, should not be "demonized." Yet, the level of violence in response to the pope's speech, including public calls for his murder, do nothing but encourage our worst fears about the Islamic faith.

For example, what are the quantity and quality of the so-called "moderate Muslims?" They seem to be hiding in closets all over the world because their voices are not being heard. I've observed no public denunciations of Muslims burning Christian churches on the West Bank, the murder of an Italian nun in Somalia, or the death threats against the Holy Father.

The Muslim reaction to the Regensburg speech will only strengthen the Western world's resolve to confront the threat of radical Islam, whether it is best called fascistic or jihadist. It will reinforce the resolve of Bush, Blair, and their supporters to stay the course in the Iraq war and keep the pressure on Iran to cease its nuclear enrichment program.

Benedict XVI's basic point at Regensburg was that religion, whether Christianity or Islam, should not be spread by violence or conversion at the point of a sword. Such beliefs and practices, he argued, are contrary to God's nature. I don't know anyone who disputes his point, but there are thousands, evidently millions, who do. Why they believe that an authentic religious faith can be spread by force is a puzzle to me, but even more so is the desire to physically attack someone who publicly questions this teaching.

The broader subject of the pope's lecture was faith and reason in modern culture, specifically how the role of reason has been diminished in religions such as Islam and Protestantism. None of the Protestants I know are calling for retribution, although they might disagree with the pope, believing his comments to be unfair and inaccurate. Of course, there was a time, several centuries ago, when Catholics and Protestants killed each other over just such theological disputes. We should remember that.

And we should also remember that a fight is brewing, with millions of Muslims who are not afraid to die. Unfathomably, they view the invitation to rational debate as the occasion for declaring a holy war on anyone who would question the tenets of their faith. (I feel a personal irony in saying this because the professor who first introduced me to the subject of the relationship between philosophy and religion at the University of Texas was a Muslim from Iran.)

Benedict XVI took the lid off the ugly truth about the threat of radical Islam and how that threat is supported by their concept of God. The god of radical Islam is nothing but, "I Am Who Wills," to emend slightly a line from the Book of Exodus. Now it's up to the Holy Father to find those leaders in the Muslim world, the kind who sat next to our Catholic negotiators in Cairo and Beijing, and defuse the time bomb that ticks ever faster.


Deal W. Hudson is from the Morley Institute for Church & Culture




HAVE YOU DRIVEN A FORD LATELY? HOPE NOT

by Nathan Tabor

There was a time when the Ford Motor Company was synonymous with family. You might remember Dad packing you and your brothers and sisters into a Ford headed for a day at the beach, the zoo, or the farm. Ford meant stability, security, and tradition. But those days have apparently gone the way of the Edsel.

Now, we have a Ford that is openly endorsing a radical homosexual agenda--an agenda which is clearly anti-family. For instance, Ford has been known to force employees to take part in so-called diversity training classes. In these classes, workers are required to accept the concept of an active homosexual lifestyle—a lifestyle which may be directly counter to their own religious and moral beliefs. It's curious that such classes should be labeled "diversity training," given the fact that they are certainly not presenting diverse ideologies. Rather, this seems to simply be another case of political correctness in high gear.

Family groups are not taking Ford's actions lightly. Rather, they are engaged in a boycott of Ford products. However, homosexual rights groups have countered by announcing their own buying marathon--a "buycott" of Ford-produced cars.

To their credit, homosexual activists have been quite vocal and active in their push for homosexual marriage. But the question remains: are ordinary American families...those families tired of having the homosexual agenda infiltrate schools, news, and entertainment...willing to take on the boycott challenge? Or would they rather remain apathetic,and watch their way of life suffer as a result?

It has been said that few companies have done more to advertise and celebrate the homosexual lifestyle than Ford. Yet, many average citizens may not know this. Interestingly enough, the Human Rights Campaign actually rewarded Ford for its efforts at promoting the homosexual lifestyle by giving it a rating of 100-percent. In addition to supporting the idea of homosexual marriage, Ford has given hundreds of thousands of dollars to homosexual organizations, according to the American Family Association, an organization that objects to making homosexual marriage legal.

In fact, Ford has gone so far as to play bridesmaid to a homosexual "commitment ceremony." This isn't a case of tolerance--this is an undisputed embrace of the homosexual way of life. The fact is that the kindest thing society can do to assist those dealing with same-sex attraction is to support the traditional concept of marriage--the concept that the marriage bond is limited to one man, one woman. Any other definition of marriage is, in essence, a lie and runs counter to the workings of Creation.

We need to deal with individuals with same-sex attraction with compassion, understanding, and support. We do not need to change the definition of marriage in a misguided effort to make their struggles easier.

And we need to rev up our efforts to make Ford accountable to the families that helped turn the automaker into a legend of the manufacturing industry. Our children are depending upon our willingness to stand up for the sanctity of family life.




The Political Storm That Will Not Die

By Nathan Tabor

Each year, somewhere in America, families must struggle to rebuild what nature has taken away. It may be a tornado that rips off the roof of a family business, or a fire that leaves the family homestead in ruins. The after-effects can be mind-boggling, as husbands and wives must deal with insurance claims, medical bills, and the logistical nightmares that characteristically follow tragedy: finding a new storefront, a new place to live, a new school for the kids.

Invariably, people who live through such calamities come to the conclusion that, as difficult as it is to deal with the fall-out from a catastrophe, they must count their blessings. After all, they survived. There may be a great deal missing from their lives—but at least they have their lives. The promise of tomorrow can overcome the heartache of today.

Hurricane Katrina definitely tested the strength and stamina of the people of New Orleans. Certainly, the hearts of people around America went out to those who lost their homes and nearly all of their personal belongings in the wake of Mother Nature's wrath. In fact, ordinary citizens around the country opened up their homes—and their hearts—to Katrina survivors. And it's clear that a number of those survivors appreciated the help.

And yet, there are some individuals who are determined to get as much mileage as they can out of the political storm that swirled around Katrina. In fact, they're holding onto the hope that the ghost of Katrina will haunt the fall elections.

One recent news report suggested that many New Orleans natives believe that the chaos that erupted in the city following Katrina shows that the government does not care about black people.

Such a conclusion is mystifying.

After all, New Orleans has a black mayor. While there are mechanisms in place for the federal government to respond to disasters, it's primarily up to local communities to have plans in place to deal with catastrophes—whether they are natural or man-made. If local leaders proved to be weak, ineffectual, and demonstrated a lack of foresight, is racism really the cause of New Orleans’ plight?

No rational human being can accept racism as legitimate—hatred against people because of their skin color is repulsive to the modern mind. No man or woman should be denied education, employment, or a small business loan because of his or her race—and there are plenty of laws on the books to ensure those equal opportunities.

Given the many black Americans who have achieved positions of prominence and distinction—Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice and U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas among them—it's a little far-fetched to claim that the government is apathetic toward blacks.

The fact is that, when any of us are hit with tragedy, we cannot expect the government to be our savior. It's up to us as individuals to rise above the rubble and reclaim what disaster stole from us. It may not be pleasant; it may not be the greatest ride—but it’s what we do as Americans. We triumph over adversity—family by family, block by block.

The hurricanes will come—there's no way the President—or any other elected official--can stop them. But the real test for us as Americans is how we respond to those storms that come our way. And it doesn't matter what color you are—you can find the strength and courage to take control of your life and forge a new path.

And, when a neighbor offers a helping hand, the color of the hand doesn't matter at all.




U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor is the first judge in our nation's history with the audacity to tell the President of the United States to stop gathering intelligence from a foreign enemy during wartime.

It's pure insanity!

Five years after 9-11, politicians are still discussing whether it's okay to gather intelligence by monitoring phone calls that known and suspected terrorists make to the United States!

But as far as Judge Anna Diggs Taylor is concerned -- THERE IS NO DISCUSSION!

And you can bet that terrorists in Iran and Syria were dancing in the streets when they heard the news.

But to make matters worse, Judge Anna Diggs Taylor issued this ruling knowing full well that since 9-11, our intelligence agencies, in cooperation with Britain, have thwarted major plots to commit unspeakable atrocities:

  • One captured plotter planned to detonate a "dirty bomb" -- a conventional explosive device filled with radioactive materials. His target: New York City.
  • Just a couple of weeks ago, British intelligence uncovered a plot to blow up as many as 10 airliners over the Atlantic Ocean and in the process kill thousands of people en route to the U.S.
  • That information was obtained by intercepting phone calls of known and suspected terrorists. And what U.S. and British intelligence agencies did -- Judge Anna Diggs Taylor would outlaw.

It's time to DEMAND that President Bush and Congress send left-wing judges like Judge Anna Diggs Taylor, the terrorists who plot to kill countless Americans and the American people a clear message that WE ARE SERIOUS ABOUT THIS WAR ON TERROR!

And the time to send that message is NOW! Call your Congressman or Senator and tell them how you feel. Don't let the ACLU Liberals kill our country and our freedom!




MASSACHUSETTS POLITICS

Contributed by Deval Patrick

There's a strange truth about today's politics: If they're shooting at you, you must be doing well.

And we are.

Together, neighborhood by neighborhood, town by town, we've built a movement for change in Massachusetts. And it's gaining strength every day. We are in a strong position heading into the primary, and we are closer every day to bringing your aspirations and common sense back to the governor's office.

So, it's no surprise that the attacks and insinuations have begun. They've started already over my business experience. Those in the "politics-as-usual" crowd believe that somehow experience in the private sector is inherently bad -- even though that's where most people in Massachusetts make their living. It just shows how out of touch they really are with the issues facing real people every day.

I have spent my entire professional life pursuing a commitment to fundamental fairness. Whether it was fighting for poor tenants as head of the Legal Aid Bureau in law school, defending people on death row or advocating for basic voting rights as a staff lawyer at the Legal Defense Fund, resolving business disputes and employment issues for small and large companies in private practice, or enforcing federal law as head of the Civil Rights Division in the Clinton administration, I have always approached my work as a mission for basic fairness.

That for me is a matter of conscience. And whether in public or private life, I have never checked my conscience at the door.

My work inside the business world is no exception. As head of the independent task force and later as general counsel at Texaco, I helped reform the company's practices to end unfairness against women and minorities in hiring and promotions. I also pushed the company to stop its assault on the science of climate change, and helped to consummate the multi-billion dollar merger with Chevron.

As general counsel at Coca-Cola, I worked again to improve workplace fairness, and also to resolve a continent-wide antitrust investigation in Europe and a wide-ranging investigation into accounting issues in the United States, to expand the health plan in Africa to include anti-retroviral drug treatment for workers and their families, and to develop the first-ever public commitments to respect the right to organize, to bargain in good faith, and to limit sugar soft drinks in schools.

Thanks to a paid public relations consultant from New York, you may have heard about charges by bottling plant workers in Colombia about violence in their plant years ago. The tactics of this consultant and his links to rival campaigns are questionable and, following complaints from several labor unions, he is now under investigation by state campaign finance authorities. But on the substance I want you to know directly from me that I took the Colombian workers' charges seriously, investigated them thoroughly – and found no evidence that the company colluded with anyone to incite or direct that violence. I still believe, given the seriousness of the charges, that the company should sponsor an independent investigation of the claims and make a public report, and I understand from recent news reports that the company is now doing just that.

My service as a board member of the parent company of Ameriquest is another favorite political topic for my opponents. But there again I was part of the solution. Before I arrived, Ameriquest was facing serious claims of predatory lending. I was brought onto that board to help fix those problems, and worked successfully there to achieve a national settlement and needed corporate reforms.

The point is this: I am proud of my work as a business executive and corporate board member. I have written, spoken and most importantly acted on behalf of corporate responsibility. I did some good and I learned a few things – some of which frankly have helped prepare me for the job of governing this Commonwealth.

I don't want to be coy. I was paid well. And I earned it – by making the companies better, by advocating for more enlightened policies, by acting in whatever I did with integrity. I didn't achieve everything I wanted, but I had some measurable success.

Some of my opponents want you to think that a Democrat can't stand for both economic expansion and economic justice. I don't accept that and neither should you. Throughout this campaign I have told you that I do not believe that business is inherently evil. For families and communities to flourish, we need good jobs, and for good jobs, we need strong, healthy businesses. I respect and admire entrepreneurship, and believe we must expand economic opportunity. As governor, I'll use my business experience to do just that.

At the same time, I believe that economic justice ought to go hand in hand with economic expansion. We ought to expect of businesses, large and small, what we expect of each other: to be good, responsible citizens. That means fair work places, fair dealing with customers and vendors, fair treatment of the community and stewardship of the environment. That is what good corporate citizenship has always meant to me.

If you believe that good people can and must work inside companies as well as advocate from outside, that we must both build the economy and make it more fair, and that a healthy respect for and experience in both worlds is an asset to governing our Commonwealth, then I am your guy and I want your help.

But be prepared: the better we do, the more negative attacks, distortions, dirty tricks and excessive spending we're likely to see. All of these tactics are the steady diet of the very politics-as-usual we're fighting so hard to change. To change that type of politics, we are going to have to defeat those types of tactics.

But together we can. Stay focused and positive. We've already defied conventional thinking by creating a movement for change in Massachusetts that is sturdier and more determined than the political insiders ever imagined was possible.

Because it's hard to stop change whose time has come.

Sincerely,

Deval




A Political Problem in Aisle 5

By Nathan Tabor

As anyone who lives in the 'burbs knows, the all-American pastime on Saturdays isn't necessarily a trip to the baseball diamond. For many of us, it's a trip to the local Wal-Mart. This is particularly true as the back-to-school season is in full swing.

So, it’s a little bit disconcerting to know that, as families across the U.S. are loading up their shopping carts, the elite in the Democratic Party are scowling. While many of us are concerned about al Quaida, a number of Dems have identified Wal-Mart as public enemy number one this political season.

As far as I know, the CEO of Wal-Mart isn’t running for President, but don’t tell that to Senator Joseph R. Biden, Jr. of Delaware, a presumed Presidential contender. In Iowa recently, Biden delivered what the New York Times described as a "blistering attack" against Wal-Mart.

In addition to serving America’s need for clothes, toothbrushes, and other luxuries, Wal-Mart happens to be the nation’s biggest private employer. In other words, the company now has more than a million people on its work force. This is a business that is giving jobs to folks–but, according to the bizarre calculations of Democratic leaders, Wal-Mart is bad news for the economy.

Senator Biden suggests that Wal-Mart doesn't care about "the fate of middle-class people." But Wal-Mart does business with middle-class people everyday. I don’t know how often the Washington elite shop at Wal-Mart, but the average-income families that I know shop there all the time, because that’s where they can get the best deals for their dollars.

Granted, chances are you won't earn a six-figure salary at Wal-Mart. But you can earn a paycheck. And you can gain the type of experience that will help you apply for jobs in the future which require more responsibility and will earn you more money. That is, after all, the American way—to start out on the first floor of business and work your way up to the boardroom.

And, speaking of boardrooms, isn't it curious that Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, who was a member of Wal-Mart's board, returned a campaign contribution from the company to protest Wal-Mart's health benefits? That, apparently, was the start of the unofficial Democratic campaign against the company.

Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana has claimed that the anti-Wal-Mart effort is not anti-business. But, when you attack one of the nation’s biggest businesses, it stands to reason that people are really going to wonder whether you have the best interests of business at heart.

No one can be in favor of corporate corruption...bad management decisions...and mistreatment of employees. But the fact is that, without business, many of us would not have jobs. Of course, that concept is mystifying to career politicians who do not have to meet a weekly payroll or deal with constant competition. Their jobs may be safe-but the average taxpayer's job isn’'t.

I may not agree with every corporate decision made at Wal-Mart headquarters, but there can be little argument that the company is a business success story. If it were not so successful, it wouldn't be under attack. In fact, a national poll showed that Americans generally support Wal-Mart–an attitude which seems to be borne out in the company's sales. The company posted an $11 billion profit last year.

In a letter written to Iowa Wal-Mart workers, company officials said they "would never suggest to you how to vote, but we have an obligation to tell you when politicians are saying something about your company that isn't true. After all, you are Wal-Mart."

And a lot of us are Wal-Mart shoppers–whether we want to admit it or not.




Say Hello to the Neo-McGovernites

by Nathan Tabor

I almost ignored anti-war Ned Lamont's win over pro-war Joe Lieberman in the Connecticut primary last night until I got a load of two of Lamont's cadre of celebrants. Directly behind a smiling Lamont were Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton – two of the most divisive, opportunistic, and race-baiting individuals that contemporary politics has spawned. Somewhere in the distance, I could almost hear the faint whisper of Jackson's "Hymietown" or Sharpton's fixation on New York "diamond merchants."

Welcome to the "new" 21st century Democratic Party, the political party that is starting to smell quite similar to the long-buried cadaver of the Democratic Party of the early 1970s – taken over at the time by the anti-Vietnam War McGovern Democrats. Last night has given us the neo-McGovernites.

Lamont's primary victory puts the old guard of Democrats on a very slippery slope. While Bill Clinton came out in the final days of the campaign to support Joe Lieberman, Chris Dodd has already come out and endorsed Lamont. Maxine Waters has backed Lamont from the beginning. Evan Bayh just signed on.

Who will follow? Kerry? Kennedy? Edwards? Feingold? Pelosi? Reid? Schumer? Rahm Emanuel? No doubt, all of them, and each time another prominent Democrat steps forward – under the banner of party unity – the Democratic Party will take one step further to the left. In an endorsement that might portend of things to come, Hillary has even thrown her (political) weight, plus $5,000, behind Lamont. With the neo-McGovernites already rallying against her and her (so far) pro-war stance, she's in a political pickle.

"Look at me. I'm for the war but I’ve endorsed an anti-war senatorial candidate!" This from a potential presidential candidate who has been trying so hard to move to the center, using the political playbook of her husband. And with each step to the left, the Democratic Party will clarify itself as the "cut-and-run" party.


Somewhere in D.C., Karl Rove must be drooling. ---




Dysfunctional Justice

By Jack Thomas

You could almost hear all the jaws of normies throughout the land dropping open when they first heard about our non-normie of the day, today, District Judge Kristine Cecava in Sidney, Nebraska. On the off chance that you didn’t get word of this outlandish story, she is the judge who released, on probation, Richard W. Thompson, a convicted child molester. If that wasn’t enough, she gave her (supposed) reason. He was too small (at five-foot one-inch) to survive in prison.

We have now set a new standard for incarceration. You must be big enough to defend yourself. Attention all short child molesters in Nebraska. Go for it! Fondle those little kids! The worst you’ll ever get in Kristine’s court is monitored probation.

It’s a well known fact that hardened criminals, residing in jail, still have one sense of morality left in their conscience. They hate child molesters and, usually, inmates target them for extermination the minute they arrive in their cell block. But, frankly, who cares. I know that sounds terrible, but think about it. Our system does not permit us to impose the death sentence for these heinous crimes. Sins like this are far worse than rape, as bad as that is, because it occurs at a time when the youth is just forming his or her psyche.

Molestation takes that still innocent mind and perverts it, scarring it for life. Essentially, it robs a kid of his or her childhood and, usually, of a normal adulthood. For the rest of the youngster’s life, he or she will be negatively influenced by this one despicable act. Also, any person who ever has a personal adult love relationship with one of these victims will also suffer difficulties in that union due to that incident. The psychological damage is often permanent.

Another fact is also widely accepted by the professionals. Child molesters are not curable. Once one is discovered, we know that the compulsion of these perverts, to molest other children, will never end. No therapy for this condition has ever been successful. And none, short of a lobotomy, ever will.

Surely Judge Cecava knows that. Well, we know that she has been made aware of that fact. But, being an obsessive other-centered non-normie, she is driven by the angry forces in her psyche to prove that she can cure other self-centered non-normies. Her father was probably an alcoholic or drug abuser and she tried to cure him, but failed. That unsuccessful effort, however, didn’t dissuade her. It only increased her obsession to cure non-normie addicts.

This dysfunctional empathy, that other-centered non-normies almost always have, usually comes from having an addicted parent of the opposite sex. Since most alcoholics and drug abusers are men, that means that most of the other-centered non-normies will be women. This is why over seventy-five percent of the members of Al-Anon are women. It’s also why over seventy-five percent of alcoholics are men. And, unfortunately for these young women growing up, that alcoholic father is the very first male relationship that they encounter. For the rest of their lives they’ll either chase after a relationship with an alcoholic or shun a date with a man who has even a glass of wine with dinner. Usually, however, it’s the former.

The worst part, however, is that this adult woman will try to cure any compulsion that she encounters­whether it’s in her husband or (if a judge) in any criminal that comes before her bench, even if it involves short child molesters.

Oh, I forgot to mention, this type of woman is always a control freak. Because she grew up in an out-of-control environment, she is obsessed with controlling people and events around her. Now, with that in mind, let’s hear what she said to Richard Thompson as she sentenced him to ten years of probation instead of prison.

"I want control of you until I know you have integrated change into your life. I truly hope that my bet on you being OK out in society is not misplaced."

I rest my case.




The Latest Dangers in Cyberworld

By Nathan Tabor

When you’re a new mother or father, you learn quite quickly that your child has been born into a world filled with hidden dangers. You have to make sure that the stuffed animal you place in your baby’s crib doesn’t represent a choking hazard…that your child doesn’t fall out of his high chair…that your two-year-old doesn’t stray into the street while chasing a bubble.

Once your child graduates from the toddler years, you have to be concerned about whether he’s wearing a helmet when cycling through your neighborhood…or whether she’s spending enough time doing her homework. You have to be focused on what your child is eating…how your child is sleeping…and how your child is dealing with stress.

And, in this age of digital technology, you have to be absolutely obsessed with what your child is doing online.

Sure, you may know enough to keep your child from browsing through porn sites, but did you know that your teenager could easily become a victim of a sexual predator—just by occupying a place in cyberspace?

The problem is mySpace.com, a supposedly innocuous Internet website where people can post their pictures, chat, and post their musings about the universe. The trouble is, mySpace attracts individuals who want to sexually exploit teenagers. Newspapers are carrying headlines showing the troubles with mySpace: a 15-year-old runs away from home to be with a man she met on the Internet... a 24-year-old man is arrested for having sex with a 14-year-old girl he knew from mySpace…a 32-year-old man is accused of soliciting sex from a 13-year-old through mySpace.

In short, your Internet connection could easily become a pathway for a predator.

In such a situation, what can a parent do? Some parent activists have decided to arm themselves with information. They’re educating themselves about the dangers of mySpace. They’re learning about what their teenage sons and daughters are doing online. And they’re taking action to reduce the risks to their children.

At one point, these parents might have never thought that anything bad could happen to their child from his or her exposure to the World Wide Web. In fact, they might have encouraged their teens to spend time on the Internet in order to polish their computer skills and broaden their horizons. But now they’ve come to realize that no teen is immune to the lure of a clever predator in cyberspace.

Apparently, teens can become easy targets because they have a tendency to reveal too much information on the ‘Net. They’re naďve enough to believe that the people they meet through mySpace share their values as well as their interests. The teens may be looking for affirmation from their cyber-friend... especially if they have difficulty making friends at school. Because they’re often entering cyberworld through the safety of their parents’ homes, they may not realize that danger could be just a click away.

Fortunately, though, caring adults, including school officials, are awakening to the threat posed by mySpace. The rapid growth of the site has some school leaders taking concrete steps to protect children, which is considered to be the site’s main audience. In addition to the threat of sexual predators, the site may also attract drug dealers, child porn dealers, and a host of other troubled souls. If you wouldn’t want your child to interact with such people in your neighborhood, why would you let him or her communicate with such people on the Internet?

As a parent, you need to ask yourself some tough questions, such as how much time your children spend on line and whom they’re talking to. You also have to determine if they appear to be heading down a path that could lead to danger.

When our children are little, it’s so much easier. We simply have to hold their hands while crossing the street to make sure that they get safely to the other side. When they’re teens, we need to guide them safely to adulthood. And that might involve unplugging the computer once in a while.

Copyright © 2006 by Nathan Tabor




Making Sure Crime Doesn't Pay

by Nathan Tabor

It's hard for me to think of a job that's more frustrating these days than that of a local cop. Day in and day out, local police officers and sheriff's deputies lay their lives on the line in an effort to bring criminals to justice.

However, shortly after they bring these punks to the jailhouse, the lawbreakers are out on the streets again, free to commit even more heinous crimes. It seems that many of today's lawbreakers are nothing more than career criminals. You and I, as taxpayers, foot the bill for their care and feeding much of the time. And for that investment, what do we get? More crime, more frustration, more burned-out cops.

But Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County Arizona believes he has a better way. And for his crime-fighting efforts, he's re-elected time and time again.

What is the secret of Sheriff Joe's success? To put it bluntly, he treats criminals like criminals. The convicts in his charge lose the precious privileges they might have at other correctional institutions.

For instance, they have no right to smoke. They have no right to read pornographic magazines. They have no write to bulk themselves up with state-of-the-art weightlifting equipment. And they have no right to see "R"-rated movies in the cellblocks.

Oh, and they have to pay for their meals just like the rest of us do. Shocking? Maybe. But I say it's a good shock to the system, one that just might reduce the repeat offender rate.

The sheriff's inmates are required to work on county and city projects, providing local governments with no-cost labor. Interestingly enough, Sheriff Joe even started chain gangs for women so he would not be sued for discrimination.

Initially, he eliminated cable TV from jail, until he discovered there was a federal court order to require it. When he hooked up the cable again, he only permitted two stations: Disney and the Weather Channel. Cruel and unusual punishment? Hardly. That's the type of punishment you'd give your seventeen-year-old for refusing to mow the lawn.

The sheriff even went so far as to purchase the Newt Gingrich lecture series, which he plays in the jails. When a reporter asked him if he had a lecture series by a Democrat, he noted that a Democratic lecture series might explain why many of the inmates were in jail in the first place.

When inmates complained after the sheriff took away their coffee (which has no nutritional value), he responded, "This isn't the Ritz-Carlton. If you don't like it, don't come back."

Convicts are human beings and they deserve to be treated with dignity. However, the fact of the matter is they have broken the law and many of them have little respect for law enforcement officers, their own grandmothers, and even themselves. Criminals do not need coddling. They need discipline. If their parents or caregivers failed to supply it when they were young, it's up to people like Sheriff Joe to supply it in the best way he knows how.

Liberals may cringe at the sheriff's tent city jails, but the accommodations are certainly no worse than what our brave fighting men and women face in Iraq and other hot spots around the world. Sheriff Joe issued his own fighting words when he said, "It's 120 degrees in Iraq and our soldiers are living in tents too, and they have to wear full battle gear, but they didn't commit any crimes, so shut your damned mouths!"

We need more Sheriff Joes' jail keepers who are not afraid to run their jails like, well---jails. To make a criminal understand the severity of his actions, and to make him see that only misery awaits him if he violates the law again is actually the responsible, loving thing to do. True, it's tough love, but sometimes that's the only kind of love that works.

Copyright © 2006 by Nathan Tabor




SAVING CBS NEWS

By Nathan Tabor

To hear the mainstream media tell it, Katie Couric will be the savior of CBS News. She's perky, blonde — and getting blonder by the day. She is widely portrayed as a tough interviewer who manages to exude the sweetness of an Iowa poultry queen. The CBS Evening News — which is consistently dead-last in the ratings, welcomes her as a breath of fresh air - the type of lady who can attract the under 35 crowd - even though she herself is pushing 50.

But it will take more than a Colgate smile and a cheerleader personality to rescue network news, which seems to specialize in bashing anyone considered patriotic, pro-military, or anywhere to the right of Ted Kennedy. It's no accident that, during that dark period of American history between the two Presidents Bush, many ordinary Americans referred to CBS as the Clinton Broadcasting System.

It wasn't so long ago that robotic anchorman Dan Rather had to step aside amid the shame of circulating phony documents attacking the credibility of the leader of the Free World. I have never heard a single person complaining about missing Rather and his routine attacks on Republicans.

Broadcast journalists such as Katie Couric feign concern for the poor and downtrodden, even as they line their personal bank accounts with millions. As a viewer, you wonder sometimes if they care at all about slandering an honorable American such as Congressman Tom DeLay since, at the end of the day, they can simply return to their penthouse apartments and gated communities and not have to deal with the hardships in life faced by average Americans.

Long ago, viewers tuned out and turned off the nightly news. I don’t believe that these former viewers abandoned their interest in civic affairs. I simply know too many baseball dads and soccer moms who are heavily involved in their communities and care deeply about what happens to America. And certainly in the wake of 9/11, people are aware of the fact that the troubled people in a distant land can wreak havoc on the American way of life.

People abandoned network news because network news abandoned them. Sure, the networks can try gimmicks to lure viewers back—such as solo female anchors, letting viewers vote for the stories they want to see, and hiring heartthrobs as national correspondents. But that's all just window-dressing.

What the nightly news really needs is a dose of reality. It should be produced by people who live in the real world — the world of ten-year-old cars, monstrous medical bills, and coupon-clipping. The newscast needs to reflect the world that we actually live in — not the conservative hellhole envisioned by Barbra Streisand and the rest of the liberal crowd.

Network news should employ people of real diversity — and that would include people with conservative viewpoints. After all, conservatives lead many of our state legislatures, our businesses, and our athletic teams. Wouldn't it make sense for conservatives to be present in newsrooms as well?

The advent of cable and the ascension of Fox News have permitted viewers to see current events from a different perspective — one not colored by left-wing propaganda. After seeing a bit of fair and balanced coverage, many viewers probably decide they simply don't want to go back to network-style nonsense.

It will take more than a pretty face for an effective makeover at CBS News. It will also take a dedication to the pursuit of the truth, and a willingness to accept the fact that — believe it or not — most Americans love America and don’t want to see their President, Generals, and religious leaders routinely mocked on the small screen.




TAKE AN AMERICAN FLAG TO WORK

Chris Simcox, President of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps, today extended yesterday’s call by Minutemen for citizens across the country to make every Thursday in April "Take An American Flag To Work Day." The Minutemen are rallying Americans to culminate their patriotic show of support for our flag on Monday, May 1st—when communist, anarchist and other pro-illegal alien radicals are attempting to stage a nationwide strike promoting amnesty and unsecured borders. The Minutemen call on our nation's silent majority to publicly carry an American flag to work and everywhere they go, beginning Thursday, April 6, and continuing every Thursday in April through Monday, May 1st.

The extension through May Day of the “Take An American Flag To Work Day” campaign was requested by Minuteman volunteers and supporters who are outraged by the recent desecrations of the American flag by pro-illegal alien mobs. Current reports of the banning of the American flag and patriotic red, white and blue clothing by school districts in San Diego, CA and around the country in reaction to illegal alien student walk-outs have given even greater urgency to the "Take An American Flag To Work Day" initiative of the Minutemen.

As reported by Jerry Seper in The Washington Times on April 4, 2006, the May Day pro-illegal alien and unsecured borders boycott is being organized by the ANSWER coalition, a front group for the communist Workers World Party whose steering committee includes radical anti-American groups such as the Free Palestine Alliance, the Partnership for Civil Justice, the Nicaragua Network, the Korea Truth Commission, the Muslim Student Association, the Mexico Solidarity Network and the Party for Socialism and Liberation.

Simcox issued the following statement in support of "Take An American Flag To Work Day":

"The American flag has been burned, dragged in the streets, thrown in the garbage and hung upside down under the flag of Mexico on U.S. soil by pro-illegal alien protesters. Now Old Glory is being banned by U.S. government-funded schools around the country so as not to offend illegal aliens and their enablers.

"The American people are fed up with this assault on our American flag that our citizen soldiers, our families and forefathers, fought and died for—to keep this country free. The Minutemen are calling on our fellow Americans to defend Old Glory by publicly carrying it and proudly showing the red, white and blue wherever they go on Thursdays in April—work, school, shopping or just walking through the neighborhood.

"President Bush has called for a civil debate on illegal immigration and border security—but there is nothing ‘civil’ about desecrating the Stars and Stripes. He asks for a debate that ‘does not pit neighbor against neighbor’—but good neighbors in America are not trespassers, lawbreakers, or flag desecrators. The Minutemen urge the President to stop making excuses for anarchists, and to speak out in support of the American flag, and the rights AND responsibilities of liberty it so nobly symbolizes. The Minutemen stand in defense of America, honoring the duties and loyalties that secure our responsible self-government and the blessings of our God-given freedom.

"Fundamental respect for Old Glory seems the least the President should ask of the millions of illegal aliens to whom he’s offering amnesty—not only at the expense of the American soldiers, taxpayers and institutions paying in blood and treasure for their illegal presence on our territory, but also at the expense of our national honor, dignity and sovereignty."




THE DEMOCRATIC AGENDA

by Ken Mehlman

This week, liberal Democrat Russ Feingold called on the Senate to censure the President for a program that is successfully stopping terrorists. After months of searching, Democrat leaders are finally beginning to find their agenda: take away the tools America needs to fight terror. In the last 24 hours, fringe groups like MoveOn.org and Democrat leaders from John Kerry to Harry Reid to Dick Durbin have rallied to Feingold's side, praising his grandstanding as a "catalyst" for the investigation of the President.

Weakening our national security is their agenda. Is it yours? We are a nation at war. Our President has no more basic responsibility than to protect the American people and fight terrorists who want to kill us. It's one thing if a lone Senator wants our government to look the other way when an Al Qaeda terrorist contacts a sleeper cell inside the United States. It's entirely another when Democrat minority leader Harry Reid commends Feingold's censure move for "bringing [the terrorist surveillance program] to the attention of the American people."

Democrat leaders never miss an opportunity to put politics before our nation's security. And now, they would rather censure the President for doing his job than actually fight the War on Terror. It's what the MoveOn.org wing of their party wants, and now, it's their agenda - from the top of the ticket on down.




The ACLU Not Looking Out for Your Best Interests

By Nathan Tabor

When you hear the word America,the word liberty naturally comes to mind. This nation was founded upon the principle of freedom, that an individual citizen should be master of his or her own fate. We should be free to pursue the career of our choice, free to practice our faith, and free to establish homes and families.

Unfortunately, there are a number of threats to our liberty today. Big government, with its burdensome taxes and extensive regulations, threatens the liberty of small business owners. Corrupt judges threaten the religious liberty of schoolchildren who want to pray in public schools. Violent crime forces the elderly to be virtual prisoners in their own homes, an assault on their liberty. And the list goes on and on.

As a result of all this, you might think there's a tremendous need in this nation for something called the American Civil Liberties Union. After all, it seems as if our liberty is under constant attack from the very government we finance with our tax dollars. We need organizations in the public square that are willing to safeguard our freedom.

However, the ACLU is terribly misnamed. Instead of defending our liberties, this radical organization threatens our freedom in courtrooms around the country. The ACLU will not defend the rights of the unborn child, opting instead to sacrifice babies on the altar of something called choice. The ACLU is, in fact, one of the most vocal proponents of all forms of abortion.

If a public high school student wants to hold a prayer meeting at school, the ACLU is the first in line trying to sabotage the project. In the vocabulary of the ACLU, there is no such thing as religious liberty. Instead, the organization routinely fights for freedom FROM religion, not freedom to exercise religion.

If a mayor wants to place a Christmas display on the grounds of City Hall, the ACLU is at the ready to put a stop to it. If a judge wants to post the Ten Commandments in the courthouse, the ACLU is prepared to fight the idea all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

When the ACLU is not being downright dangerous, it is engaging in silliness. Take, for instance, the recent case of a high school boy who wanted to wear shorts in violation of his school's dress code. As teenagers often do, the boy decided to rebel. His form of protest? Wearing a skirt to class.

Sound strange? Not to the ACLU. In a bizarre turn of events, the organization decided to get involved in the controversy. Recently, it was announced that the ACLU had reached an agreement with school officials allowing 17-year-old Michael Coviello to wear skirts to school.

What about the rights of Coviello's classmates to attend school without the distraction of a skirt-wearing boy? What about the rights of taxpayers to have schools that are orderly and abide by some kind of standards in dress and behavior? The ACLU was only concerned with the supposed right of a teenage boy to engage in cross-dressing.

In a statement, Coviello said, I'm happy to be able to wear skirts again to bring attention to the fact that the ban on shorts doesn't make sense.

But what really doesn't make sense is that an organization that tries to portray itself as reputable would engage in this kind of foolishness.

The only word that adequately describes the ACLU is extremist. It is not extreme in the defense of liberty, it is extreme in imposing bizarre attitudes and policies on the rest of us.

©2006 by Nathan Tabor