In case anyone has forgotten or was not aware, the actual wording of the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States is as follows;

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

To those who would try and interpret this as meaning that the founding fathers were referring to a standing military to be used against foreign enemies, I would further refer you to a quote from Noah Webster, one of the Federalists and Early American Patriots wherein he stated;

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States

America was founded by people who were willing to arm themselves and who were prepared to fight and die to defend their Nation. These, however, were no more people who wanted to leave their homes to fight and die in battle, than they were they people who wanted to spend time away from their homes in the Capital making laws and coming up with new and exciting ways to tell their fellow man what to do.

They wanted to be left alone to live their lives as they saw fit, but they were prepared to do what they must in the hope that some day, they or their children would be able to enjoy the freedom that they were willing to die for.

You have only to read the Bill of Rights to understand all that you need to know about the Founding Fathers. The Bill of Rights is just that. Not commandments of what you must do, but rather rights to which are entitled and which cannot be taken away. Not from you, and not from anybody else.

Unfortunately, as inspiring as both the Declaration of Independence and Constitution may be, The Founding Fathers knew that neither by its own power was ever going to ensure freedom to anyone unless it was also backed by the willingness and ability to defend this Nation by strength of arms.

To this day, this is a Nation of individuals who time and time again, when called to defend their Country, have taken up arms against her enemies, both domestically and abroad, and who fully support the right to bear arms in their own homes and communities, and do so with honor and pride.

This is a central tenet in the reality of America and it will never change unless America has long become something other than what the Founding Fathers ever meant it to be.

And then along comes April 16^th, 2007 and we sadly find ourselves once more in a victim-fueled debate over gun control.

Let me digress for a moment and put a slightly different spin on this discussion.

April 17^th, 2007, there was a news story out of Tokyo stating that “Japan city Nagasaki Mayor Dies after being shot.” The gist of the article was that the 61 year old Mayor of Nagasaki Japan was shot in the back at least two times in front of his campaign office and later died. All this despite the fact that Japan has very strict gun control laws such that only the gangsters have firearms.

The simple reality is that while you should do all that you can to stop criminals or people who are mentally dangerous from getting guns and using them, to deny guns to honest law abiding citizens certainly did nothing to help keep the Mayor of Nagasaki alive.

The other simple reality is that if the people lose the right to bear arms, we are all just waiting to be victims with only our Government to save us (or make further victims out of us.)

If, however, you truly understand the meaning of America, then you understand that the Government is “We the People”, and as it clearly states in the Constitution, the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people, and reserves all powers not granted to the Federal government to the citizenry or States.

It is not, nor was it ever envisioned to be, the job of the Government to protect us, but rather, a well-armed Citizenry that is respectful of the rule of law is the best defense that any of us has against those who would perpetrate massacres upon the innocent people of America.

Every so often I am glad to see sparks of what has always and continues to make America great. Such a spark came in the speech that Reade Seligmann gave after it was announced that not only was the case against him and his co-defendants being dropped but that they were all without reservation innocent of all charges against them;

This entire experience has opened my eyes up to a tragic world of injustice I never knew existed. If it is possible for law enforcement officials to systematically railroad us with no evidence whatsoever, it is frightening to think what they could do to those who do not to have the resources to defend themselves.

Truly after a hard fought and well deserved vindication which would have left a lesser man bitter and resentful (both of which he and his fellow teammates had every right to be) he sought and attained the higher ground.

It also reminds me of Luke Chapter 23 verse 31 where the Bible says; for “if these things are done when the wood is green, what will happen when it is dry?”

I cannot imagine what it must be like at that age, or any age for that matter, whatever resources you may have, to suffer the full weight of the Judicial System of the United States of America. I can only say that Mr. Seligmann and his colleagues have some very broad shoulders.

Malicious and False Prosecution is truly a horrible thing to witness, and in this, all America has been treated to an unpleasant lesson in how far things can go wrong when people with a personal agenda are given free reign to run their own little witch hunts, often with the full approval of a significant portion of the populace that simply happens to share their personal bias.

Fortunately, this was just a Local Prosecutor run amok. This could never happen at the Federal Level could it?

Actually it is going on right now in the case of the Senate Judiciary Committee vs. Alberto Gonzales. The Senate Judiciary Committee, comprised as it is of such stellar intellectuals and partisan hacks as Patrick Leahy, Edward Kennedy, Joseph Biden, Dianne Feinstein, Russ Feingold, Chuck Schumer and Dick Durbin have made it clear that they already believe that there was a crime committed; they just can’t say what it is.

At least the Durham prosecutor wasn’t trying to figure out what the charges were as he went along. He just used the facts that fit his theory and ignored all the rest. Not quite the Scientific method, but at least it wasn’t exactly intellectually flawed on the face of it.

Alternately, the current strategy of the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee seems to be to subpoena every email record and document known to man while subsequently judging Gonzalez in the court of public opinion, until they can cobble together sufficient doubt of reality itself and hope that Gonzalez (or the Administration) ultimately decides that they can’t take the heat.

I think that my personal favorite bit of sophistry is Patrick Leahy in not quite calling for Alberto Gonzales’ resignation claiming that Gonzales was undermining himself and his agency's law enforcement efforts and that he has been “damaging to the administration” and “No doubt, it is bad for the Department of Justice [and] there has been a very substantial decrease in morale.”

Of course there is a decrease in morale and of course Gonzalez is having leadership issues. He is being trashed 24/7 in the media and spending all of his time defending himself to Congress. He couldn’t possibly be providing any leadership whatsoever to his department right now.

That’s right up there with someone who kills their spouse and then puts forward as a defense that they should be allowed to go free because they have children to care for, when they were the one who created the problem in the first place. Way to go Leahy. Some leader you would make.

Certainly, the lesson that we need to take from both of these cases is that when Elected Officials (such as Mike Nifong and the members of the Senate Judicary Committee) use their positions in power to bring down someone, of whose guilt they have already assured themselves, with only the most specious of evidence, that person has a long road ahead of themselves in keeping their head above water, but it is even harder when the media is against them too.

One of the key principle upon which this Country was founded is the principle of Innocence until proven guilty. Unfortunately, the Legislature, Judiciary and Media all seem to have lost sight of this. If we do nothing else, we need to restore this principle, or we will never have justice.

Going back twenty-five years to the age of the typewriter; back to when the Internet and even Personal Computers were barely a figment of Al Gore’s imagination, I developed a liking for starting my personal reflections with quotes from those whom I admired: quotes that I felt supported the point that I was then trying to make, and if you have read any of my other posts on Townhall.com and we2view.net, you will know this to be true.

For everything there is a time, however, and now is not that time.

If anything can be said of the way that 2007 is unfolding, which to my mind is all to sadly the same way that many recent years have unfolded, is that we twist everybody else’s words to our advantage while offering none of our own; no words; no ideas; no clues.

When I was driving home tonight, I heard the news that Fred Thomson had announced that some few years back, he was diagnosed with cancer and that he wanted to get this news out there as he decided whether or not to run for President, thus gauging by the response of the political electorate (on this and many other issues) what the political winds could be divined to foretell.

Personally, I am starting to lose my patience with Fred Thompson’s announcements.

Don’t get me wrong. As the 2008 Presidential season has began to unfold, I have had to use almost Zen-like skills to allow me to spend my time in blissful patience, ignoring all existing contenders, knowing that eventually a real Conservative would present themselves and I would not be required to make some ludicrous “Hobson’s Choice” between candidates of varying unpalatability

Then along came Fred Dalton Thompson.

As a political Junkie, I have known Fred Thompson for many years, most notably as a Senator from Tennessee, and I have always liked what I have seen. Unlike the other Republican choices, he has always been a conservative rock. Unfortunately, in my mind, that has the potential to quickly start to work against him, at least for me.

What I mean is that I expect Conservatives to be decisive. I expect them to have a vision for America, and I expect them to be leaders. Don’t ask me what I want. Tell me what your vision is, and if you can make me share it, then I will vote for you.

Let me give you an analogy that will hopefully underscore the point that I am trying to make.

After suffering for almost 50 years under the cruel yoke of communist oppression into which, arguably, they were sold by the west, and after gaining their freedom, due in no small part to the combined efforts of Ronald Reagan, Pope John Paul II, and Margaret Thatcher, and after electing Lech Walesa, a former Dock Worker and freedom fighter as President, the Polish People then elected as President, a former card carrying member of the Communist Party who was an active official in the oppressive Communist Government.

Don’t get me wrong. I don’t personally know the man and as such, I don’t know that I can judge him personally, but at the very least we must see him as a man without a functioning moral compass. What Kwasniewski’s campaign slogan may just as well have been was, tell me what you want and I’m your man. I just want to be in charge.

Unfortunately, there are many in America who seem to think that we should have a similar style of government; in truth, many think that we already do and I don’t know that I can blame them after eight years of Clintonian hell where we experienced the painful reality of a place called hope where we will give anything a shot as long as it makes the masses feel good about themselves, and the person asking the questions gets to be the one in power.

Perhaps I am naïve, but in truth, I don’t think so.

Wake up. America is not, nor has it ever been a democracy. It is a Constitutional Republic. The founding fathers never envisioned a direct democracy because they clearly knew that it would only result in a new form of oppression and worse still, one without a shred of conscience, morals or accountability. Whatever the majority wants, however depraved is clearly not what the founders envisioned, and anyone who thinks that it is, needs to leave now.

I choose to live in a world where objective reality exists, and you can never get there by way of consensus.

America is faced by a clear choice between mob rule, reminiscent of the Coliseum where the Roman Emperor stayed in power simply by giving the masses what they wanted (think along the lines of whatever Tarantino film is currently playing at the Cineplex) or leadership based upon a vision of an uplifting and constant truth to which we should all aspire.

So where am I going with this?

Personally, I want Fred Thompson as President of the United States.

I say this not because I don’t like any of the other choices either Republican or Democrat (although I don’t)

I don’t say this because I particularly think that he can win (although I do)

I don’t care that he was diagnosed with Cancer (although I do, but only because I feel compassion for anyone who is afflicted by a potentially devastating disease, be they for example the Conservative Tony Snow, or the (presumably) Liberal Elizabeth Edwards.) As an aside however, that doesn’t mean that I support the destruction of other human life in a desperate hope to save someone for whom I may feel compassion.

What I am tired of, however, is Thompson not being willing to get into the race.

I certainly understand if it is a family issue in that you have not yet determined if you are prepared to put your family through the sacrifice, but I can tell you from experience that if you truly believe in what you are doing and why, your family will be behind you all the way.

In the end, you are the one who has to decide if you are committed enough.

Are you committed enough for yourself, your family and for America?

I think that you are, but only you can know for sure.

What I do know for sure, however, is that I don’t want a policy wonk as President, nor do I want someone willing to forge a grand compromise.

What I want, and what I think that America needs is a leader.

Personally, I want someone who knows who they are and what they believe in, and that is a person that I would vote for.

I think that Fred Dalton Thompson is that person, but the clock is ticking, and only Mr. Thompson knows for sure if he is prepared to be that person.

Stop worrying about the polls and what the American People want.

Decide what you want and what you think is best for America, and if you have a message that you truly believe in, now is time to announce your candidacy

We won't wait forever.

For modern day Christians, much as it must have been for the original Disciples, the Easter weekend is a deliriously emotional rollercoaster. After 40 days of privation and introspection, what begins as the celebration of Palm Sunday with the triumphant welcome of Jesus into Jerusalem, green palms laid at his feet, ends but a week later with his brutal scourging, crucifixion and death.

As we now know, the Resurrection follows but three days later, however the wait can be excruciating even when we know with certainty that it is coming. How much more difficult must it have been for the Disciples, who simply did not know.

Easter can be a difficult time for Christians as we try somehow to truly absorb the complex and myriad lessons that we are supposed to take from the death and Resurrection of Jesus.

As Easter passes, I have found myself dwelling on one perhaps not so small thought that continues to stick in my head; that being what Jesus himself was quoted as having said;

I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep. But he that is a hireling, and not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and fleeth: and the wolf catcheth them, and scattereth the sheep. The hireling fleeth, because he is a hireling, and careth not for the sheep. I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine. As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep.

John 10: 11-15

When I was younger, this was a very basic and easy lesson to understand. I was the sheep and Jesus the son of God had laid his life down for me. In no way do I minimize that incredible gift, but from the somewhat unholy and slippery perspective of human entitlement, I had no problem whatsoever conceptualizing my inherent worth, and extrapolating thereof why I and my fellow man were worthy of that sacrifice. The danger, however, lies in accepting the sacrifice without embracing the reality of being a sheep.

For an analogy to be true, however, it needs to be true not only as an analogy, but also in the figurative reality, and therein lies the rub because how many of us could truly see ourselves laying down our lives to save a sheep.

Like Peter, I have no problem conceptualizing my desire and ability to lay down my life for Jesus, but when the time comes can I truly take it to the next step and sacrifice myself for those that I may deem lesser than myself.

At this point in my life, I know that as a Husband and father I would die for my wife and children, and as an American, I can say that would die for my Country, but how far beyond that does it go?

As an American, is my life worth sacrificing for that of an Iraqi?

As a Christian, is my life worth sacrificing for a Jew, a Muslim or a nonbeliever?

As a Republican, would I die for a Democrat?

As a man, would I die for a Sheep?

Or like many, do I believe that I am too important to die.

Fortunately, American History is filled with those who knew what they would die for, and those are the people who made America great.

As the media constantly reminds us day by day, however, there are all too many in this Country, who either having found themselves tragically burdened with personal loss, or who merely contemplating the 3,000 American lives lost in Iraq are all to willing to see it all as not having been worthy of the sacrifice. What then is worth the price?

If you search the phrase “To die for” in Google, you come up with over 2.2 Million results, with most, if not all of them, represented by the phrase “Those shoes are to die for”

Unfortunately, this casual thought is one that all too often summarizes the way many people in America seem to be living their lives; or as policymakers, are trying to order our laws and National priorities.

In the end, unfortunately, if you are never able to decide what is worth dying for, then you can never know what is worth living for, and what life itself is worth.

I must admit that I was appalled when I read that Senator John McCain had used the phrase "Tar Baby" this past Friday to refer to a sticky situation.

So now Mr. McCain has joined the likes of George Allen with his Macaca comment, and Hillary Clinton with her reference to Gandhi the Gas Station Attendant to name but a bi-partisan few.

I don't personally know if any of these individuals are racist, nor do I really care. 

What I do, know, however, is that they are clearly idiots!

Whatever Mr. McCain may claim, any intelligent person knows that the phrase "Tar Baby" is a racial epithet, and while it may certainly have other meanings, a person who has presidential aspirations should know better.

The President of the United States, first and foremost, needs to be a statesman (or in deference to the first female president - whenever that may happen - a statesperson.)

Using racial slurs are a clear sign of immaturity, and as such, should not inspire confidence in the electorate.

I am painfully amused by the recent fracas over “don’t ask, don’t tell” redux

The most ridiculously amusing part of this is that the media on both sides of the issue are seemingly agog that Hillary Clinton is actually suggesting the repeal of a compromise policy that her husband Bill had originally brokered.

What they don’t seem to understand is that this is simply the other shoe dropping.

The reality is that Bill himself, were he still in office, would currently no doubt be doing the same thing as Hillary, in opposing his own policy, and furthermore, I will predict that if pressed, he will suggest doing just that.

Liberals have already gotten what they want; that being that Gays and Lesbians are allowed to serve in the Military. The “Don’t ask, Don’t Tell” aspect was merely the compromise that got Conservatives on board.

Now the Liberals are trying to jettison the compromise aspect of the deal, like a stage of a rocket that was only necessary to get the desired payload into orbit.

Liberals aren’t remotely suggesting that we can go back to the pre-Clinton days where openly gay people were not allowed to serve, but rather, they want it all. They want the openly gay to be able to serve in the military, and after having compromised previously, Conservatives are left without a leg to stand on

Let this be a lesson.  When you compromise on issues of principle, you are making a deal with the Devil, and it is only a matter of time before he pulls the rug out from under you.

In all things, as in all life, complexity is merely simplicity multiplied to the point where it can no longer be recognized as such, but rather makes up its own entirely new reality. The problem is, we rarely see all the moving parts and recognize them for what they are before they have already metastasized.

I raise this point because I recently got to thinking about our legal system and some of its more dangerous peculiarities, and I began to see a pattern in many individual and seemingly unrelated issues that potentially belie a larger trend.

Take for example the concept of “Hate Crimes” which was so much in vogue some years back.

Ostensibly, the idea was to designate certain crimes as more heinous than others; the cited examples at the time being the torture and dragging death of James Byrd, Jr. (an African-American) near Jasper Texas - a crime that was presumably motivated by “racial hatred”, and the beating and subsequent death of Matthew Shepard (a Homosexual) who was left to die tied to a fence in the snow near Laramie Wyoming - a crime that was presumably motivated by “Homophobic Hatred”

In both cases, when I heard about each on the evening news, my first and overwhelming reaction was one of complete and utter revulsion and disgust that anyone could be so evil as to want to do that to another person - feelings that were neither enhanced nor mitigated by my understanding of their racial makeup or sexual preferences. Clearly whoever was responsible needed to be tried, convicted and executed. (As an aside, I don’t personally support Capital Punishment, however, I am so sick and tired of liberal judges setting obvious Criminals and Psychopaths free despite being sentenced to supposed “life sentences”, that I find myself forced to support it as the lesser of two evils.)

Be that as it may, my first reaction to these “slaughters of the innocent” was not to think that we needed a new set of laws defining newly protected classes of victims.

Don’t get me wrong. Designating protected classes is an equal opportunity political flaw that follows no particular ideology. It is much like pork spending in that the regard, with the only practical difference being the choice of who is being favored and the reason why.

Politically, Conservatives designate crimes against the Police as particularly heinous, and I certainly understand the logic, in that anyone who will kill a policeman is more clearly a threat to the rest of society. Also, it is critical for the proper functioning of society that we aggressively protect those that we have tasked with protecting us, or we can’t expect them to be there when we need them.

Liberals, on the other hand, I have come to believe, want to create hate crimes laws less to make America safer, and more merely to highlight how racism and homophobia are alive and well in America in furtherance of their agenda of power through American Fear and Self-loathing.

In a bizarre sense, in this PC world run amuck, one could even theoretically argue that Hate Crime Laws simply imply a greater right to kill people as long as you don’t hate them. In terms of logical policy, this is almost as bad as the supposed Constitutional “Right to an abortion” which Ann Coulter has rightly described as “The right to have sex with men you don’t want to have children with.”

In the end, however, I have to fall back on the fact that we already have laws for these kinds of crimes.

In the Bible, it is “Thou Shalt not Kill” and in American Jurisprudence, it is a Statute in the Penal Code of every state in the Union - Interestingly enough, rape is also against the law in all Fifty States and the District of Columbia, in spite Cameron Diaz’s dire warnings about the consequences of the re-election of George W. Bush as President of the Unites States. So much for the amazing political savvy emanating from Hollywood.

In the end, I truly believe that we would all be better off if we spent less time coming up with new laws and more time and energy properly enforcing those that we already have.

Murder is already against the law. Now we just need to start putting murderers away for life instead of paroling them, or worse, excusing them all altogether because we judge them to be either misunderstood or part of a group of people we have chosen to designate as “racially oppressed” and therefore somehow not responsible for their actions.

Unfortunately, as a result, it seems that today, the only people that Liberals are actually willing to consider putting in Prison are young white Lacrosse Players (despite a complete lack of evidence of their guilt, coupled with considerable evidence of their innocence) solely because the alleged victim was a protected racial minority; or Border Guards who dare to actually try to arrest a man who was an illegal Border Crosser and a Drug Smuggler (which I actually though was their job.)

At this rate, we had better build the Border Fence extra quick, if for no other reason, than to protect our own Border Agents from malicious prosecution at the hands of overzealous Prosecutors.

And, speaking of illegal immigration, in another “truth is stranger than fiction” episode, there was a recent news report that in certain cities there were efforts to try to set up “safe havens” for Illegal Immigrants where the Police were not allowed to ask people about their Immigration status unless they were suspected of a crime. Do we live in a completely logic free zone now? I thought that being an illegal Alien was a crime!

Presumably the Liberals in charge of the Asylum mean some other crime: one that they are actually willing to prosecute.

OK everybody, repeat after me. Oral Sex is “Sexual Relations” and Illegal Immigrants are breaking the law simply by the very nature of their continued existence on American Soil.

While I know that there are many who would not agree, I believe that one of the things that made this Country great is that it was founded on Christian Principles, and it is time that we started to reapply those principles to our rapidly disintegrating legal system.

All People are equal in GOD’s sight, just as the Declaration of Independence says that “All men are created equal.”

We don’t need new laws to define one victim as being better or more aggrieved than another, just as we don’t need selective enforcement of our existing laws based on a misguided sense of societal guilt towards the criminal for their personal circumstances.

Unfortunately, when the Government can and will designate certain people to be Oppressors or Victims based on their heritage, the color of their skin, or any other arbitrary and meaningless criteria that have no place in a just and civilized society, rather than allowing the Law to do so based solely on people’s individual actions, we will never have justice, and in failing to live up to the founding ideals of this Country none of us will ever truly be free.

Finally, if liberals really want to end Capital Punishment, the one thing that would have the greatest impact would be to stop putting Criminals back on the streets.

Conservatives are not interested in killing criminals for the pure pleasure of retribution. We just don’t want them back out in public to prey on our neighbors, and we have much less sympathy for the Criminals than we do for their likely future victims.

We constantly hear much about how society should not interfere between two consenting adults; or in the larger sense, how we, as a society, should not be punishing people for what are presumed to be “victimless crimes.” In particular, I refer to Drugs, Prostitution, and in a more recently disturbing trend, Sex with a Minor - assuming of course that the minor is male and the older perpetrator is female.

I titled this article, “the Age of Consent” because I think that Liberals truly believe that in this brave new day and age, everyone is presumed to be able to consent to anything, and all choices are equally valid. In their minds, we truly are living in the Age of Consent.

What of this though? Historically, consent has been tied to an established age of maturity, with the belief that for most people in a given society there is a certain age at which point they are most likely able to make intelligent, informed and mature choices.

Some would argue that any age is inherently subjective, and in fact over the past two thousand years that age has changed radically. Phrases like “two hundred years ago I would have been married at thirteen”, springs to mind.

The obvious answer is, that two hundred years ago, you and every one else that you know would have been a heck of a lot more mature and capable of being married at thirteen, because that was what was expected of you.

The point is that any age is inherently subjective, but as long as it is logically based and consistently applied, it creates its own level of reality that assures that on average, people will be mature enough to consent to that which society as a whole has prepared them.

The problem is when people are allowed to consent to that which society has not prepared them; or when we try to say that this person or the other can consent at a different time or in a different way. Let me give you a few examples;

First, in the news lately, there have been several examples of teachers having sex with their underage students. When we hear about this, our first reaction is one of outrage until we learn that the teacher was a woman and attractive at that, and the victim was one of her male students. Now, suddenly with a knowing smile, we are fondly recalling all of our immature and adolescent fantasies, and find ourselves thinking; “so what’s the big deal?”

Interestingly enough, in both of the recent cases, the women were married. Clearly they had their own issues, and just like the accepted wisdom that rape is not an act of sex, but rather an act of violence, these women’s actions were not part of a healthy “consensual relationship”, but rather were unhealthy for both people - one of whom should clearly have known it.

At its worst, the young boy in question will develop an unhealthy attitude toward women and sex - one of entitlement where women are there to satisfy him with no commitment required on his part, and at worst, he will develop a fixation on the teacher who molested him.

A minor can never consent to sex regardless of gender and the older person involved is always playing the role of a predator, whether they are willing to admit it or not. The rules and taboos of Western Society are historically so inflexible in this area that to defy them shows a person with a clear mental-social imbalance, and yet here we find ourselves with a legal system that seems all too willing to make unhealthy judgments about who is or is not a victim, and by corollary, whether or not a crime has actually been committed.

As a second example, Prostitution and Exotic Dancing are both varyingly referred to as “victimless crimes”, with the first being legal in at least one State, and the other being dealt with as a NIMBY zoning issue.

While I am an unabashed capitalist, and as such, I know that where there is money to be made, someone will be doing it, that doesn’t make it right and it doesn’t mean that the people doing it enjoy it, or would not prefer to do something - anything else.

How can we possibly believe that a person can spend their days or nights satisfying the sexual appetites of strangers and then hope to be able to develop a meaningful and healthy relationship with another person.

Many exotic dancers are married with children. Imagine how difficult that must be for her husband to know what his wife is dancing naked for strangers, or for her to feel anything but unclean when she comes home from a day of work; or not to resent her husband in that she has to do that job.

Likewise, how can they raise a family and teach their son to treat women with respect or their daughter to respect herself in that toxic emotional environment.

Further, while some may clam that Prostitution is “victimless”, I have to believe that people who avail themselves of the services of a prostitute are not doing so because they just “want a date” but that rather, just like rape, their motivation is less sexual, and more than likely reflects strong elements of violence and control. Personally, I am not sure that I feel comfortable saying that something so similar in its Psychology to rape could possibly ever be characterized as “victimless.”

Of course, with the recently much hyped study of the Census showing that more than half of all women in America were living without spouses, I suppose that the ability to develop healthy heterosexual relationships is not exactly high on the liberal agenda.

What Conservatives know in our hearts, however, is that healthy families are founded on healthy sexual relations between a man and a woman in monogamous wedded bliss. Unfortunately, Liberals seem to be more in favor of anything goes, like some deranged Chinese Menu where you take something from Column A and something from Column B and when you are done you call it a family. Doctor Frankenstein would be so proud.

It is time that we stopped pretending that all choices are valid

It is also time that we stopped pretending that one person can use another for their pleasure and not make a victim out of them.

In the 1858 Illinois Senate race, Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas had a series of seven debates. In the seventh and final debate on October 15^th, 1858 in Alton Illinois, Lincoln said the following;

That is the real issue. It is the eternal struggle between these two principles - right and wrong - throughout the world. They are the two principles that have stood face to face from the beginning of time; and will ever continue to struggle. It is the same principle in whatever shape it develops itself. It is the same spirit that says, “You work and toil and earn bread, and I'll eat it” . . . or from one race of men as an apology for enslaving another race, it is the same tyrannical principle.

In this day and age, what is Slavery and do we recognize it when we see it?

Is it the wanton destruction of millions of Fetal-Americans a year so that certain people can choose not to be inconvenienced by the realities inherent in their reproductive systems and the consequences of their own behavior?

Or perhaps it is too hard to call that slavery in a Classical Sense, because no one is specifically profiting from the enslavement of the Fetus in America - unless of course you count the hundreds of Millions of Dollars per year that Planned Parenthood and others earn from “Clinical Procedures”

Perhaps slavery might be trying to use those same unwanted embryos to allow Pharmaceutical Companies to research and possibly develop cures for various human ailments? There wouldn’t be any money in that would there?

Lincoln spoke of one person toiling and working so that another can profit from their efforts, and truly in the 1850’s, that was the definition of Slavery. Now, it seems that we have improved upon the concept of Slavery to the point that we can so subjugate another as to deny them life itself and yet half the Country is unwilling or unable to see it for what it is. This is Slavery perfected.

How much more craven will we be if we allow Pharmaceutical Companies, Medical Researchers and those who feel that their own selfish personal medical wants or needs outweigh all other moral or ethical considerations, to profit by denying others the same right to life that was proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence itself and that they achieved solely through their own birth.

In Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court found that the fourteenth amendment guaranteed a “fundamental right” to an abortion, but then went on to set stages at which the state was allowed to regulate or even proscribe abortion in order to promote “its interests in the potentiality of human life” This the Supreme Court did using such precise legal phrases as “approximately”, “appropriate medical judgment” and “viability” which was further defined as “the interim point at which the fetus becomes viable, that is, potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid.”

First of all, It is arguably one of the greatest ironies of modern history that the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution which a hundred years later needed to be twisted by the Supreme Court into the semblance of a pretzel to equate the right to privacy with the right to destroy an unborn Human was sandwiched between quite possibly the two greatest amendments to the Constitution after the Bill of Rights; the Thirteenth Amendment which abolished Slavery; and the Fifteenth Amendment which guaranteed the right to vote without regard to race. It is, however an irony that I would be better able to appreciate if it wasn’t resulting in the premature death of over a million Fetal Americans each and every year.

Secondly, there is only one thing more ludicrous than nine lawyers with life appointments trying to tell the rest of us when life begins, and that is the rest of us spending the next 30 years trying to understand exactly what “viability” is, with medical advances taking viability inexorably back towards conception, a fact that is being mostly ignored in the debate, whilst science simultaneously pushes the envelope on all the wonderful things that we can have if we are only prepared to ignore the ethical implications of our actions.

After all, the cold scientific reality of the 1970’s was one where it could never have been conceived that medical advances might eventually turn the very concept of viability against those who had first advanced it as an argument for Abortion, having not realizing how much of a double-edged sword it could be if science became sufficiently advanced.

Now we have stem cell research promising miracle “cures” for every disease under the sun. I can’t help but be reminded of the Carpetbaggers after the Civil war who sold “snake oil” promising to cure everything from weariness to rheumatism to turgidity of the bowels to open wounds.

Last I checked, however, in the entire history of mankind, no medicine invented by man has ever “cured” anything. Drugs don’t “cure”, they “treat” and this is hardly a semantic difference. By definition, if you have a cure, there will come a time when you no longer need it.

Treatment, however, is the gift that keeps giving. I suppose that in theory with today’s wonder drugs, you get better (or perhaps you just don’t get worse), but with treatment, Pharmaceutical Companies get to perpetually generate revenues in excess of 3 to 5 Billion Dollars per year per brand name drug.

I make this point because while the debate is currently about a limited number of stem cell lines and whether or not Federal Funds should be used to support medical research thereon, think for just a moment on the fact that millions of chicken eggs are utilized each year to create an equal number of Flu Vaccines for humans. With a population of 300 Million, that is 300 Million chicken eggs that are needed to produce enough flu vaccines for the entire United States.

None of us can even guess at the likely production process for any or all of the pending miracle treatments that we are being promised, but if we are going to produce a billion doses of any given drug per year (3 to 5 Billion Dollars per drug at an average price of $3 to $5 per dose) for an average brand name medication, what may not seem like many stem cells during research and development clearly becomes a whole lot of stem cells when Companies go into production.

I am not sure that even the current abortion rate in the United States could keep up with that level of demand, but think of the added revenues for the abortion clinics. At least at that point, we might be able to stop the Federal Government from funding Planned Parenthood to the tune of $250 Million plus per year, but I doubt it. Once someone starts feeding at the public trough, they never seem to be able to shake the habit.

We are rapidly at risk of becoming a nation of Pharmaceutical Junkies who will do anything to get their fix, and in terms of addition, Stem Cell research threatens to make Crack Cocaine look as innocent as chocolate. In the end, however, some prices are not worth paying, no matter what the potential gain.

In the end, if we continue down this path, we will all be made Slaves in one way or another.

On November 6^th, 1860, Abraham Lincoln was elected the 16^th President of the United States, taking the oath of office on March 4^th, 1861. He was a Republican, and the mere fact of his election caused the secession of seven southern states on February 9^th, 1861, establishing the Confederate States of America. In his inaugural Address, he said the following;

Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States that by the accession of a Republican Administration their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.

Clearly, many in the Confederacy did not believe him, with several states going so far as to secede from the Union before Lincoln was even able to take the Oath of Office. In today’s day and age, that would be similar to the newly elected Democrats in the House and Senate proclaiming that they would not support President Bush with a troop surge in Iraq, the week before he even had the opportunity to recommend it, explain what his plan was, or make the case for why it was necessary.

Everything that Lincoln said and did certainly backed up his Inaugural assertion that he had no interest in abolishing Slavery. Lincoln prosecuted the war against the Confederacy because he did not believe in the right of the Southern States to secede from the Union, and was prepared to fight a war to save the Union.

So why, almost a hundred and fifty years later, do many Americans believe that the main purpose of the Civil War was to end Slavery?

After all, its not like the Emancipation Proclamation, issued January 1^st, 1863, nearly two years into the war only ended slavery in “Those States in rebellion against the Union”, while leaving those Negroes in the north still safely ensconced in Slavery. Oh that’s right, it did. Not so good for the Million plus Negro Slaves living in the North at the time.

Historians can and do disagree as to Lincoln’s personal feelings about slavery and how much they changed over his life, but certainly what is clear is that when the war started, in Lincoln’s thinking, it was solely about saving the Union, whereas almost two years later, in late 1862, Lincoln added the abolition of Slavery as a war goal. Once again, the modern analogy would be that while George W. Bush started the war in Iraq because Saddam Hussein was seeking Weapons of Mass Destruction, several years later, the goal had evolved into creating a stable democracy in the Middle East.

In both cases, an evolution of understanding does not constitute any disingenuousness on the part of the President, either now or in the past, but rather it allows for a true Man of Vision to recognize and attain a loftier goal than he may originally have envisioned or even thought possible.

We call that leadership.

What then of the opposition; for wherever one person seeks to lead, others will naturally resist that vision, regardless of how right or just it may be, simply because it is not their own.

In 1860 as in today, the opposition to the Republican Party was the Democrat Party, which at that time was further split into two factions.

The War Democrats strongly supported the war to save the Union but were equally strongly critical of Lincoln’s conduct of the war, with criticism growing with each Union Military Setback and further loss of life. Alternately, the Peace Democrats, or “Copperheads”, blamed the Civil War on the abolitionists who they felt were trying to impose “Racial Equality” on the nation, and while they claimed to hope that the Union could be saved, they felt that the use of Military Action was not justified, would never restore the Union, and had become a national tragedy that need to be ended through a negotiated peace, even if that meant an Independent Confederacy.

At the Democratic Convention of 1864, the ascendancy of the radical Copperheads was so great that the party adopted a platform branding the war a failure. In Congress, the Copperheads strongly opposed every military bill, and went on to demand a peace settlement at any cost, leading the Republicans to allege that the Copperheads wanted the Confederacy to win the war.

Other arguably treasonous actions in which they engaged were; trying to persuade Union soldiers to desert; talking of helping Confederate prisoners of war seize their camps and escape; and meeting with Confederate agents and taking their money. The Confederacy encouraged their activities whenever possible, which many in the Union felt prolonged the war by encouraging the South to continue fighting in the hope that the North would eventually abandon the struggle.

Does any of this sound vaguely familiar?

In another interesting parallel to modern times, the Copperheads, who looked down on Lincoln as an unintelligent rube with despotic tendencies also had control of numerous important newspapers, through which they tried to influence American public opinion against the President specifically, and Republicans in general.

Truly the more things change, the more they stay the same.

Or put another way, as was said by Philosopher George Santayana, who was born the year that Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, “those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.”

To paraphrase in a more hopeful and less negative sense (bearing in mind that Santayana was a Harvard Professor), I would say that “those who are prepared to learn from the past successes of others are better positioned to repeat them.”

In looking at the lessons that America should clearly have learned after the Civil War, it would appear that George W. Bush and his administration have learned the value of leadership and commitment to ideals coupled with a willingness to stay true to the overall goal of victory, in spite of the Political cost.

Alternately, what many in this Country have not learned is that however good you may think your intentions, and however great our military may be compared to that of our enemies, if you make your enemy believe that as a Nation you are divided in your willingness to prosecute a war, you will only serve to prolong that war as your enemy tries to wait you out in the hopes that you lack the resolve to ultimately see it through.

I will leave it up to others to debate what, if anything, the Democrats have not learned from the past and what mistakes they are doing their best to repeat.

With all the conjecture about Hillary Clinton in 2008 and the recent re-publication of her formerly lauded book, “It takes a village”, (lauded by some that is), I thought that I would take a moment to look at what her book tells us about what Hillary believes.

Let me start by saying that as she claims, I am certain that Hillary cares very much about children and wants only what is best for them. I would never presume to accuse any politician of not caring for children. I would even go so far as to say that some Politicians may care a little too much for children, but then perhaps we shouldn’t go there and I certainly wish Mr. Foley hadn’t

I also think that we can certainly all agree that there are many ills currently plaguing America. The problem as I see it is that Hillary is a “True Believer” amongst Liberals who thinks that any and all of societies ills can be solved through bigger, better and grander governmental programs, whereas Conservatives think that not only can society’s ills not be solved through bigger government but rather that such “Big Government” programs can actually exacerbate society’s ills by fostering dependence.

In reading her book, if I were to pick one thing that in my mind sums up the essence of her philosophy in this regard, and which further highlights the seemingly overwhelming divide between Conservatives and Liberals, I didn’t need to look any further than the introduction, where she asserts;

We cannot move forward by looking to the past for easy solutions. Even if a golden age had existed, we could not simply graft it onto today's busier, more impersonal and complicated world.

The problem, in my mind is that in life, it is rarely a question of what we cannot do, but rather a question of what we simply will not do, and in this regard, I don’t think that Hillary would want to go back even if she perceived that we could; it is simply completely inconsistent with her world-view, and therein lies one of the critical differences between Liberals and Conservatives.

Hillary sees a busier, more impersonal and complicated world and put quite simply, she approves. That is the way that she thinks that the world should be, and because of that we obviously need different solutions for this brave new world. Alternately, Conservatives tend to see the impersonality and complications as symptoms of larger problems that need to be addressed rather than simply being embraced.

In many ways, the divide over religion is much the same in that for the past 2,000 years, Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular have sought to remain unwavering beacons of truth for all mankind. Now, however, many in this Country are saying that times have changed, and that religion needs to change with the times if it is to retain its relevance. One might as well argue that because many people are getting heavier, gravity needs to change to remain relevant.

Unfortunately however, the central reality of Christianity is that it represents the unwavering Truth, and Truth in any form is inconvenient to Liberals as it conflicts with their “all choices are equally valid” mantra.

Conservatives see America in Norman Rockwell terms and want to find every possible way to go back. True Liberals scoff at this idea, but Conservatives fervently believe that America can and must return to her roots, and I will let you in on an even more closely guarded secret; in the deepest recesses of what Liberals regard as “Fly Over Land”, in places with names like Lebanon Ohio, Boone North Carolina, Indianapolis Indiana, and Lexington Kentucky, many Americans never left.

Similarly, Conservatives see Religion both as a Constant Truth to be embraced, and as a tool to regain much of what America seems to have lost or is trying to reject. In Conservative’s eyes, we don’t need more Big Government Social Programs. We need to return to our fundamental values and everything else will naturally work itself out like a complicated knot that falls apart when you simply pull on that one right string.

So how did we get here, and what did we know during “The Golden Age” that might point to solutions that could work now.

If you look back to American History, however, it was not so long ago that in much of America, the Village or Town was the center of the Universe. That was why America was founded as a Republic of “United States” and the Constitution was written such that the Federal Government had limited powers, where “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

In “Norman Rockwell America”, the community looked out for its own. Young women who engaged in “tacky” behavior were quickly set straight so births to unwed mothers were rare. Word quickly got around about a young man who did not treat women with respect and his dating opportunities quickly dried up. If his behavior got worse, then the other men of the community would teach him the error of his ways. There was no enabling behavior, so men did the right thing.

Predators stood out and parents kept their children close so there were neither serial killers nor serial pedophiles. In a tight and caring community, there were consequences to people’s actions so their actions were much more deliberate.

Education was the community’s responsibility and the emphasis was equally on knowledge and morality so children grew up having the knowledge to be productive, coupled with the moral compass that drove them to use that knowledge in furtherance of the community as a whole.

Hillary may think that these qualities are impossible in a city the size of New York, but the reality is that what made New York City great was that it was always a blend of smaller ethnically diverse communities that looked after their own and contributed to the greater community as a whole. Some of the communities that make up the greatest City in the World are still like that, but others are not. Why that should be is a topic for another day, but it is clearly not because of the numbers of people involved. Either you care about your neighborhood, and protect your neighbors, or you do not, and no amount of Governmental Programs are going to change that.

Ironically, Hillary is correct in that it does take a village. What it does not take, however, is the Federal Government.

I have been all over this Great Country, and as much as I love every bit of this Great Land of ours and the Federal Government that binds it all together, none of it is what makes America truly great.

What has always made America great is the American People. Whether they be direct descendants of the original Mayflower Passengers, or newly Naturalized Citizens, whoever embraces the ideal that everyone in America is special, and that they are the sole possessors of any and all rights and powers that are not specifically delegated to the Federal Government will continue to make America great.

If you are prepared to take care of yourself, your family and your community, then you will always be able to keep your children safe. If, on the other hand, you expect the Government to take care of you, you will likewise assume that it is the responsibility of the Government to take care of everybody else, even your own children, and you will hardly lift a finger on anyone else’s behalf, even that of your own children. When you reach this point, your children are already lost.

If we can only teach people this one thing, everything else will fall into place.

In looking at a recent legal document, I came across the following paragraph; (If you don’t believe that someone would actually write this, feel free to Google the words.)

Tense; Gender. As defined herein, the singular includes the plural and the plural includes the singular. Likewise, a reference to any gender also applies to any other gender.

Truly a sentence that only a lawyer could love. It may, however, explain why Bill Clinton had so much trouble defining the word “is”. He also couldn’t properly define as “sexual relations”, a two word phrase, despite the fact that the second word of the phrase was sex; something that would certainly have been a clue for most people; that, and I have to assume by inference that he also had trouble with the phrases “forsaking all others” and in a broader sense; “marital fidelity”

And liberals wonder why we don’t want Politicians defining words like Marriage?

I will say, however, that if Abu Ghraib and Saddam Hussein’s execution have taught us anything, I for one am glad that cell phones with video capability weren’t yet in vogue during the Clinton Administration, or we would likely have been subjected to a viral video floating around the internet showing Bill, Monica and the Presidential Cigar, thus adding a whole new meaning to the phrase “Our Long National Nightmare”

Not so long ago, I was listening to Neal Boortz on the radio and he was on an anti-anti-Gay tirade. I say anti-anti-Gay because the point that he was trying to make was not so much in support of Gays, but rather in opposition to those people who oppose Gay Marriage. First, he parsed the word “persuasion” with regard to the phrase “Homosexual Persuasion” (Neal was probably a lawyer by training) and then he went on to make the point that People were “Homosexuals” (presumably a noun) because of their genes and that just like “Heterosexuals” (also a noun) they were not “persuaded” to have sex with others of their own gender, but rather they were just being what they were. He then posed a (presumably) rhetorical question as to whether anyone could explain to him when they had “chosen” their own sexual orientation with the clear conclusion that he was trying to make being that if people did not choose to be Heterosexuals, then that was de facto evidence that Homosexuality was likewise not a choice.

I had to think about this for some time because I wanted to determine in my own mind if he was in fact correct and not just react viscerally.

First of all, neither Neal, nor I are Doctors or Psychologists, so neither of us can state professionally if people exhibit Homosexual (an adjective) behavior based on their upbringing, or if they are Homosexuals (a Noun) because of their Genetic makeup. I was therefore somewhat surprised to hear Neal opine upon it so matter-of-factly so I did a Google search on the terms “Homosexuality” and “Nature vs. Nurture” and got over 57,000 hits. Searching under “Homosexuality” and “Genetic” leads to 958,000 hits, and Searching under “Homosexuality” and Choice” gives us 1,240,000 hits. Clearly the debate is not nearly as settled as Mr. Boortz would seem to assert.

In this light, let us examine the very logic of Neal’s question. Words have power, and Neal’s question was framed in such a manner as to logically assume only one answer. The word Homosexual either refers to a choice, in which case it is an adjective, as in “He engaged in a homosexual act”, or if sexual preference is genetic, then a noun would be appropriate as in “He is a Homosexual.”

When Mr. Boortz rhetorically asks “when does a person choose to be a Homosexual”, he has already assumed that only one answer can be correct as the other would be an inherent paradox.

Furthermore, as Mr. Boortz has done, if we start with the assumption that Homosexuality is a thing that a person can be (the noun Homosexual) it is all too easy, but logically fallacious to then use the observation that there are people that engage in Homosexual acts as evidence to support that such people are in fact Homosexuals (the Noun) and that therefore Homosexuality is not a choice.

If a person can be so easily defined by merely observing their choice of sexual partners, then by this same flawed logic, we might as well use the fact that if a man chooses to confine his sexual activities exclusively to Sheep and Goats, then he must logically be a Farm Animal rather than simply deducing that he has chosen to engage in sexually deviant behavior.

Without conclusive scientific evidence, Mr. Boortz has assumed that Homosexuality and Heterosexuality are both equally valid, such that if one isn’t chosen, then the other cannot be. Without conclusive scientific evidence, however, it is also possible that one is the natural disposition of man, whilst the other is merely one of many unnatural choices to which man is often inclined. That difference is the reality inherent in the Nature vs. Nurture debate. Accordingly, when Mr. Boortz begins by assuming equality between Heterosexual and Homosexual behavior, when he sees no “Choice” in his own heterosexual behavior, he naturally concludes that that must logically confirm that Homosexuality is likewise not a choice.

Alternately, however, if you begin with the assumption that Homosexuality is in fact a choice, then finding yourself attracted to women without having made a conscious choice thereof is simply a natural assertion of the correct moral and scientific order. Leviticus states that “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is abomination.” Likewise, the natural conclusion of Darwin’s theories is that any sexual act that does not lead to the propagation of the species (i.e. one between one man and one woman) is inherently pointless. In this regard, both Religion and Science are clearly in accord.

Unfortunately, in this Brave new “all choices are valid” world that the liberals would have us live in, logic is apparently anathema. To demonstrate this, I only have to point to a pamphlet that I recently received from my Son’s Catholic school that was purportedly aimed at protecting children from sexual abuse. Much of it was quite sensible, explaining what were acceptable activities for adults to engage in with children, and what shows of affection were likewise acceptable or not. The entirety of the document, however, was rendered completely logically flawed by the obligatory “diversity paragraph” where it was stated that we needed to be respectful of all people regardless of (among other things), their sexual preference. I guess that the writer did not stop to realize that pedophilia was a sexual preference, as is necrophilia, bestiality, gang rape, forcible sodomy and a whole host of other violent and sexually deviant behaviors. Logically, then, how can I respect a person’s Pedophilic sexual preference while still taking such pains to keep them away from my children?

In the end, I do not know if Homosexuality is a choice or the result of Genetic wiring, but I do know the religious and historical definitions of Marriage. (Hint - they are both the same.)

Words are important, and the word Marriage represents one of the most important concepts in the history of mankind, steeped in tradition & ceremony and encompassing as it does concepts such as love, sharing, sacrifice, respect, caring and constancy.

Bill Clinton may not have respected his own Marriage and some Politicians may not respect the institution as a whole, but for those of us who do, like America itself, it is worth respecting and defending.

In August of 1940, in the middle of what is now known as the Battle of Britain, Prime Minister Winston Churchill, speaking before the House of Commons of the British Parliament said the following;

The gratitude of every home in our Island, in our Empire, and indeed throughout the world, except in the abodes of the guilty, goes out to the British airmen who, undaunted by odds, unwearied in their constant challenge and mortal danger, are turning the tide of the World War by their prowess and by their devotion. Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few.

To understand this statement, it is important to put in perspective the numbers involved. “The few” were 2,353 young men from Britain and 574 from overseas who took place in the Battle of Britain, ultimately repelling the air might of Germany. Of these few men, 544 or 18.5% were killed in the period beginning July 10^th when the Germans began their air assault on Britain to October 31^st when the battle ended. These truly were the few.

In America, we also have “the few”, and over the course of the past four years, as 2006 draws to a close, we have lost just over 3,000 brave Americans who proudly served in all seven branches of the U.S. Military; the Army & Army Reserve, the Navy & Navy Reserve, the Air Force and Air Force Reserve, the Marines and the Marine Corps Reserve, the Coast Guard & the Coast Guard Reserve, the Army National Guard, and the Air National Guard.

What are we to make of these numbers? Should they appall us, or inspire us. In the end, whatever choice we make, there is no doubt that one path leads to Victory and the other to Ignominious Defeat.

In all of World War II, the United Kingdom suffered 450,000 deaths with approximately 68,000 of them being civilians. In total, this represented less than 1% of the population. Alternately, France suffered 562,000 deaths with approximately 267,000 being civilians and a further 83,000 being Jewish Holocaust victims, or 1.35% of the population; Poland suffered 5,600,000 deaths with approximately 2,200,000 being Polish civilians and a further 3,000,000 being Jewish Holocaust victims, or nearly 17% of the population; and the United States suffered 400,000 deaths with approximately 11,000 being civilians. Conversely, the Soviet Union, China, Germany, Indonesia, Japan and China lost 23.2 Million, 10.0 Million, 7.5 Million, 4.0 Million, and 2.6 Million respectively.

Here we have the “so called” Greatest Generation. The war that most American politicians appear to agree was worth the cost, although many did not think so at the time. 400,000 Americans lost to defend Europe and Asia from the clutches of Fanatical Fascism.

But what about other wars that we have fought. The Korean War cost approximately 54,000 American lives. The only Country with a higher death toll was the South Koreans (our Allies) with 227,000, unless, of course, you count the enemy who suffered over 1.5 Million dead. Then of course there was Vietnam where we lost approximately 58,000 American Lives, compared to approximately 224,000 South Vietnamese and 1.1 Million of the enemy. Compare that to the Iran/Iraq war where the Iranians lost over 500,000 men and the Iraqis lost over 375,000.

In the first Gulf War, Coalition deaths were less that 400.

And here we find ourselves with American deaths in the aftermath of the Second Gulf War having exceeded 3,000 brave American Patriots over the course of three plus years. Obviously, it has not been as good for the enemy, but based on the figures above, history tells us that it never is.

What then do we compare this to. How do we put this in perspective?

Do we look at the 42,000 American Deaths each year that come from Motor Vehicle Accidents? No one goes out for a drive looking for a hero’s death, especially knowing that if you do, there is a 40% chance that one of you will be drunk at the time. (As an aside, for any readers who don’t know, there are no drunks dying in any American Combat Zones. General Order One, amongst other things, prohibits the possession, sale, transfer, manufacture or consumption of any alcoholic beverage in a combat zone.)

Do we look at the Murder Rate in America where over 16,000 Americans die each and every year?

Or perhaps we could look to Capital Punishment, that perennial favorite for Liberals to bash. Since 1976, a period of over 30 years, America has executed slightly more than 1,000 of her worst criminals, with another 3,000 violent felons sitting on death row.

I can’t imagine that any law abiding citizen with a hint of intelligence would favor those odds, in that in any given year, you are almost 500 times more likely to lose your life, the victim of murder in America than you are to die as punishment for having committed the murder of another.

Do we look at the 1.4 Million fetal-Americans that are murdered each and every year as Supreme Court sanctioned victims of “so-called” choice?

Or do we look to the 2,973 innocent Americans murdered by Islamic Fanatics on September 11^th, 2001, civilians all, by anyone’s definition, not least of all that of the Geneva Convention?

So how do we put all these numbers in perspective?

Over 800 American Soldiers dying a year is certainly no source for celebration, but no more should it be a festering sore that we continually poke and prod in morbid curiosity, only serving to cause ourselves more pain. Each and every one of those soldiers was there because they chose to serve their Country and for that, they are to be admired. For that they are Heroes.

It should also be realized that while there are no accurate figures of the number of Iraqi insurgents; Al-Qaeda fighters; and other assorted miscreants that have been killed, if we extrapolate from the last two so-called quagmires that liberals also like to bash mercilessly as failures: those being Vietnam and to a lesser extent, Korea, the ratio of American to enemy deaths would be either 19 to 1, or 28 to 1, respectively. That would mean that each and every year, between 15,000 and 22,000 of America’s enemies were likewise being killed, which is clearly a victory in and of itself, and could now after three plus years easily represent over 65,000 murderous extremists who have not been left alive to attack Americans closer to home, just as we saw on September 11^th, where 19 Islamic Extremists were able to take the lives of almost 3,000 innocent Americans. That is an unfavorable ratio of 158 to 1.

Not even at their most efficient, could the American Abortion Mills cause the carnage that those extremists would do if even a fraction of them made it to American shores to do their deadly work.

That is, unless or course we are foolish enough to convince ourselves that if these insurgents weren’t attacking Americans and Iraqis on the streets of Iraq, that they would instead be sitting peacefully at home in Iraq, Syria and Iran, praising America and devoting their free time to making their own Countries better places to live and thinking of ways to do nice things for their wives.

It is far better that our husbands & wives, and sons & daughters die on foreign battle fields fighting for the Country that they love, than to suffer a needless death, the victim of murder or of a drunk driver who put his or her own pleasure above the cost in human suffering, or dying simply because they went to work in a New York office building.

Make no mistake, America is at war, and will be for some time, and if we are to defend America against her enemies, then we must do so where the odds are in our favor, just as our enemies did on September 11th, 2001.  We are deluding ourselves if we think otherwise, and if we do, it is our husbands, wives, chidren, friends and neighbors who will pay the price.

As we look forward to the 2008 Presidential Campaign, I am amazed as always at how many Senators and Congressmen are once again weighing bids for President.

Let’s see;

George W. Bush - Governor; William J. Clinton - Governor; George H.W. Bush - Vice President; Ronald W. Reagan - Governor; James E. Carter - Governor; Gerald R. Ford - Vice President; Richard M. Nixon - Vice President and on it goes.

Does anyone spot a trend here? I am not sure that this bodes well for Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards, or Joseph Biden.

Politicians legislate because they are trained as lawyers, and that is what we expect of Legislators. On the other hand, Statesman lead, and that is why we don’t elect Senators and Congressmen to be the President. We elect Governors as President because Governors are leaders.

Senators and Congressmen quibble and they compromise. That is their job. They can be reelected indefinitely so they look to take as much credit as possible while simultaneously offending the least.

Not so the President.

The President’s term is limited, so they try to do what is right even if it costs them politically.

The great tragedy of America today is that all to many of our Senators and Congressmen are Presidential want-to-bes who lack the qualifications or abilities for the job, so instead, like cowardly dogs, if they are of the opposite political party, they continually snap at the heels of the President seeking to hobble their better, or if they are of the same political party, they bide their time, feigning loyalty, all the while waiting to strike with their full fangs when they see it to their own personal advantage.

American would be better served if Congress were to legislate instead of spending all their time trying to do a job to which they were not elected. Checks and balances are one thing, as is oversight, but we are now far beyond anything that the founding fathers ever imagined let alone envisioned.

It is the greatest irony of human life that that which makes us the greatest is how we deal with our own eventual mortality. The greatest single acts of Human history stem from people embracing their own mortality, be it the soldier who lays down his life for his Country, or the Fireman who boldly walks into the Twin Towers knowing that he would not likely walk out again, or the Passengers of flight 93, or the President who makes the right choice despite the personal cost.

On the other hand, committees by their very nature can rarely accomplish anything except the lowest common denominator - truly one of the basest mathematical concepts embodying as it does, compromise as failure where everybody gets something and in the end nobody gets anything; or put another way, cold mathematical compromise where at Solomon’s suggestion, the baby is actually cut in half and each gets half of nothing and in the end less than nothing as they suffer the consequences of their choices - or worse, their own self degradation as they prove that they don’t really stand for anything.

Likewise, Senators and Congressmen without term limits give us a glimpse into how base and degraded mankind would be if we were cursed with life immortal here on earth.

America need leadership, not compromise.  Let's hope that in 2008 we are given that choice.