OP ED: Arab factionalism

There are times it appears that the United States and all of western civilization are at odds with the Arab/Muslim world. Christians against religious terrorists. Muslims against infidels.

Well, the great Muslim world is a hodgepodge of conflicting interests. There are the good Muslims, the bury-the-head-in-the-sand Muslims, the two-faced Muslims and the out-and-out maniacal, mass-murdering Muslims. In the extreme, there does not appear to be any other group on earth with the ability to hold a grudge longer, and settle more grotesquely. For thousands of years, they have been a culture in a state of perma-violence.

Their war on us infidels is only one facet of their score-settling approach. As much as the Islamic terrorists hate westerners, Americans especially, they are equally rabid in their hatred for each other.

Recent peace talks between the Palestinian factions of Hamas and Fatah have broken off due to internecine warfare between the factions, including street killings, kidnappings and bombings. Pakistan is America’s ally against Afghanistan. The Kurds and the Muslims are killing each other still. Iran has had a long enmity with Iraq, even before the American presence. The relationship between Iran and virtually the rest of the Arab world is belligerent. Syria is engaged in a constantly simmering war with Lebanon.

Contrary to popular misconception, Muslim violence is not a religious-based concept. It is the first option in dispute settlement, and has been for centuries. There have been genocidal conflicts throughout history and in other parts of the world today. No example of tribal warfare can rival the level, consistency and duration of Muslim-on-Muslim violence.

One is not likely to find another example were religious tenets are so frequently and so effectively used to justify blood baths. While some have abused and distorted religious doctrine to perform hideous deeds (Hitler, the Crusades and the Ku Klux Klan come to mind), rarely is any such violence truly encouraged or justified by dogma.

The turbulence in the Middle East is not the product of religious differences. It is not about oil. It is not about ancient land rights. It is about a culture of violence and terrorism for its own sake. The events of the world only provide the pretext.

REACT: Racism by any other name

I hate racism. I really do. You may think that is a good thing. And it is. But it still gets me into a lot of trouble. You see, I hate ALL racism ... even black racism.

Unfortunately, if you point out examples of black racism, many deem you racists. We live under this huge double standard that racism is exclusively a white phenomenon, and we must view black racism as nothing more than ethnic pride.

Case in point.

Recently, Illinois Senate Presdient Emil Jones call for all blacks to support "brother" Barak Obama. (Someone should tell Emil, Barak is only is half brother). Jones' only criteria for his plea was the color of Obama's skin. He was railing against the many blacks who still like Hillary Clinton and others. If you take Emil's quotes and put them in the mouth of a white southern politician, you would think he was speaking for the KKK.

For the most part, Emil is affable and friendly ... a pretty nice guy. But you get that "black supremcy" language going, and he sounds a bit ... well ... racist.

We should heap more scorn on anyone playing the race card, black or white. Of course, that would pratically put my favorite black racists, Jesse Jackson, out of business completely. He is the David Duke of black racism. There is a lot of deserved media scorn on skinheads, white supremecists and neo-Nazis, but almost never much response to the outrageous and porvocative racist rhetoric of black hate groups or such prominent racists as Judge Eugene Pincham.

I personally think there would be a lot less racism if we dealt with the issue on a fair and equitable basis. Our civic and social referees should call "out of bounds" on both sides.

LMAO: The straight poop on Ted Haggard

Stop the presses!! Defrocked evangelist Ted Haggard, the married minister who had sexual encounters with a male prostitute (along with the purchase of a modicum of meth), has gone to counseling and “discovered” that he is straight – discovered, he says. Apparently this announcement came with a straight face (pardon the pun). I assume it also came with crossed fingers. It would have been more interesting to know when he “discovered” he was gay … or bi … non-straight.

MEMO TO TED HAGGARD: If you have sex with men without being threatened with a .45 automatic pistol, you are NOT straight. By definition, “straight” guys do not have sex with men. You may think you are a sinner. You may never have sex with a man again (I say 50/50 chance), but you are not now, and probably never have been and never will be, straight. But, thanks for the laugh.

Bush war politics and public relations.

I thought I would give it a little time for the aftermath to roll in before I express a view on President Bush’s State of the Union speech. See what the reaction was in various quarters. My patience in responding did not alter my initial impression. At this historic and crucial moment, Bush had an opportunity to stir the nation with one of those unforgettable speeches. Prior to his delivery, I heard that speech echoing in my mind. He was bold, reassuring, and confident. His words both informed and inspired.

As it turned out, my imaginary speech was far better than the one he delivered. He stood at-bat with bases loaded. Grand slam anticipation was in the air. Instead, he hit an infield single … man out at home plate … no score. It is not just a matter of his painfully obvious lack of orator skill. He apparently is incapable even delivering a well crafted-speech with some pizzazz – and he seems never to have even that well-crafted speech.

Where was the Kennedy quote regarding our determination as a nation? “… we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet and hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.” Those are the words that can rally a nation, and impose fear in any enemy.

Unfortunately, delivery carries content. Bush informed, but he did not persuade. He said, but he did not sell.

What saddened me most about his speech is that for all his forensic failure and public relations incompetence, I think the man is right. Unfortunately, the flame of truth was extinguished for lack of oratorical oxygen.

REACT: Escalating violence in Iraq

News item: Suicide bomber kills more than 100 men, women and children in Baghdad market.

Sometimes you just don't want to be right ... be an I-told-you-so. This is one of those occasions. The escalating violence in Iraq was predictable ... and I, for one, predicted it. The rising tide of public criticism of the war, and the peace activists’ efforts to weaken American resolve, has been successful. It culminated in the election of the pacifists and appeasers. At least that is the logical view of the terrorists.

The constant drum beat against the American war effort has emboldened the enemy. The likes of John Kerry and Ted Kennedy, wittingly or unwittingly, gave the mass murders hope and confidence. They read from the same script as Osama Bin Laden.

Prior to the election, I predicted -- to the angry chagrin of quite a few friends and associates -- that a Democrat victory would result in increased terrorist activities, and eventually a significant attack on the United States, here or abroad – or maybe both. It was as certain a consequence as is darkness after sunset. We already are witnessing the first phase of my sad prognostication.

Our failure to back the President in a time of war has increased the death rate, both among innocent citizens and our own good fighting men and women. It has prolonged the war. It has made victory over terrorism more difficult. It has greatly imperiled our homeland.

For the sake of partisan advantage and a personal disdain for Bush, many members of Congress, much of the press and many angry citizens caste aside the long-established and ever-necessary tradition of solidarity in conflict. They turned their backs on the brave fighting men and women, and the victims or tyranny and terrorism. They besmirched a just cause, and betrayed the national honor. They aided and abetted the enemies of mankind. All for personal glory and political gain.

This increased flow of blood stains the hands of the cowardly killers -- and those who gave them hope and encouragement. They are the enemy within. You know their names ... because they are in the newspaper almost every day.

Post Script: I know this may seem a bit harsh. But as a grandfather who has just seen his grandson (pictured) off to Iraq, I deeply resent anyone who encourages the killers to be even more murderous. I take it personally … very personally.

REACT: Clinton is “in” (trouble)

In the wake of Barak Obama’s (See! Even I cannot keep his name out of print), long awaited but not surprising announcement that he is “exploring” a presidential race, New York Senator Hillary Clinton has firmly announced that she is “IN”.

What she is “in,” however, is trouble. Not long ago, she was the golden girl of the Democrat party. I suspect many, including herself, felt her nomination was just a matter of time.

On the plus side was her successful run for the Senate, where she did not serve as the shrill strident voice her critics had hoped. She proved to be a popular carpetbagger, and shed that appellation with a strong win for a second term. She did not join the caucus of outrageous liberals, and basically did pretty well for herself.

Hillary has pretty much convinced the public that she is not simply the political benefactor of her husband. This is critical. She showed that she is not a tag-a-long, and more importantly, that she is the spouse but not the clone of Clinton the First.

She still has advantage over Obama with regard to debts and structure. Lots of the political decision makers owe the Clintons. They provided the spoils of government largess during Bill’s presidency, and a lot of political fundraising then and now. Early expectation enabled her to garner some important commitments.

However, all of that may mean nothing. Whether Obama is the man or not, he has shown Hillary to be vulnerable – a deadly perception in political warfare. This is not uniquely to Obama’s advantage. Governor John Edward could shoot past the two leaders as they mutually fizzle. After several months of Obama-Clinton battling over position, the public may welcome a “fresh” candidate. We should always keep in mind that early leads and fawning publicity are usually not good in presidential races. Early front-runners frequently fail.

The nation appears ready for a woman president, and has been so for about a decade. But the person still matter to the voters – with the possible exception of the now irrelevant feminist extremists. Hillary’s move to the center appears to be a wash. She gains some centrist support, and loses the ladies of the far left.

She can only do so much to change her image. A softer hairstyle, more business-like attire, and some shift in policy cannot overcome her stage presence, which is as soothing as fingernails on a blackboard. She suffers from inverse charisma.

Despite her efforts to move away from the ethical issues of her husband’s term, she will have to deal with them again. It is a hit like Ted Kennedy’s bridge over trouble waters. Though Chappaquiddick is not a matter of public attention every day (expect to the dead girl’s poor family), it reappeared in the more intense spotlight when Kennedy toyed with a presidential run. Each time, Chappaquiddick rose like a bad Brigadoon out of the swamp of Martha’s Vineyard.

As the campaign progress, the questions of HER culpabilities during the Clinton years will again resurface. I think one of the more damaging questions will surround the existence of those “enemy” IRS and FBI files in HER office – after she denied having them. There are also a number of issues to be explored regarding her work with the Rose law firm.

When this stuff hits the press at the most strategic times, it will not be the work of Republican Clinton bashers. It will come from the Obama team, specifically his top consultant David Axelrod, who has a well-deserved reputation as a very aggressive, tough, no-holds-barred political combatant. If Hilary ever went through a tollgate without paying, Axelrod will find it and use it to maximum effect. By the time he is done, the infraction will look like criminal road rage.

This is going to be one interesting political season.

OP ED: The presidential "race"

Okay, one more Obama item.

For those who are excited at the prospect of the first black man to reach the presidency … or vice presidency ... I have news for you. Obama is not black. He is half-white. In fact, culturally he has been most closely associated with his white mother -- until being black was a booster rocket for his remarkable political rise.

What is it about America that we insist a drop of Negro blood makes a person black? It is a widely held prejudice that has been around since the enlightened founders found it necessary to make a huge moral compromise on the issue of slavery and declared free blacks as fractional citizens. On the other hand, I have this silly notion that race identity has something to do with genetics, logic and common sense. If we want to recognize different “races,” which I abhor in the first place, we should at least get it right. Obama is as white as he is black, and in terms of his personal knowledge of the black experience in America, he is most certainly more white.

We used to call mixed race people, mulatto, but that term fell into disfavor – leaving us without an acceptable word. Multi ethnic is too bureaucratic – and why not, it was coined by government bureaucrats. Hybrid? Uh uh. The auto industry grabbed that one. Maybe he is the black-lite candidate, but somehow that does not work. Makes him sound mostly black. Some of my black friends (the real ones) refer to Obama as pepper over salt with the same implication found in the expression “a wolf in sheep’s clothing.”

Several years ago, the late Senator John Moynihan advised President Nixon how to win public support (before Watergate, that is). The Senator said, “If you are going to act like a Tory, you should speak like a Whig. If you are going to act like a Whig, you should speak like a Tory.” This makes me think that Obama’s success may be due to the fact that he looks like a black and speaks like a white. His challenge is to get the blacks to see him, and the whites to hear him. If that were to switch polarity, he would be lucky to be re-elected to the Illinois State Senate.

OP ED: Obama’s destiny

Following the precedent set by the national media, I will do several items in a row on Barak Obama. Well, if I really followed their lead, I would have to write something about my own junior senator every day – and I could not ever be critical. However, there is only so far I am willing to follow the sycophants in the press.

I have written previously that I do not think Obama will make it to the presidency – at least not this cycle. Apparently, in response to my opinion, the entire national press has quadrupled its promotional efforts. Obama is getting around more than Paris Hilton (Until recently, I thought that was lodging in France.)

If Obama can hold one of the “place” or “show” positions in the primaries, he is likely to be an obvious pick for vice president. His lack of experience would not be a factor because there is no real job description. Vice presidents usually go around giving nice speeches while the President runs the country. (Someone should have clued Bush in on that time-honored tradition.)

Obama is a gifted orator who can make platitudes sound like substance. He is the perfect political orator. He has, in spades (no pun intended), the most important qualities of a vice president – good looks, charm and great platform presence.

Hard-nosed political pundits would tell us, if they had the courage to say it out loud, that bringing a black (even a half black) into the White House as president is a more challenging task than as a vice president. I mean really, the seat of power has been known as the WHITE House for a couple hundred years. It takes the public time to adjust.

My belief that Obama’s political skyrocket will fizzle short of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue does not mean that I think the guy has no future. I just think he is not the man of the moment. I don’t think there is a woman of the moment either, but that is another story.

OBERSERVATION: Obama’s exploration

Barak Obama has announced the formation of his presidential “exploratory committee.” Under the so-called election reforms, we have another example of stupid outcomes. You see, in the good old days a candidate would “explore” unofficially, and then announce his intention to run and set up a campaign committee. Sweet and simple.

Now, because of these convoluted and counterproductive election laws, it is not wise to set up a campaign committee. Too much reporting, restriction and regulations. So, you set up an exploration committee.

There is a saying that if it looks, acts and sounds like a duck, it is a duck. Government regulators do not understand that concept. It may look, act and sound like a campaign committee, but it is not.

This bit of legislated euphemism serves no good purpose. It makes campaigns more expensive and detracts from discourse over issues. If you don’t believe that latter point, just keep in mind that I am now forced to waste time and space to bring this lunacy to your attention. We should be engaged over Iraq or Senator Barbara Boxer’s beliefs that only parents have opinions.

The problem we have in America, is that the so-called reformers are still at it – fixing things that are not broken.

REACT: Slavery apology

Having just issued a personal apology, I am familiar with the subject. This brings to mind the question of slavery and the call for apologies and even reparations – a euphemism for cold cash. Certainly there are situations where apologies are due, and even some compensation for the wrong – like “I’m sorry I backed into you car, here is my insurance agent.”

The problem with the slavery demand is that it does not meet any test of legitimacy. They are nothing more than a pandering to political correctness to shake down the taxpayers for some money.

Here are my rules for apologies. They should come from the person, or persons, who committed the wrong. Whoa! Now that is a revolutionary concept, don’t you think? Since when do people who committed no wrong have a requirement to apologize for anything?

Personally, I do not own any slaves … never have. The fact that my then 5-year-old daughter told neighbors that her adopted black older sister was our slave does not count – even though she did baby sit, wash dishes and take out the garbage on occasion. You can see from the accompanying photograph (including her adopted son, who now serves in Iraq), Yvette appears very happy despite the years of household chores.

As I mentally searched my family history to uncover some connection to slavery that might suggest some complicity in the past sins of indentured servitude, I realized that my ancestors were not in American when the hideous institution was in effect. They were growing grapes and making wine in a country that never had slavery.

Since this is the experience of most Americans, the notion of a national apology seems to be a stretch at best.

If there is any meaning to ensnaring long past institutions and groups into the slavery apology business, I think we have to be specific. As a mostly Republican type, my political ancestors in America were the abolitionist. They fought and died to end slavery. Democrats, on the other hand, were fighting to preserve human ownership. If the past matters so much, then why aren't the apology proponents call for a mass exedous of blacks from the Dem party? Shouldn't there be reparations for the the more recent segregation, Jim Crow laws and the lynchings that were a coomon part of the Democrat party agenda in the Republicanless "old south." This makes me think that if anyone is obligated to apologize, it is only the donkey butts who bear an apparent burden of guilt. Some of them (i.e. ex- KKKer Senator Robert Byrd) are still alive and can reasonably apologize for thier personal sins.

Now some activists think that commercial enterprises that had “ties to slavery” in the past … the waaaaaaaaaay long ago past … should apologize, pay reparations and even be denied government contracts. This suggests that it was not people who were responsible, but the corporate entity. In a funny sort of way, by transferring culpability to contemporary company officers, you are absolving the guys who really were culpable. This would be like holding some 22^nd Century Enron executives responsible for today’s debacle and scandal. I mean, what if the company passed hands because of a hostile take-over? The new guys now have to make amends for the old guard who fought against them. If we apply this reasoning to criminal justice, maybe we should hang Mussolini’s grandkids.

One argument raised by the slavery apologists is the ongoing negative impact of slavery. Any modern day suffering under racial prejudice should be compensated. Somehow, we are supposed to know what damage accrued to an individual because their great, great, great, great grandpa was horribly snatched from his village in Angola. In reality, there is no way to know the value of the outcome. Martin Luther King may have been a starving kid in the dry plans of Ethiopia had it not been for slavery. Even my Africa-to-Jamaica-to-America daughter might never have been part of my family. I think that would have been a loss for all of us. Just because many outcomes stem from an awful act does not make the outcome bad.

Any current prejudice can be addressed appropriately. If someone denies a black person their basic civil right, like renting an apartment, THEN there is a need to apologize and perhaps provide some monetary compensation. In this case, you have a real live perpetrator and a real live victim. You also have laws and courts and real evidence.

I bear no prejudice, and have proudly raised a bunch of kids without prejudice in their hearts. Consequently, I feel no compunction to atone. I am not guilty … not sorry for my conduct … not sorry for my ancestor’s behavior. I do not believe that there is a black person alive today who is due a nickel in reparation for the most surely wrongful suffering of ancestors he or she cannot even trace. In a true apology, don’t you have to recognize your wrongdoing? Feel guilty?

Okay, there are exceptions … like when my mother made me apologize to the kid down the block for hitting him. I gave a barely audible “I’m sorry” without sincere conviction. He deserved it. However, it was not as if I was being forced to apologize for my great grandfather whacking some neighbor kid. How ridiculous is that?

The idea of offering an apologia for slavery at this date is so absurd, so twisted and so disingenuous that it can only be explained as yet another example of politically correct liberal thinking.

REPLY TO DAN: Mea Culpa

I hate apologies, especially when I have to make them. In my haste to scribe a response to Dan between phone calls and pit stops, I blew it. Now, I could have just pulled down my errant item and reworked it more correctly, but that does not seem fair. So, I must bleed in public. Well, at least “in public” as far as anyone, besides Dan, reads my blog.

So Dan, mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. I am beating my breast (gently) with my fist as I was taught to do in Catholic elementary school.

I should not have cast Dan into the legions of the left. He may be a person like me, unwelcome at any end of the political table for the sin of apostasy. He refers to leaning Republican nationally and Democrat locally. I do not lean by geography, but simply find the Republicans, on balance, more likely to promote my causes. But I do not embrace all Republicans out of a sense of partisan loyalty. Philosophy trumps partisanship.

Where Dan and I do seem to have strong agreement is our evaluation of the Illinois/Chicago GOP. After the 1995 election, when I was personally ill-served by but local elephant herders, I was quoted (accurately, by the way) in the Chicago Tribune as saying something to the effect that one cannot begin to imagine just how dysfunctional the Chicago/Cook County GOP is until you see it from the inside. It is pathetic.

Dan has taught me a lesson. In the future, I will be more careful with my name-calling, reserving it for dyed-in-the-wool leftist lunatics.

REACT: The minimum wage fraud

Nothing sounds better than to increase a person’s wages, especially those who subsist at the lower rungs of the economic scale. If you are among those who think the Democrats unrelenting mantra of minimum wage is such a great idea, consider this. Why not legislate to raise all wages. That’s it! We will just rule that everyone in the nation will get a 100 percent pay raise. Think of all the good that will come of doubling the salary of every American.

Now, if you know anything about economics, you know that such a regulatory move by the government is a really bad idea. It would wreck the economy. It is toxic. So, what is so good about a little bit of monetary poison in the form of a minimum wage?

For sure, many employees will enjoy the benefits of the minimum wage, but not nearly as many as one might think. First of all, the vast majority of workers already exceed the minimum wage. Many other workers are part timers or contract workers, and not subject to minimum wage considerations. It does not apply to the legions of self-employed. Of course, it does not apply to the unemployed.

Oh! Speaking of the unemployed. Every increase in the minimum wage has created more unemployed as employers offset the payroll increase with job cuts in order to keep a fairly constant overhead. In labor circles, this is known as “benefiting the survivors.”

The other untoward outcome of a minimum wage increase is the accompanying increase in the cost of goods and services. We are already crying in our fried rice over the low wage advantage of Asia, and our new Democrat national policy is to exacerbate that situation by making domestic goods and services more expensive.

If you wonder why the Democrats would embrace a policy that would throw low-income people out of jobs, think cynically. I often point out that a party that relies on the poor and the unemployed as their power base are going to make more people poor and unemployed. The minimum wage issue, bad as it is for the economy, is great politically for the party that derives its power from pandering to the poor.

REACT: Response from the left

I take Umbrage at a recent comment by “Dan” about me in www.moveonandshutup.org. Actually, I am too congenial to really take umbrage, but I do love the word. Take umbrage. Nice.

Before I respond to Dan in substance, I have to say that any organization that starts dialogue under the banner “move on and shut up” may not be the best form for intelligent discussion. Happily, to use the expression, their bark is worse than their bite. Despite the doff of the cap to sensationalism, they operate well within the bounds of civil discord. The fact that their views are almost always wrong does not take away from the reasonable way they display their angst. These are the type of folks you could have over for dinner and enjoy what the late Sun-Times columnist and TV talk show host, Irv Kucinet, used to call “the lively art of conversation.” They may be on the inner edge of the fringe (we must be precise in our placement of people, eh?), but they are not a bunch of morons.

Which brings me to my point.

Writing on MoveOn …etc., Dan said, “I think it's fair to call the wingnut elements of the right wing a bunch of morons. Larry doesn't.” Actually, I thought that was exactly the point of my written comments. I am a critic of what I call the strident right – which I personally prefer over the word “moron.” I suggest that it is the left that is recultanct to call out the extremists on the radical left.

How so?

The right tends to boot out corrupt officials. The left re-elects them. The Right tends to repudiate those with extremist so-called right wing views. Skin heads and David Duke. The left gives homage to their extremeists. Cindy Sheehan et al.

Libeals believe that right field extends only five feet from the foul line and left field consumes the remainder of the outfield. For them, the moderation of center field is well into left field territory.

Therefore, I want to both correct and challenge Dan. I do very much disdain the politics of stridency and extremism, but reject the notion that solid philosophic belief or aggressive debate is equivalent to extremism. My challenge is to hear Dan cite the examples of left wingnut policies and personalities he would call moronic. And if Cindy Sheehan is not on his list, he is being duplicitous.

I do agree with Dan on the practical side of the gay rights issue. It is a loser for the GOP. One only has to see what happened to the donkey party in the 1970s, when they became the party of narrow special interests of the past. They spent the next 30 years sliding into second party status. Whether this last election is a turn around or an anomaly is yet to be seen. However, with the GOP starting to congeal into a party of special interests and the defenders of the old culture, the lesson offered by the Dems should not be overlooked.

REACT: Response from the strident right

As predicted, some of my most strident conservative “friends” have taken abusive exception to my opinion on gay rights and flag burning.

Taking up the latter first, some right-wingers call me a “traitor” to America for not protecting the flag. (Incidentally, I have one conservative adversary who calls me … and everyone … a traitor for merely deviating from HIS personal interpretation of conservatism. He is the part of the fringe that would scare me if he were in power – sort of the Hitler-lite type.) Anyway, for those of you who disagree with me on the flag issue … amen … that’s what’s great about America. Those of you who raise the disagreement to the level of hateful accusations, I say … ah … hmmmm … okay … time for polite rhetoric. You’re … ah … WRONG! You see, while you only protect the fabric, I protect a noble history of freedom for which it stands --- or at least is supposed to stand. The very reason the flag guardians need a Constitutional Amendment to “protect” the flag is that the very notion is UNconstitutional. It violates that all-important First Amendment – our freedom of speech. So… dear conservatives … which is it? A new controversial authoritarian amendment for the evolving police state OR our right of free speech. How can any true conservative be suckered into this flag protection garbage?

Now on the matter of gay rights. What is the problem here? We live in a society that has accepted gay life as a legitimate part of it. My son attends a Catholic school where one kid has two mothers and another has two fathers --- and no one, including the Church administrators seems to have a problem with it. Whatever you think of gayness … sin or sickness … you cannot deny basic human and cultural rights, and civic equality. Also, I think there is a good chance that, as God’s children, gayness may well have been part of His intended plan of creation. Wow! Now there’s a thought. There is a third option besides sin or sickness. My stand is based on my desire to maintain a consistent conservative philosophy as best I can see it. As a spiritual person, I am not about to judge my fellow man --- even those wearing dresses. (Okay, I may judge their fashion sense, but that’s it.) This is what the bible admonishes me to do. Judge not.

So, in matters of flags, I am a strict constitutionalist and First Amendment defender. In matters of fags, I am an adherent of the bible, and least the judge not portion. How much more conservative can I be?

REACT: Cindy Sheehan in Cuba

I see where the shameless and irrelevant Cindy Sheehan has popped up in Cuba as her latest anti-American booking. The only thing that I can see she has proven is the the concept of treason is no longer valid. How ironic it is that she opposes a country that grants her total freedom to be an unprincipled traiter, and favors those who would have summarily exeucuted her for even nominal opposition. Oh well! I like her new name, which has not been widely reported -- the war whore. It really not very nice, but it resonates.

OP ED: Being a conservative ain't easy

Being a conservative is not easy … never has been. I am not referring to the drubbing of the GOP and the ascent of the strident left-wing leadership in the Congress in last year’s election. I am not referring to the unabated conservative bashing by the national press cabal.

I AM referring the idiocy in the ranks of the right. Cases in point:

1. Congressman Virgil Goode (R-VA) goes bonkers because Congressman-elect Keith Ellison (D-MN), a Muslim, prefers to be sworn in with his hand on a Koran rather than a Christian bible. This is a no brainier. As a conservative who believes in individual rights, I could care less if a congressman-elect want to be sworn in on his college term paper. We have too many examples of official malfeasance to believe that the bible or the oath produces moral legislators. I also believe that by laying his hand on his own religious text, it has more meaning. To make him swear on a book outside his belief nullifies the implication of the oath. It is a fraud. So, how can we be a conservative if we do not respect the individual right of a Muslim congressman? Though I am not likely to agree with the new Muslim legislator, I think it says a lot about America that we can elect a Muslim to high office in an atmosphere that would just as easily promote prejudice and intolerance. Please delete the very bad Virgil Goode from the register of bonafide conservatives.

FOOTNOTE: It was decided that Congressman-elect Ellison will be allowed to swear in on a Koran owned by Thomas Jefferson. It will be walked over from the vault of the Library of Congress for the ceremony. Oddly, I AM bothered by taking a national treasure from safekeeping for the indulgence of a freshman legislator. He should certain be allowed to swear on the Koran, but let him bring his own dang copy. This has all the earmarks of a public relations stunt drummed up by the new House leadership.

2. Then there is Pat Robertson. I have a great regard for religion and the religious. However, I am not compelled to believe that everyone who has “reverend” in front of his or her name is automatically a pious theologian. If you have read my blog, you know that I think the REVEREND Jesse Jackson is a Machiavellian, power-hungry, racist grandstander. My feeling towards the REVEREND Pat Robertson is not so precise. I just think he is an egomaniacal nut case. In his latest idiocy, he claims that God has told him (apparently God talks to him a lot) that there will be a major terrorist attack on the United States late in 2007. Duh! If I wanted to play fortuneteller, that is one prediction I would make. Of course, Robertson admits that he has been wrong in the past. However, he does not explain how the infallible God gives him the wrong info. In one instance, he claims God told him that a devastating tsunami would hit the United States in 2006. First, we do not get tsunamis. That is an eastern hemisphere phenomenon. We get tidal waves. I would think God would know the correct term for his vehicles of wrath. Tsunami? Tidal wave? No matter. The prediction was a wash out. Robertson notes a bit of flooding in New England as a “partial” fulfillment of his prophecy. So… if some time in 2007 a small grenade goes off in front of a Wal-Mart in the middle of the night, THAT would be a “partial” fulfillment of Robertson’s God-given warning. His prediction skills are on the level of newspaper horoscopes … interpretation is everything. So, here is my dilemma. Either God is not infallible, or Robertson is delusional. Please excommunicate Robertson from the role of the righteous right.

3. As a conservative in a multi-theological nation, I think we have to separate religious beliefs from conservative principles when the two come into conflict. Gay rights. It is certainly permissible for any religious group to define sin for their voluntary membership. However, no self-respecting conservative is going to deny basic civil rights of individual freedom to any group. I think gays should be allowed civil unions (leaving “marriage” to the religions to perform or deny). All marriages in America are civil unions, protected by a body of law. It is just that some of those civil unions are sanctified as marriages by the religious community. I say, let adult human couples decide who they want to partner with in a civil union, and let the churches decide who they will bless with a religious rite. If we were as tolerant as good conservatives should be, we would not find it so remarkable that Dick Cheney has a gay daughter, and we would not find it incomprehensible that she loves and supports her father. So … please kick the pain-in-the-ass homophobic gay bashers out of the conservative closet.

4. I think burning a flag or two is one of those “inalienable” rights the conservative founders had in mind. It is a form of protest that is currently protected under the all-important First Amendment. That is why the fascist conservatives need to amend the Constitution to make it illegal. It is a bad, un-conservative concept dragged into the public spotlight by the nationalist element of the body politic. I am a flag waver, but the flag I wave in pride can be flown upside down to indicate distress, warn as a bikini as a means of avoiding indecent exposure, and burned to ashes in peaceful revolt – the kind Thomas Jefferson so well understood. Our constitutional government has survived quite will with an occasional burning of Betsy Ross’s needlecraft. So … let the flame of freedom drive the nationalists from the conservative campground.

Some may say that my desire to cast the philosophic heretics out of the conservative movement will destroy the coalition that provides the core power base. I prefer to think of all the people who would join our ranks if it were not for the lunatics who too often characterize … nay … mischaracterize our cause.

EULOGY: The Jerry Ford I knew.

President Gerald Ford is laid to rest. The nation remembers his reputation for fairness and decency. His sense of being a common man was reflected in his favorite self-effacing retort, “I’m a Ford, not a Lincoln.” In reality, he was more like America’s justifiably most revered President than Ford would admit, or even believe.

Both were men whose road to the Presidency was most improbable. Though Lincoln was elected, his victory required such a convergence of unlikely events that no Victorian odds-maker would have bet on his early potential. Ford’s ascent was astonishing. He was the first, and perhaps the last, President to come to office without ever having been elected President or Vice President. Thanks to the newly minted 25^th Amendment, President Nixon had the opportunity to nominate a person to fill the vacancy in the office of Vice President occasioned by the resignation in disgrace of Spiro Agnew. Soon afterward, Nixon, himself, was felled by the political maelstrom know simply as “Watergate.” While it is unfair to call Ford an accidental President, as he has been dubbed, it was an outcome beyond reasonable anticipation.

Both Lincoln and Ford came to the office in a time of Constitutional crisis and deep political divisions. Neither brought with them an elitist pomposity that is too often found in those who rise to great heights of fame and power. Both were considered simple men, more likely to depend on common sense than academic acumen. If they were good communicators, it was because they both understood plain-speak. In fact, Lincoln transformed public oratory from the prolonged flamboyance and dramatics of such people as Edward Everett to the simpler style and form we find to this day. Lincoln ended the era of orators-as-entertainers, and nowhere more convincingly than at Gettysburg.

Ford and Lincoln were genuinely respectful of those with whom they disagreed. More importantly, they were magnificently forgiving. Had he lived, Lincoln would have issued general pardons to the military and political leaders his armies defeated. He saw no benefit to expose the nation to an era of trials and hangings. Ford sacrificed his political future to spare the nation the agony of placing a former President on trial. Both Lincoln and Ford believed that reconciliation could best be achieved through forgiveness.

It is said that Lincoln was an easy man to know. People felt comfortable in his presence. He was an engaging conversationalist, eager to listen and quick to quip. His conversational style did not change, whether he was in the presence of a common citizen or a prominent person.

I cannot know from experience whether the characterization of Lincoln is fact or fable. I can say from experience that those qualities at least attributed to the 16^th President are very much the traits of Ford. Among the number of Presidents I have been privileged to meet in person, Jerry Ford (as I knew him) stands out as among the kindest and most descent men in politics.

My first contact with Ford came in my days as a consultant to the White House during the Nixon administration. As Minority Leader of the House of Representative, there were a number of occasions where I was invited (sometimes ordered) to meet with Ford at public forums or private meetings in his office. I was impressed by two qualities of the former President. After our first meeting, he never failed to recognize me by name in any setting, and had no problem referring to past conversations – whether the subject of critical policy or some anecdote of my personal life.

I also was impressed by the fact that when speaking to a person, he was fixed on the conversation. His eyes did not dart around the room looking for the next encounter or more important personality, as is a very common trait of politicians.

And then there was that Lincoln-esque casual friendliness. In the presence of Ford, one never felt awe – and lest not after a moment or two of conversation. It was more like meeting a nice guy at a local tavern. I sometimes wondered if this was not to his detriment. Maybe all those inaccurate parodies and mockeries of his intellect and physical facility would not have been so easily rendered if it had not been for his commonness. Some have even contended that the Chevy Chase comedic rendition of a stumblebum President Ford cost him the election.

During my years in Washington, and for a time following, I remained in modest friendship with Ford. On the occasion of the birth of my first child, Ford visited and brought flowers for my wife. He attended a number events to which I invited him. Two occasions stand out in my mind. The first was a Smithsonian Institution reception in recognition of a collection of cast iron toys donated by Sears, Roebuck & Co. He was then Minority Leader. The other was after he took over the Oval Office. He accepted my invitation to be guest of honor at a charitable event in Chicago (see photograph).

As a lobbyist for Sears, and before gifts to legislators were the subjects of scandal, I recall giving the President an Olympic tie. Sears was the outfitter of the Olympic team that year. After the Olympics were over, Ford returned the tie back to me as a personal memento. It was a tie he wore frequently.

I was also a participant in an incident involving Ford at the 1976 GOP National Convention – an incident in which he most likely never knew of my role. I was there as communications director for the Illinois delegation led by former Governor Dick Ogilvie. To add to the festivities, I convinced a friend at Whamoo to give me 500 Frisbees to add to the convention floor festivities. They were inscribed, “I flipped my Frisbee over Ford.” It was a site, as hundreds of Frisbees took to the air before and after his acceptance speech. As the President was coming to the podium, or receding from the podium (I was never told which), one of my flying saucers bounced off the President’s forehead – much to the chagrin of the Secret Service. I was later told that my most lasting contribution to the American national political conventions was the banning of Frisbees and other airborne objects.

Apart from the tie and a Frisbee or two, my most cherished Ford possession is a series of three letters in which Ford responded to my congratulations on his ascent to the presidency. The content of the letters, and the fact that they are written on the respective letterheads of the United States Congress, The Vice President and the President, make them cherished documents, personally and historically.

It has not been many years since I have enjoyed his company, but the memories will never dim. I feel grateful as an American to have lived through those difficult times with my friend Jerry Ford at the helm. More personally, I have been most fortunate to have had the pleasure to know such a good and decent human being. Jerry Ford was a giant of a man, but never looked down on anyone. God bless him, and may he rest in the peace of eternity he so well deserves.

OP ED: Welcome to the Lieberman Senate.

Well… now that the Democrats control the Senate … ah … hmmmmm. What did I just say? The Democrats control the Senate? No. No. No. In fact, the person who controls the Senate is a man the Dems booted … betrayed … insulted. The person who controls the Senate is the newly independent Senator from Connecticut, Joe Lieberman.

His thumping (the new term of art, thanks to Bush) of the Democratic nominee, who was vigorously endorsed by Lieberman’s old colleagues in the Senate, makes Lieberman a truly independent legislator. He is free of party loyalty and entitled to more than a little pay back, which I feel certain will be the case at the most critical moments.

On every close vote, he is going to be the “go to” guy. On any issue where Lieberman is needed to create a Democrat majority, his price can be high. If he decides to vote with the GOP on Iraq, abortion, and some social and economic measures, he creates a tie in the Senate, and Vice President Dick Cheney gets to caste the deciding vote.

At the same time, the guy who might have balanced off Lieberman by crossing over to the Democrat ranks, GOPer Lincoln Chaffee, was retired by the voters. This is truly the “Lieberman Congress.” He is the Majority Leader of Self --- a majority of one.

It is going to be interesting, to say the least.

REACT: If you can't join 'me, draft 'em

In the previous blog, I alluded to the legislation proposed by New York Democrat Charlie Rangel, which would re-impose the draft. As I think about it, this deserves a little more attention.

Who would have expected it? After a significant victory at the polls based on opposition to the Iraq war, the grateful Democrats propose to end all wars by … ya have to love the logic … by bringing back the old draft. If this proposal had seen the light of day during the campaign, it would likely have cost the Democrats the Senate – maybe even the House.

If I happened to be one of the ubiquitous anti war peaceniks who gave the all to the Democrats, I would be a bit upset. Instead of sparing my kids the rigors of war, I now set them on acertain path to participation in the much despised military-industrial complex.

Rangel suggest that if the offspring of the warmongers had to face the enemy, there would be no wars. Well, under that thinking, there would be no United States … no France … no England. There are times an honorable nation has to repel the forces of evil.

But, even in an unpopular war, the draft would make cannon fodder of the children of the hawks and the doves. At least, the hawks, doves, and yes, even the chickens have a choice.

Rangel has it all backwards, as usual. (You know, in D.C. he not considered the sharpest knife in the drawer.) A voluntary military require … well… volunteers. This means that an unpopular war would be difficult to man (or woman). Noble battles tend to draw more volunteers. With conscription, the super hawks in Washington can undertake any war … popular or not without concern for troop levels

Finally, let’s remember that the powerful and influential will always find ways to get around “the system.” Don’t count on THEIR kids to be in the front line. It didn’t happen under the old draft system, and won’t happen in any new one. Those with the means and the desire to exempt their kids will find a way.

They say that Rangel is offering draft legislation just to make a point, with no desire to see it passed – and no ability to get it passed. If that is the case, then his point is well made. Rangel is a contentious fool.

And he now heads the all powerful Ways and Means committee. Ouch!

OP ED: GOP may be the winner in this eleciton.

Since I think political philosophy is much more important than partisanship, I have come to the conclusion that the defeat of the Bush-led Republican party is a good thing – for the nation and for the conservative cause.

I am pleased that the shift in power was accomplished by a very small shift in voter preference. When the nation is just about equally divided along party lines, it only takes a few votes to cause seismic changes in relative partisan power. Contrary to Democrat claims and desires, this was not a mandate for change, but a mild course adjustment for the public. If the Dems actually believe their own utterances, they are likely to pursue an agenda that will put the elephant party back in the driver’s seat in two years.

Much of the Democrat success was through the recruitment of candidates a lot further to the right than had been the case in the past. Pro-lifers and born again Christians were among the Election Day winners. The upcoming Congress will not likely jump too far to the left. It is very likely that the House and Senate leadership, being more of the strident left tradition, will find rebellion in the ranks if the leadership advances an agenda too liberal for their members – and the American people.

If the Democrat victory is not as scary as it first appeared, the GOP defeat is not quite so tragic. This Republican administration lacked a conservative compass. Elements of the Patriot Act invoke a freedom-stealing nationalism that any legitimate conservative would abhor – and we did. The spend thrift ways of the GOP majority was disheartening to the point of despair.

It was not easy supporting the D.C. Republicans merely because the alternative seems so much more egregious. Now we have the alternative. Now we can plan for a future with a renewed (hopefully) GOP most dedicated to principle.

In addition, the Republican leadership in the House and Senate was uninspired, at best. One would think that any change would be an improvement, but looking at the installation of the junior uninspired leadership to the top posts suggests that the congressional Republicans still don’t get it. It is ironic that Dennis Hastert was at once the longest serving GOP Speaker, and the least effective. Senate leader Bill Frist had the moxie, but lacked the charisma. Their good-old-boy approach was one of the under reported reasons for the collapse of the vaunted GOP political machine.

REACT: Milton Friedman's last thrity years are a gift.

The legendary Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman has passed away at the age of 94. That is quite an accomplishment. If you do not think so, you are not aware of how I almost killed him some thirty years ago.

I have two professional relationships with Friedman involving two of his greatest passions. The most recent was as an advisor to the Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice. Way back when, however, I was retained as a senior advisor to the National Tax Limitation Committee, a group founded by my friend Lew Uhler. Friedman was the intellectual powerhouse behind the concept of a tax-limitation constitutional amendment.

One day it was my task to chauffeur our group from our hotel to a meeting in a nearby office building. We were running late. Lew popped into the front passenger seat. Friedman and his wife, Rose, took up the rear seat. I was driving. Since we were running late, I did a bit of a jackrabbit start.

Well … Friedman had not exactly taken up his seat, as I said. He was in the process of taking up his seat, with on foot on the floorboard and the other on the pavement. As the car lurched forward, Freidman flew backward. Rose’s scream brought me to a halt. As I looked back, the rear door was open, the seat behind Lew was empty… and there was some guy rolling around on the ground a few feet behind the car.

Fortunately, he survived without as much as a bruise. Outside of an abrasion on his suit, he was in mint condition. If everyone every thought of Friedman as anything but gracious, you were not there to see his kind assurances, and his assistance that I drive – despite the understandable offer from Lew to take over the wheel.

While I am sad to see Friedman leave this world without the benefit of his contemporaneous wisdom, I am thankful for all the days he has been around since that fateful day.

OUTRAGE: What makes Horist see red?

OUTRAGE #1: Illinois Senator Dick Durban has proposed legislation that would excuse government lawyers from the burden of their student loans. You got it. This special class of public servant will be allowed to opt out of their contractual obligation to repay us taxpayers the money we fronted for their lucrative careers. Since a lot lawyers cum judges spend a least a portion of their career on the public payroll, this could be a pretty big blow to the Student Loan Program, which is not exactly in good shape to begin with. Also, consider that Prosecutorial abuse is reaching pandemic proportions, and these are the very people Durbin would give yet another reward. This also means some other income-limited person will not get his or her student loan. Talk about a program to help the rich at the expense of the poor. How much more can we do to make lawyers a privileged class not seen since we slipped out from under the yoke of royalty? Shakespeare wrote that society could only improve if we kill off the lawyers. (Gotta love the Bard of Avon. <-- That’s a reference to Shakespeare for those of you who attend urban public schools.) While slaying attorneys is a bit extreme (in most cases), fewer lawyers and LESS special privileges would be a healthy move. But what can you expect from lawmakers who mostly are … lawyers. If this trend continues, lawyers well surpass public school teachers as the most coddled class in our society. Yes, there are good lawyers … even great ones … about 20 percent of them, I would estimate. Damn few go on to be judges, however – and almost none work for the big law firms.

OUTRAGE #2: Illinois Senator Dick Durbin.

OUTRAGE #3: Convicted felon and former Illinois Governor George Ryan was given an undeserved Christmas present when the Appellate Court said he could remain a free man until his appeal is heard. Since the appeal could drag on for years, many think Ryan will never serve a day behind bars. No wonder Illinois is the most corrupt state in America. This is a guy whose corruption led to the deaths of six children in an auto/truck accident where the truck driver was operating with an illegal license obtained by cash to Ryan’s campaign fund. Unfortunately, those kids will not have an opportunity to appeal their fate.

OUTRAGE #4: Did you hear about Lisa Jensen, the woman who was ordered to remove a Christmas wreath in the shape of a peace symbol because it offended some (at least one) of her neighbors in the Loma Linda Homeowners Association of Pagosa Springs, Colorado? Seems like Association President Bob Kearns demanded that his Architecture Control Committee (a bit Orwellian?) order the removal of the offending holiday greenery. He said it was an anti Iraq war message, some said a symbol of Satan. The good Committee refused. (Whew! Still patriots among us.), so Big Brother Bob then fired the Committee, and imposed a $25 a day fine on the nice lady. She now owes more than $1000. Let me first say that I understand she was probably sending a somewhat subtle political message about the war. What about the Satan thing, you ask? Well … fruitcakes are not the only thing with lots of nuts. Let me add that I would probably disagree with the woman’s politics and the message –more likely to agree with good ole boy Bob on most matters. However, I do cherish that First Amendment. How can we talk of free speech if a person cannot express something as innocent as a political opinion? This is Christmas, for God’s sake. (ß Notice “Christmas” and “God” in the same sentence. Not something you see often these days.) What a horrid concept – an expression of peace during the Christmas season. Bah humbug!! But, isn’t that what it is all about, love and peace? Or, have I been theologically misled by the Hallmark Card Company. It seems the First Amendment is coming under assault from every direction these days. This kind of stuff worries me because with liberals in charge of Congress and the courts, I now have to worry about MY free speech. Since I am not willing to defend Lisa’s right to the death, a la Nathan Hale, I can at least offer her this testy blog item.

OUTRAGE #5: Newly anointed Speaker-to-be Nancy Pelosi has indicated her support for the naming of Congressman, Alcee Hasting as head of the House Intelligence Committee. Such a selection only shows that there is not enough intelligence in the House to even form a committee. You may not recall (Pelosi is hoping that you do not) that the now “Honorable” Mr. Hasting was the former Florida federal judge who was impeached and booted from the bench for bribery. Since his unethical activities limited his employment in the real world, Hasting opted to run for Congress – a suitable profession for any rogue. Despite his record (or because of it), he was elected. But, guess who booted him off the bench. The very House of Representatives soon to be lead by Speaker Pelosi. Obviously, Alcee lives by the adage, “If you can’t beat 'em, join “'em.” Hoooweeeeever, seems like the Congress has given Pelosi her comeuppance again. Facing certain defeat, Pelosi has withdrawn her nomination.

REACT: Chaffee kills Bolton in bitter revenge

It appears that Republican Rhode Island Senator Lincoln Chafee, who was defeated (yea!!!) in the recent election has decided to express his bitterness and disloyalty by voting against the confirmation of John Bolton as ambassador to the U.N. – thus dooming a permanent appointment. His historic arrogant, ugly and dishonest attitude was the reason Republicans and Democrats alike were pleased to see him “retired” by public demand.

Just when we had an ambassador who was not more of a society figure than a diplomat. Not since Jean Kirkpatrick has the United States been more effective and firmly represented. Despite the fears or critics, Bolton has proven himself to be an outstanding representative of our country. He has been able to advance American interests as his first priority.

This puts our world interests on hold, with the likelihood of the congressional Dem leadership playing hardball on this appointment. – and others.

As a fan of Abraham Lincoln, I think Chaffee should be stripped of his name too. Hmmmmm. Benedict Arnold Chaffee has a nice ring to it. Don't you think?

REACT: Finally ... Dan Rather exposed

Former CBS talking head, Dan Rather has finally reached his level of professional standing. You will recall that he was forced into early retirement for broadcasting a patently false story about George Bush. Well he pops up on the election team of Comedy Central, along with pseudo newscasters Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart. Rather than not have his face on camera, Rather showed that professionalism and dignity are not obstacles to vanity. He could not have been more ridiculous if he had appeared in baggy pants and bulbous red nose, and sprayed Colbert and Stewart with seltzer water. Of course, as a journalist, Rather has always been ... well... rather of a joke.

LMAO: Kerry has a way with jokes

It must have been a joke because I can’t stop laughing. I am referring to Senator John Kerry’s statement about the men and women in the armed services. He told a bunch of students that if the completed their education they would have a good life. If not, they go to Iraq.

Well … you can imagine the reaction to that bit of advice. Only dummies go to war. Maybe that is why he served in the military. After all, he is rather stupid.

Kerry then generated another round of guffaws with is apology. He said that if anyone misunderstood his meaning, he is sorry. Hahahaha. Get it. If YOU were so stupid that you did not get his meaning of his joke, then he is sorry.

This makes me think. I should apologize to the Senator for saying he is stupid. So, here goes. “Senator, I wish to humbly apologize for drawing attention to your stupidity.” Whew! That makes me feel a lot better.

Like any good comedians, Kerry saves the really funny line for last. Through his staff he restated his joke to mean that it if you’re a dumb or intellectually lazy, you get stuck in Iraq. “Just ask President Bush.”

Hahahahaha

I think the joke is on me, because it sounds like he just restated the same opinion, but put in George Bush’s name as one of those “I’m still angry that you beat me” things.

I guess the funniest thing about Kerry is the humiliation schtick. The whole episode is like dropping your pants at a wedding party just to get the obvious laugh. How can you not laugh at Kerry. He must be a great comedian, because hardly anyone takes him serious.

Hahahahahaha

OUTRAGE: Corruption's Double Standard

I still can't get over the extent of news media bias against Republicans when it comes to scandal. I think it is worth repeating the most recent glaring example. GOP Congressman Mark Foley vs. the late Democrat Congressman Gerry Studds.

Foley sends out salacious emails to underage male pages (certainly outrageous, but so far no one is saying illegal). He immediately resigns in the face of certain censure and getting booted out of Congress. He apologizes and seeks treatment. (Granted, the latter is probably a public relations ploy.) He is scorned in the national press. Front page headlines demonize him, stirring up a public frenzy of disdain. There even are calls for the Speaker of the House to resign. Foley is grist for the talk show mills. Pundits pick at the bones of his political career.

Gerry Studds actually f&#ks (sorry for the not-so-disguised word, but his action deserves no euphemism) a 17 year old male page when times were even less tolerant of gayness. He refuses to apologize, and claims he did nothing wrong. His Massachusetts colleague, Barney Frank, also gay, makes minimizing jokes of his behavior. The Democrat party leadership (in control of Congress at the time) does nothing -- not even a note home to his parents. Instead he goes on to being an "honorable member" of the House for 16 more years.

Oh … were this just a rare example.

OP ED: Senator Reid lucky to be a Democrat

You may have missed the latest example of media bias, or how Democrats get away with murder. (Okay, only Senator Kennedy really gets away with murder, but you get the idea).

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has been found ethically challenged, and perhaps criminally culpable, for a very large real estate transaction in his home state. Seem "Dirty Harry," as he is aptly named, invested $400,000 in a land deal in 1998. He then turn around and sold it off to a lobbyist friend three years later. Now this could raise some eyebrows. Was the transaction a real market deal, of was there some hidden profits from his lobbyist friend for "services rendered?"

But wait! THAT is not the deal.

Seems like three years AFTER Dirty Harry dumped the land, the lobbyist sold it for $1.1 million. That must have made the lobbyist really happy, and Dirty Harry sorry he did not hold on to the land. But nooooooo. Because Dirty Harry got the money.

Confused? Let me repeat. Three years AFTER he sold the real estate, the Democrat leader of the U.S. Senate was gifted with $700,000 in "profit" by a lobbyist.

The Senate did not investigate his behavior because Dirty Harry, who was a member of the ETHICS COMMITTEE at the time, did not note the transaction on his ethics statement. Yep! Forget. An honest mistake. Anyone can forget $700,000 here and there. Besides, we was very busy holding press conferences accusing Republicans of corruption.

Sure there was s small drivel of publicity about this outrageous, unethical and arguably illegal behavior. But not enough to suggest anything close to balanced reporting. Not enough to create a public outcry. Not enough to motivate an investigation.

So, where are the media calls for an investigation? Where are the headlines and editorials demanding explanation? Where is the demand for a Senate internal investigation? What was the land deal that turned $400,000 to $1.1 million in so short a time?

Once again Democrats show an extraordinary immunity to scandal. Maybe it is because the public sees Democrat corruption as normal. God knows, there is enough of it. And someone besides God would know if there were balanced responses.

REACT: Madonna and Child (and not the Christmas story)

Pop Singer Madonna and her hubbie, Guy Ritchie, recently adopted a child through some sort of African express lane. It was more like picking a child off the shelf than a traditional adoption process.

Now it is all shaping up to be a scandal. While other potential parents wait years for sluggish bureaucrats to run a kid through the process, Madonna was able to get instant results based on her celebrity. Ergo, the scandal.

Well, this is surly a first class scandal. Shocking. Disgusting.

Oh! I am not condemning Madonna. No ... no ... no! What is scandalous, shocking and disgusting is “the normal process” that can delay an adoption many months (years), while anxious patents wait and needy children languish.

I am not speaking theoretically. My own adopted daughter was determined to adopt her Jamaican nephew after the separate tragic deaths of her brother-in-law, then sister. It was an uncontroversial adoption. Troy was 13 at the time and more than willing to be with his aunt. No other relatives objected. There were no estate issues. There were no official problems. Just a needy kid and a loving aunt.

Just following normal bureaucratic procedures delayed his happy arrive into our family by four years. Troy was 17 when he strode across our threshold for the first time. He had been denied 4 years of loving security and stability by "the normal process."

Aren't these public official and bureaucrats aware of time? This was a maturing teenager in need of his family. He was denied this by nothing more than "the normal procedure."

Many worry that prospective parents are finding ways ... legal and illegal ... to short cut the system. Well, if the "system" was not so damned heartless and obstructionist, there would be no need to bypass it.

So let’s keep the horror of scandal where it belongs, on the heads of those who find ways to slow down adoptions -- and not those who find ways to speed them up. I am so weary of the so-called do-gooders claiming the system is there to protect the child. That is utter nonsense. One reason children remain institutionalized is that they are little money magnets for the institution.

I say, good for Madonna. I don't care if she went around ... under ... or over ... “the normal procedures” because “the normal procedures” suck.

LMAO: Obama, say what?

In view of the Congressman Mark Foley's emails to young male pages, and remembering former Congressman Dan Crane's and the (as of late) late Congressman Gerry Studs' turning over a page or two, themselves, I had to laugh when I read Senator Barak Obama's evaluation of a run for president. He said, "We have a long and vigorous process. Should I decide to run, if I ever decide to, I'll be confident that I'll be run through the pages pretty well."

Someone should tell the Senator that pages are not a presidential perquisite. They are CONGRESSIONAL fringe benefits. INTERNS are presidential job benefits. You would think he would know this stuff.

OP ED: Iraqi: Violence for Votes

As the election closes in, the level of Iraqi violence against Americans and American partisans increases. American military deaths and injuries peak. Innocent Iraqis are rounded up by the scores and beheaded by maniacal butchers. Bombs bursting at public gathering places.

The coming U.S. election and the increase in violence is no coincidence. It only takes a little common sense to know that the international terrorist want to put Democrats in control of Congress. They want to undermine Bush’s determination to destroy the cabal of international murderers. They want the soft policies of the left wing appeasers to gain favor. They want the national media to continue to propagandize against the White House. They want the American people to surrender to world terrorism.

Killing soldiers and innocent men, women and children is the Jihadists’ way of campaigning for a Democrat victory. They are doing their part of convince the American electorate to abandon the war by abandoning the President.

As we lose our resolve to defend ourselves, and the free world, the sadistic killers increase their determination to destroy us. They are now winning the most important battle of the war – the very will to win.

REACT: Greeley off the mark

Andrew Greeley’s animosity toward Republicans overcomes his theology and intellectual integrity. He recently explained why the GOP is likely to retain both the U.S. House and Senate. Most notable of his flawed rationales was his contention that scandals impact harder on Democrats than Republicans.

Hmmmm. GOPer Jack Ryan was forced out of a Senate race merely for having salacious thoughts. Mark Foley recently resigned in disgrace though there is no current evidence that he had sex with underage pages. So far, no one can even tell whether his obnoxious and offensive behavior is illegal.

Now consider the recently departed Gerry Studds. As a Democrat congressman, he had sex with an underage male page. Refusing to apologize, he continued to serve many more years as a “respected member” of Congress. About that same time, Republican Congressmen Dan Crane had sex with an underage female page, and his political career ended.

Consider Democrat Barney Frank. He placed his male prostitute friend on the payroll as an “aide” while his paramour was running tricks out of the congressman’s apartment. He is still serving as a “respected member” of Congress.

Then there is the granddaddy of them all, the “respected” Senator Ted Kennedy. He caused the death of a young lady in a late-night, post-party accident, fled the scene (some medical evidence suggest he left her to die), and produced a Kennedy-scale cover up. Later on, tabloids exposed his bloated naked body on the deck of a yacht during a “pleasure cruise.” He remained a “respected” colleague among his Democrat peers and the press.

Of course, Nixon was forced from office for his cover up – which did NOT include perjury. Media coverage forced him into seclusion. Clinton remains the darling of press and the Dems after endless indiscretions, felons and cover-ups. He could even wind up back in the White House.

Following a term in jail, Illinois Republican Attorney General William Scott was sent off to oblivion. Former Ways and Means Chairman Dan Rostenkowski is released from prison to be a “respected” television commentator, press pundit and a “must invite” on the social register.

And the list goes on. Whatever one’s partisan position might be, or one’s opinion of any of these guys, the record is clear. The GOP takes a much harder hit on scandals than the Democrats. Greeley needs to relay more on grey matter than bile.

OP ED: Obama: Boom or Bomb

Poor Barak Obama.

It would appear that I am the only one in America … in the world … who feels sorry for Illinois’ junior Senator Barak Obama.

One would have to have been in a coma for the past couple years not to know of the guy. His every action is the subject of ubiquitous uncritical media hype. From the recent cover of Time magazine to the daily reports of his every breath. His omnipresence in virtually every media outlet – from national news providers, Internet blogs, gossip columns, trade publications, society pages, to the most local weekly newspaper – is devoid of even the modest criticism. He is the most renowned and flattered political figure of his day. (He even gets more publicity than the camera crazy Jesse Jackson – which must be a source of great pain to the good reverend.)

What makes Obama’s “coverage” so remarkable is that it surpasses his office, his accomplishments, his power, his almost anything. He has not broken any racial barriers. He is not the first black senator in modern times. That feat goes to former Senator Ted Brooke of Massachusetts. Obama is not even the first black senator from the Land of Lincoln. Carol Mosely Brown gets that honor.

He seems to generate endless puffy publicity because the press loves him. He is lionized and canonized by the leaders of the fifth estate. He is catapulted into the national limelight for things others do without notice. He is reported simply because he is. In that, he is the Paris Hilton of politics – only with a lot more charm and brains.

To be sure, Obama seems to be a very fine person. Maybe THAT is the news angle … a “very fine person” in politics. Hmmmmm. Not something you see every day. He is charismatic to be sure. I sense he is a very honest person – intellectually, morally and ethically. (Another political departure?) You cannot help but like and admire the guy.

So, why the pity for Obama?

Because, there will come a time in the future when the highly inflated and over exposed senator will have to re-enter the real world. As he gets more serious about a future in the White House, it will take more than a fab smile and charming talk to carry the day. In fact, the bigger than life image will turn into a detriment, as it has for those who traveled the rarified air of unbridled publicity before him.

I recall another senator from Illinois who machetted the path now being taken by Obama. Charles Percy, a very ambitious presidential aspirant, was a 29-year-old corporate wunderkind with the looks of a movie star. He too gave a speech at the national convention of his party (Republican, in his case) that set the political world abuzz. He was the most talked about “future president” in America. The likes of Senator Ev Dirksen flatly predicted that “just call me Chuck” Percy most certainly would be sitting in the Oval Office one day – and not as a guest.

Percy was grist for the media mill on a daily basis – and yes, there was even that September 18, 1964 Time magazine cover. He too had a picture perfect family – bright and beautiful. (His one twin daughter is now the wife of Senator Jay Rockefeller. Sadly, the other twin was tragically murdered.)

Percy was young enough to be a presidential prospect for maybe six or seven quadrennial national elections. He had it made, but he never made it. He never got close to being president. Not even a nomination – not even for vice president.

If history repeats itself, the intense exposure that highlights all Obama’s fine points will eventually draw attention to the chinks in his armor. Interest in his personality will give way to interest in his political views. The universality of his appeal will wane. He will find it impossible to live up to his glorified reputation. Disappointment will set in -- disappointment proportionate to the level of past adoration.

Then there is the nature of presidential politics. It is not a process that appreciates those who gain early favor. Initial front-runners almost always fail. There are too many vicissitudes to ensure that ambition and careful planning will result in success. At the moment he is universally beloved by his Democrat peers – largely because his only current role is to raise money. Once he starts to stand in the way of the ambitions of other titans of the donkey party, even his partisan choir will start singing a different tune.

Obama should enjoy the media joy ride for its ego satisfaction. But, if he is serious about the presidency, he should to into hiding for a while. Cool down the klieg lights. Of course, to tell a politician to withdraw from such fawning publicity is like telling an alcoholic to close his lips while submerged in a barrel of beer.

My prediction. Obama gets to the Oval Office only as a guest.