Poor Schools Force Moms to be Criminals!

Convicted Criminal: Loving Mom Provided for Childrens' Future

YOU KNOW YOU'VE HEARD TALK LIKE THIS:

          Send them back where they came from.
     
          We don't like those types around here.


What would a mother do to help her children get a better education? Parents across the country ask this question as public schools continue to decline in their effectiveness whether it is falling academic performance, a climate of discipline that simply does not equal reality, the insane insistence on doctrinaire political correctness and institutional persecution of traditional religious beliefs, and a climate where bullying, drugs, and general decadence is all-too-often not dealt with effectively. Naturally, the worst of the worst are urban school systems with primarily African-American populations. The emperor’s new clothes phenomenon seems to be in control as nobody wants to state the obvious as the little girl did noting the emperor stood stark naked – urban public schools amount to institutionalized racism and child abuse.

While they still leave much to be desired, sometimes school districts as close as across the street in the next school district, municipality, or county might seem like heaven on earth compared to the squalor of dysfunctional failing schools. So what is a parent to do? How many families can afford to pick up and move or pay tuition for private or parochial school. There is no single factor that can elevate a person out of poverty better than an effective education and the continuity of failing urban schools despite numerous “reform” efforts and substantial efforts to dump money on the problem. The efforts fail consistently to reach the classroom level where ill-prepared and unsatisfactory teachers work with weak instructional programs, crumbling buildings, and a lack of instructional materials. From a child’s entry into these failing systems, sadly at the tender age of five or six years of age, his or her fate is sealed destined for failure not prepared with anything resembling a satisfactory learning experience.

Many parents take the situation into their own hands and falsify addresses and misrepresent requested data on school enrollment forms to get their kids in the much improved surrounding schools which they are shut out of by virtual of simply their residential address. How many of these parents might even work and shop in the superior district paying taxes to support those schools?

Many parents decide to break the law and jump boundaries. Such actions can even represent felonies in some districts. Getting caught will at very least get their children booted out of the better schools but parents can face legal action having to pay restitution for the cost of their student attending the better school or criminal penalties – fines or even jail.

The real crime is what the system does to our less fortunate children. Many states have by legislation or court order been forced to achieve financial parity between all school districts but still reform in districts like Baltimore, Detroit, and many other municipalities is hardly even an illusion. Occasionally a strong reformer will take charge, but between changing political leadership, union pressure, and bureaucratic largesse, such reformers don’t stay around long enough to produce results – case in point – Washington DC.

Here is the story of a real person convicted of being a criminal for lying about her residence to get her daughters in a better school district. Kelley Williams-Bolar, an Ohio mother who worked as a teacher’s aide seeking to become a teacher enrolled her daughters in a well regarded school system in the Copley-Fairlawn district outside of Akron where she lived. Her father lived in the better district.

The school district went as far as to hire private investigators who filmed Ms. Williams-Bolar driving her kids into the suburban district. She was assessed $30,000 and refused to pay leading to a criminal indictment and ten days in county prison plus a year’s probation effectively eliminating any chance of her future as an educator.

So what’s the real crime? Who’s the real instigator? Are there any conspirators? The true criminal is the Akron school system for failure to provide for its children. The co-conspirators include teachers unions and politicians who fight meaningful reform at every turn and have a vested interest in perpetuating the status quo not rewarding teachers for superior performance, setting rules and policies which foster a successful learning environment, and ridding the system of needless and ineffective bureaucrats and incompetent teachers.

Alas, who is going to help parents not have to make such a fateful decision becoming criminals for the good of their children’s future? Who’s going to indict and punish those who perpetuate such vulgar institutionalized child abuse?

That our society accepts such criminal behavior against American children is our national embarrassment and refusing to remediate it is grotesquely criminal.

REFERENCE SOURCE: http://abcnews.go.com/US/ohio-mom-jailed-sending-kids-school-district/story?id=12763654



.

King's Dream is Still Relevant for Today's Nightmares

Here it is, the United States once again takes the day off to honor Martin Luther King’s birthday. It’s been almost 43 years since James Earl Ray gunned him down on a Memphis motel balcony. Ronald Reagan signed legislation in 1983 to establish Martin Luther King’s birthday, January 15th as a Federal Holiday. The date of the celebration was changed to the third Monday of January to be consistent with the Uniform Holiday Act. After all, no matter how solemn the occasion, holidays should be Mondays to facilitate long weekends and big sales at the malls and car dealerships which thankfully haven’t become crass enough to call them MLK Day Blow Out Sales or whatever. Instead they obscure the observance all together by often calling them, “post holiday” sales.

Scoundrels will give a nod to Doctor King even when every ounce of their effort seems contrary to King’s vision. Once again, the scary little man comes into focus. Glenn Beck in his pompous pseudo sincerity gave MLK a salute today on his broadcast attempting to tie together all kinds of arcane historical references. Yes, this is the same self-pitying twerp who enlisted Sarah Palin to help stage a rally for the terminally white folk at the Lincoln Memorial on August 28th, the anniversary of King’s miraculous history changing rally held on that spot in 1963.

Beck can say whatever he will about the commonality of all Americans or what a good person MLK was. The rest of his narrative says otherwise. In Beck’s world, there was a political Garden of Eden back at the beginning of the 19th century when the young Republic of the United States was guarded by the vision of its founding fathers. There was no visible black dissent because most Americans of African ancestry were slaves. The media was in the north east and totally blind to the black experience. People like Beck and Palin believe in the mythology of these wonderful stark white people who were all good Christians and Jesus Christ whispered in their ears on how to live the perfect life until the 7th President, Andrew Jackson, started taking things in a new direction. Across the Atlantic, all kinds of bad things were brewing. Some sixty years into the century, Abraham Lincoln came along and freed the slaves, so black people were all so happy to be free so they could sing spirituals, bake corn bread, and eat lots of pig and chicken products. They had their little plots of land, and America was still a good place.

Oh-oh, around the turn of the next century, something bad happened, these evil progressives came along and both openly and secretly started to take over every thing. Women were told not to be good happy wives any longer, but to organize and vote. They started stirring up the black folk and oops, they started to want what white people had. Very bad people were doing very bad things because they were bad people – oh my, that idyllic word Beck and Palin thought America was in 1800 was gone. (Hmm, could it be that Mr. Beck and Mrs. Palin aren’t the sharpest knives in the drawer – what was that industrial revolution and the influx of populations from overseas and rural America to the big cities all about – oh immigrants – BAD PEOPLE.)

After World War II, so much happened so quickly. President Truman desegregated the military much like today we rid “don’t ask don’t tell.” Oh the horrors of squeaky clean bleached white people should serve side by side with those coloreds. A great black lawyer, Thurgood Marshall, took a case against the Topeka Board of Education to the Supreme Court (probably directed by communists that McCarthy hadn’t caught yet given the historical time it happened). Under Chief Justice Earl Warren the court ordered an end to segregated schools. Later in the 1950’s, Rosa Park refused to sit in the back of the bus in Birmingham, Alabama, and soon young blacks would take seats at lunch counters where only white people were supposed to sit. There were uproars in Baltimore at North Wood Plaza, the cities new fancy shopping center and Reads drug store at Howard and Lexington Street. The young Martin Luther King from the Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta began his march through out the Deep South facing guns and violence to set the oppressed people free.

Yes, a lot of progressives were involved, but so were lots of other Americans. King’s points were overwhelmingly true.

Nothing a charlatan and a little toady like Glenn Beck has to say has any relevance to the day we should honor.

So where have things gone since King died. Brutal riots broke out right after his death. White populations exited big cities in droves fearful of the “dangerous” neighborhoods. Left behind without the middle class, cities turned into cesspools of suffering with horrible schools, drugs on every corner, and nightly shootings.

In the last quarter of the 20th century the new segregation was based more on zip code than race officially, but the consequences are largely the same, blacks are all too often forced to deal with second class public accommodations where the public schools, once a powerful tool of liberation, became breeding grounds of dysfunction.

Many civil rights leaders like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton because racial hucksters using race as an issue to capitalize on suffering while solving nothing.

While Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice became the first and second black secretaries of state, somehow the election of Barack Hussein Obama seems like an ironic corruption of King’s dream. While like so many “black” people, he is a multiracial person, but he has no connection whatsoever to the struggle Dr. King fought. He has no ancestral connection to slavery and the evils black Americans could not overcome for decades. The dream is perverted once again by an Ivy League elitist who does not talk from the people but down to the people.

Doctor King spoke of the “content of one’s character” being what really matters. Especially in light of the cowardly cynical political attacks that came out of the Tucson tragedy, many prominent politicians and media members find the content of their character running on empty.

Doctor King has been gone for 43 years. His work must continue…




.

Does the 2nd Amendment Protect Assholes?

Colorado radio station owner and personality pushes the limits on gun rights.

Brett Reese is not a conservative. He’s an asshole, but how far does an asshole half to go before it would be inappropriate for him to legally carry a gun?

Reese is a talk show flame thrower who broadcasts on radio station KELS-FM in Greely Colorado where he is also a member of the Greeley-Evans school board in Weld County. He threatened a “shootout” with a rival radio station’s owner if he didn’t stop calling businesses that underwrite Reese’s non-commercial radio station.

One would normally assume that he was talking figuratively albeit it irresponsibly and his comments were not to be taken literally. Nevertheless, he further helped stake his reputation as a mad man in many peoples’ views for his editorializing against Martin Luther King Day as a national observance calling King among other things, “a degenerate embezzler,” “a plastic god,” and “an American-hating communist.”

No doubt many on the left would consider such remarks “hate speech.” This writer would considerate his remarks ill-motivated lies and mischaracterizations. He walks a fine line between outright lies and grossly unpopular and unacceptable opinions.

Do these factors render him unworthy to carry a gun with a permit? It certainly makes his presence on the school board questionable unless he was elected to serve and that community desires a hater like him on their board.

The question is does being an asshole who expresses ridiculous opinions justify grounds not to carry a gun?

He claims he has received numerous death threats for airing his unpopular views. Surely, right minded people would challenge his assumptions in the snap of a finger. He goes on to defend himself by saying, "That's not what my push is. I think it's important for people to discuss any issue openly, freely and without being assassinated or bankrupted."

The cost of free speech, however, is that once one says something inflammatory, it becomes that person’s obligation to deal with the consequences his free speech brings. The same freedoms Brett Reese is exploiting in a hateful, hurtful manner are the same freedoms Dr. Martin Luther King exploited to enlighten a whole society to the wickedness of promises unfulfilled, of a population of Americans denied what most of the population took for granted on account of their skin color and origin.

King was a human being. He is not above criticism. An honest biography conducting a complete appraisal of his life would show some of his political positions were quite extreme. While it is constructive and noble to honor his great accomplishments, it would be equally wrong to deify him putting him above critical evaluation.

It is also unfortunate how many opportunists attempt to invoke King’s legacy and cloak themselves in King’s reputation attempting to say that their positions are an outgrowth of King’s vision. Some as radical as members of the New Black Panthers to paranoid nut jobs like Glenn Beck have attempted to do just that. Imagine that, Glenn Beck attempts to convince his audience of fawning bobble heads that he’s saying exactly what Martin Luther King might have said. If the angry little man had truly revered Dr. King, there’s no way in hell he would have held his rally of self justification held last August 28th on the 47th anniversary of King’s great “I Have a Dream” speech.

Supporting Brett Reese in any context is very tough to stomach. Perhaps his very presence on public airwaves could be contrary to his FCC license. While authorities should assume nothing, it is probably most appropriate that he be subject to a hot interview or hearing to determine his worthiness to carry a concealed weapon. Certainly, those responsible for issuing permits should be very clear what he means by “shootout.”

As much as it would be wonderful to argue otherwise, his way out of bounds remarks about Dr. Martin Luther King are protected by the 1st Amendment and unless his comments unlawfully insight violence, that’s no reason to deny him the rights the 2nd Amendment promise.

Brett Reese, one way or another, YOU have a lot of explaining to do.


.

A Conservative Defends "Same Sex" Marriage and Ending "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

A “Conservative” for Same Sex Marriage and Ending “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”

This writer’s opinion on this issue has been a long time coming. As a heterosexual, homosexuality is something that will always seem strangely alien to me as I am just not wired to identify with those feelings. My outlook on homosexuality has evolved over many years being something of a gay basher in high school to increasingly developing understanding and tolerance to this, the final barrier, consenting to the notion of same sex marriage.

My first revelation was that gay bashers were far crazier than anything I could ascribe to homosexuals even the ones who engage in the bizarre San Francisco kind of conduct which is probably more a reflection on San Francisco than is it sexual preference. From there I realized I had lots of friends and fellow workers who were “gay” or “lesbians.” They were just real good folks who one would never suspect – so much for don’t ask, don’t tell. How can we exclude people willing to take a bullet for their country over an issue like this?

I fully realize there are passages in The Bible which would appear to strongly condemn homosexuality. However, often in the same passage or elsewhere there are strong condemnations against adultery, promiscuity, and other lustful behavior. So if homosexuality is so awful, where’s the passion about the other things? It might be healthy if there were much more condemnation of having children out of wedlock. Let’s remember that we are also taught, “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.”

Let’s now add a social context. What kind of “sinful” behavior clearly has negative effects on others regardless of beliefs or morals? Conduct that results in not supporting a family or the needs of a child is surely far worse than what someone does in his or her private life or with another consulting adult.

This leads to the crux of the decision. How does same sex marriage do harm to others? How would permitting such affect this writer’s life in any manner whatsoever? Meanwhile, for the participants in a same sex relationship, the bond of marriage could be the ultimate affirmation of that which those two people hold most dearly. Why should someone else destroy their pursuit of happiness as they desire to do?

The only concern that is hard to resolve is the roll of children who have homosexual parents. Would not having two committed parents have benefits over a single parent home? The only harm is the extent to which kids might be bullied by homophobic other children. Has not our culture attempted to teach tolerance of same-sex relationships? Clearly, though a lot of values are borne from the home.

There’s only one other argument that surfaces from time-to-time, if marriage can be stretched to be inclusive of more than the traditional man and woman, where does society draw the line? Could courts then rule polygamy is okay? Could adult/child relationships be rationalized? If we employ the “do no harm” standard, those concerns should be addressed. The political process can mess up anything so ultimately then the responsibility rests in the voter. Where same sex marriage has gone to the ballot, there have been mixed results.

With all these considerations in mind, while it is far from a front burner issue in this writer’s list of political issues, both same sex marriage and eliminating restrictions against homosexuals serving in the military should be realized.

There’s a dark little secret. Some people with same sex preferences are politically conservative but might possibly ally their passions elsewhere because the conservative political factions have made them unwelcome.

Our society is full of sexual hang-ups that would be better served if all of us could discuss and debate more openly and not hide behind the barriers of outmoded morality or shrouds of political correctness.



.

Beck's Reasoning -- Unhinged and Unwelcome

For those not familiar with Glenn Beck’s warped thinking and treachery, here are his comments about the upcoming event he has planned for Saturday, August 28 at the Lincoln Memorial, the 47th anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King’s famous March on Washington, the occasion for his famous “I Have a Dream” speech, an event which marked a significant turning point in the nation’s support in favor of civil rights for all citizens.

Beck writes:

As Saturday approaches, it's pretty interesting to see the opposition to the 8/28 Restoring Honor event coming from the usual suspects on the left. They are dutifully organizing counter rallies and doing their best to label this a gathering of a bunch of hatemongers. Leave it to the partisan hacks of today to stand firmly in opposition to a non political event centered around 'Restoring Honor' and the values and principles that made America great in the first place.

Note: Quickly Beck seeks to take up sides – those for and against him attempting to generalize about who stands against his charade. This writer is conservative on most issues but is steadfast in his opposition to staging an event on such a significant historical anniversary for the sake of self-promotion for himself and Sarah Palin. To say it is a non-political event when Beck’s program deals primarily with political issues and that Sarah Palin is one of the most polarizing political figures in the country makes that argument a shallow lie.

But there are people opposing it, and yes that means you may hop off the bus after riding 3000 miles only to have some anti-honor stooge calling you names. And the media may even join in as they did with the tea parties. But whatever hassle you endure, it will be nothing like what the people faced on August 28, 1963. Being part of the civil rights movement back then meant risking a whole lot more than just being the object of ridicule. That’s bad enough, but it's only the first small step on the way to what eventually happened during the civil rights era: segregation, beatings, and even death were all common place. Can you imagine what was going through the minds of people as they marched through Washington on the way to the Lincoln Memorial? Cautiously moving forward, surveying the landscape to see if anyone was making a move, knowing at any moment all hell could break loose. Imagine as they listened to the speech, the excitement and hope were matched only by the fear of what would or could happen next. It wasn't unfounded - less than a month after the speech, 26 children walked into the 16th Street Church completely unaware that a timed bomb had been placed beneath the steps. The blast killed 4 young girls and wounded several others. Why was it set? Because racist bigots disagreed with desegregation in schools. Nearly half a century later, as crowds set to gather once again, the threat is the not nearly the same - but people are still risking a lot.

How shallow Beck’s understanding of August 23, 1963 is. People like Dr. King put their lives on the line every day. Beck and Palin risk nothing other than further revealing was misguided asses they are. Glenn Beck wasn’t even born on this historic day nor was Sarah Palin. Ironically, they were born one day apart, Glenn Beck was born on February 10, 1964; Palin on February 11. Their upbringing and lives provide neither one of them with any significant contact with biracial society or the issues struggled with since 1963.

Thankfully, we've come a long way since then. But one thing that remains the same is that those opposing the rally do so from a position of ignorance. They have no idea what this rally is going to be. I know that because the complete program details haven't been released yet. They are relying on the tired old partisan talking points. Those who are mocking and calling names aren't listening to, or are choosing to ignore, the actual message. It's not about bigotry or politics. It's about the content of character and merit. I hope those at the counter rallies this Saturday and others opposing this event actually listen to the words with an open mind. Who knows, maybe they'll come join us and lock arms as we celebrate the principles and values that unite every American.

The clear contradiction -- Beck choses to divide and point fingers, being petty and self surving. Doctor King sought to unite and truly understood the phrase Beck throws around like a cheap tennis ball, "the content of their character." King inspired deep spiritual thought requiring soul-searching for answers where Beck and Palin live in a fill-in-the-blank world of bumper sticker slogans.

Glenn Beck is dead wrong to argue those opposing his rally do so out of ignorance. One would hardly call Greta Van Susterain, a fellow Fox News commentator, ignorant but she has published her opposition to this staged event. Sure some will oppose this event simply because Beck is a right-wing talk show host and Palin is an outspoken member of a faction of the Republican party; however, those who understand American history (something Beck pleads his viewers should attempt to do) understand why what he and Palin are planning is so inherently offensive. Who cannot see this scheme as something that doesn’t reek of self-serving opportunism?

For a media figure hell bent on exploiting his media exposure and a politician who has a mad craving for craving an audience’s approval to satisfy some basic narcissistic impulses, choosing this particular date and site for a “restore honor” campaign cannot be seen in isolation of the bigger picture, that for those subject to the evils of racism, Beck’s plan is a wicked intrusion into a most solemn foundation of their lives as Americans.

Beck and Palin are on record as being opposed to the Islamic Center, a mosque being built in the shadows of the New York World Trade Center. Many Americans see the blatant insensitivity of something giving praise to Allah near such hallowed grounds horribly out-of-touch with reality given 2700 plus Americans died on that site when two hijacked airlines were crashed in the twin towers. The last thing the passengers on those planes heard were radical Muslims screaming all glories to Allah.


For African-Americans, a rah-rah celebration of good old heartland American values presented by a slickster like Beck, reminds them that the Americanism Beck celebrates used to be used as agents of their oppression until brave men like Martin Luther King stood up to the powers that be to change things.

Fox news is complicit in this horribly misguided plan. Whether they are sponsors of this event or not, Palin and Beck are on their payroll and as one of the nation’s most widely viewed sources of news, whether intended or not, their connection with this event and any possible negative outcomes will not escape their perceived responsibility.

No doubt, regardless of the intentions of those involved. There will be those intent on fermenting chaos Saturday. Whether plants from the left infiltrate Beck’s crowd, or others intent on creating a scene, this event is so loaded with possible sources of tremendous treachery. Few will investigate into the real sources of the trouble. Simple rumors that anyone from the Beck gang engaged in any kind of racist behavior could be used as proof positive that the tea-party movement is exactly what opponents want it to be seen as.

Beck and Palin are too ego-centered to realize when they are walking into something unwelcomed and their blindness combined with the extent to which it can create dreadful consequences supports Right Minded Fellow’s longstanding opposition to both of them as detestable figures in the national political/media scene. Beck and Palin have thrown themselves into something that is way over their heads full of their shallow sense of craving for attention with no intellect or meaningful thought to offer in return.

Write Fox news, comment on any websites supporting Beck or Palin, but make it clear as sensitive Americans, you are not supporting their dangerous publicity stunt.

Do the Right Thing!!!

Denounce Glenn Beck's and Sarah Palin's SHAMEFUL stunt scheduled at the Lincoln Memorial this Saturday, August 28th, the 47th Anniversary of Doctor Martin Luther King's history changing "I Have a Dream" speech.



How calculating and insensitive can two opportunistic, publicity starved figures with absolutely no known history of involvement in the Civil Rights Movement and no record of accomplishment benefiting African-Americans seize upon exploiting this most sensitive and historic day for those who were a part of history being changed on that famous afternoon in 1963. For the whitest of white people to use this historic anniversary to forward their agenda (neither one of whom shows much intellectual depth or real critical thinking) is the exact kind of insensitivity the vast majority of America condemns the forces behind erecting a monument to Islam in the shadows of where the twin World Trade Center towers once stood.

Shame on Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin. The conservative and tea-party movement MUST cast them aside if they intend to make serious advances on liberal/progressive power in Washington.

Just because someone has the right to do something doesn't make it right. God forbid this event will stir up the dark forces of division.

Holland, Michigan -- Community in Uproar over Basic Anti Sexual Preference Discrimination Ordinance

Holland, Michigan, a postcard perfect small city on Lake Michigan’s Eastern Shore is the latest city where the battle lines are drawn on the issue of discrimination against homosexuals. The city, nicknamed “Tulip City” for its lavish flower gardens resembling the town’s namesake, Holland (as in the Netherlands) originally settled by Dutch Calvinists, has a population of 35,000. City authorities sought to pass a simple ordinance banning discrimination due to sexual preference or gender identity, what has become an accepted practice through out much of the country. The opposition in this case is fighting the measure with especially spirited zeal backed by the Family Research Council and allegedly Request Food, a local company, whose CEO, Jack DeWitt, has been outspoken on such subjects. Meanwhile, as the measure advances through the city's legal system, similar ordinances are already in place in nearby cities Kalamazoo and Grand Rapids.


The advertisement is printed under the banner, “Is Homosexuality a Civil Rights Issue?” then go on to proclaim, “Pro-homosexual activists want you to believe so. They want Holland to give homosexuals special protections under employment discrimination laws.”

Where are the “special protections?” The proposal addresses forbidding discrimination. They then go on to assert it is not a matter of civil rights arguing, “Most civil rights lawsgrant protections based on characteristics that are inborn, involuntary, immutable, and innocuous (race, color, national origin, and sex) or protected in the Constitution religion). None of these is true of the choice to engage in homosexual behavior.”

Their inference is clear; homosexuality is a choice reflective of some clearly unacceptable values and motives. They then attempt to present a series of popular “myths” concerning homosexuality and refute it with what they claim to be “facts.”

The myths they cite are:

-People are born gay.

-Sexual orientation can never change.

-Ten percent of the population is gay.

-Homosexuals do not experience a higher level of psychological disorders than heterosexuals.

-Homosexuals are seriously disadvantaged by discrimination.

We are not going to go into a big long dissertation on the difference between fact and opinion or decry why so little of the public knows the difference. (Hint – poor public schools incapable of teaching critical thinking skills...) Likewise, we’re not going to provide all the information concerning the validity of these so-called myths much less offer points of debate against the so-called facts Family Research Council. Most of them speak for themselves and embody the very essence of the kind of kind of thinking which justifies anti-gay bigotry.

Why should this discussion ever go any further than why is the private conduct between two consenting adults anyone else’s business? Could anything be a more basic civil right than that? For those who’d argue that hiring homosexuals could create a distraction around the workplace, what would a homosexual do that could rival the distraction of a scantily clad female program in a low cut top or short dress or skirt? Of course, we’ve heard the self-established he-man types talk about what they would do to some “faggot” if one ever made an advance on those guys. Hmm, none of them seem to ever convince anyone else such an advance ever took place. It seems like observation would reveal most such advances are heterosexual white men “hitting on” women they find attractive.

For folks who throw up their hands and don’t know how to weigh in on this subject, in their day to day experience what is more frightening than the virulent expression of anti-homosexual prejudices – loud and boisterous “gay bashing.”

While it might be very difficult for a person to understand another person’s sexual preference than that of his or her own, isn’t the overriding virtue to “live and let live?” We must also ask ourselves how much of person’s private life is another person’s business. Surely, there is much about homosexuality we do not understand. There’s plenty about heterosexuality that is a mystery too. Perhaps some of it is part of our society’s subconsciousness based on some Puritanical heritage.

While the debate on same-sex marriages will surely continue on many levels, we’re long past the stage where a person should ever be denied the fruits of society or employment on the basis of sexual preference.

Judge Rules Anti-Gay Religious Beliefs No Excuse

Welcome to the 21st century. A Christian graduate student at Eastern Michigan University refused to counsel homosexuals on the grounds of her religion and belief that homosexuality is morally wrong. She sued the university claiming her first amendment rights on freedom of religion were being violated. Despite the support of the Alliance Defense Fund, a conservative legal group, US District Court Judge George Caram Steeh dismissed the lawsuit.


The college argued in favor of her expulsion that her conduct violated the American Association’s “Code of Ethics” and school policies. Conversely, David Frech, senior counsel for the ADF contended, “Christian students shouldn’t be expelled for holding to and abiding by their beliefs. To reach its decision, the court had to do something that’s never been done in federal court, uphold an extremely broad and vague university speech code.”

Judge Steeh clarified his ruling stating: ““Furthermore, the university had a rational basis for requiring students to counsel clients without imposing their personal values… In the case of Ms. Ward, the university determined that she would never change her behavior and would consistently refuse to counsel clients on matters with which she was personally opposed due to her religious beliefs – including homosexual relationships.”

The claims of Ms. Ward’s freedom of speech being violated are bogus. She is free to state her conscious and practice her religion. However, when the requirements of a job or academic requirement necessitates as part of its fulfillment, performing specific tasks the organization is professionally expected to deliver, it is unacceptable for students or employees to pick and choose what parts of their assigned duties they will or will not perform particularly if the institution is a state agency or is involved in providing for the public health.

If the requirements of a job or program require certain specific behaviors, one applying to join cannot pick and choose what parts of the assignment he or she will or will not do. The job requirements should be clearly defined and upon accepting admittance or employment, the candidate must understand it is that person’s responsibility to execute those tasks the candidate is assigned.

State agencies serve all citizens regardless of their race, religion, ethnicity, or sexual preference. The same holds true for the public practice of medicine and psychology. There have been cases in the past, for instance, where pharmacists have refused to fill patients’ prescriptions such as birth control pills or Viagra because they claim doing so forces them to violate their religious beliefs. For such pharmacists to refuse to provide that which a doctor has determined proper treatment for a patient simply is not a domain where a pharmacist’s judgment or values may interfere unless obvious cases if for instance a prescribed drug would have negative interactions with another drug the patient is using.

The logic behind the law suit against the University of Michigan would be compatible with situations like a Muslim refusing to teach Christian or Jewish students because they are infidels. Or grocery store clerks refusing to ring up sales for meat products because their new age spirituality indicates they should be vegetarians. There have already been cases of Islamic grocery clerks refusing to handle bacon since pork is forbidden by Sharia law.

The message to folks who don’t like situations like that of Ms. Ward, the pharmacist who refuses to fill birth control prescriptions, or Muslim who refuses to handle pork products, if those things are part of their job or school training and they cannot bring themselves to put their feelings aside for the sake of professionalism, they should seek other employment.

The first amendment freedom of religion states “Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion or the free expression thereof…” is not carte blanche for one to use religious beliefs as grounds to not do what is required of them professionally. No one is forced to do a particular job. In one’s private and social life, one is free to do a lot of things that are not acceptable on the job. How many jobs would allow a person to wear a tank top and baggy shorts to the office?

Homosexuality might be the last frontier of civil rights and some issues are still being debated such as same-sex marriages when marriage sanctifies the special relationship between a man and woman as the foundation of the family and assurance of two parents being responsible partners in procreation. While that issue remains unresolved, it is clear what a person does in his private life is nobody’s business but his own. The sexual preferences and desires of two consenting adults is nobody’s business except for those of the participants.

While there are passages within the Bible which would appear to condemn homosexuality, for the whole history of Christianity, Christian societies have found it appropriate to define certain aspects of scripture as they see fit. Additionally, the Bible is the product of reporting events that happened over 2000 years ago when so much of human knowledge about the workings of the laws of chemistry, physic, and biology were not known. The Bible has historically been used as justification to subjugate women and support racism. Those notions are rejected today. Regardless of where one stands on homosexuality, how many Christians today would support the bigotry and intolerance of the Westboro Baptist Church?

In the real world, all people are faced with challenges reconciling their faith with day-to-day demands of the material world. If one’s understanding of his or her faith is not consistent with the requirements of a desired profession, it is that individual’s responsibility to find a vocation which can be practiced without threatening one’s faith. Since issues like Ms. Ward’s are not a problem for most people, maybe she needs to reevaluate her faith and perhaps look at her beliefs from a broader prism.

Connecticut School Board Removes "Lord" from Diploma as They Should Have

The school board of New Haven, Connecticut was correct to have the language "in the year of our Lord" removed from high school diplomas. The concept is explicitly Christian and official documents should be religiously neutral. This is not in the same spirit as banning posting the Ten Commandments, for instance, which can be examined in its universal not just spiritual context other other activities that reflect religious aspects to our culture which do not explicitly attempt to impose upon or interfere with the religious practice of others.

Naturally, there's the usual religiosity of some conservatives who attempt to establish that the United States is truly a Christian nation in the assertion that the founding fathers were devote Christians who leaned upon their Christian faith to establish our country's founding principles. That is a false representation of history as there was significant religious diversity from Catholic and Protestant points of view to those of Deists. The assertion that they were not men of faith and representing Deism as almost interchangeable with agnosticism is equally false as asserted by many secular humanists.

The bottom line is that the inclusion of "year of our Lord" serves no purpose other than to explicitly recognize Christianity, and that is not what a country devoted to religious freedom is about.

We will continue to discuss these issues as they come up. Over the long haul, surely we will weigh in more consistently against the forces who seem to think that "freedom from any public religious expression" is what our Constitution's first amendment intends.

Of course, private and religious oriented schools are free to use terms like "in the year of our Lord" as they see fit, and if students who attend those schools don't like the practice, maybe they should question why they enrolled in such a school in the first place. A Muslim student at Trinity College in San Antonio, Texas petitioned for the removal of this phrase. In this situation, one has to wonder what a practitioner of Islam is doing attending a Christian School in the first place.

Forty Years Ago Today: Four Dead in Ohio

Four innocent students were murdered by the Ohio National Guard on May 4, 1970 for simply being on campus at the wrong time. These were not fire breathing radicals. All indications were they were good kids going to Kent State University at the wrong time.

The town of Kent was a riot zone. The town was ransacked by opportunistic radical jerks who fed on the anger students felt because of President Richard Nixon's recent decision to escalate fighting in Vietnam including incursions into Cambodia. In a struggle that had already become a blood bath of American youth since 1966, American youth of draft age were refusing to offer themselves up to be human sacrifices in a senseless war of no strategic or national security interest to the United States where the United States government put its entire might behind a corrupt and unpopular South Vietnamese government.

In addition to the four Kent State students whose futures were snuffed out by an overly aggressive and poorly prepared National Guard Unit, over 58,000 young Americans would be killed, their lives destroyed in the jungles of a distant land. History clearly shows how wrong our government was. The so-called domino theory made it sound as though stakes were much higher than what was already essentially the case before our forces left South Vietnam. South Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia would all become communist states but a monolithic communist movement sweeping across Asia never materialized. The North Vietnamese surely knew they wanted no part of the world's whore house in Thailand.

Today, although not free by our standards, Vietnam is a peaceful country struggling to become part of the world economy. The United States still hasn't gotten over Vietnam as the horrors of that war were so intense, we cannot commit to wars clearly in our strategic interest such as in Afghanistan and Iraq without some seeing those wars as being the same kind of mess Vietnam was.

Make no mistake about it, the Iraq war wound up being fought for less than what we thought was at stake as no major stockpiles or development programs of weapons of mass destruction were ever found. Regardless, we did discover plenty of abuses and horrors that surely justified the riddance of Saddam Hussein. Meanwhile, our ongoing efforts to defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan, where safe sanctuary was provided for Al Qaeda to function freely, present our military with a dreadful challenge defending a corrupt government essentially installed by our government forces whose economy is maintained by the opium poppy trade. We cannot simply defeat the Taliban, we must help Afghanistan convert to a legitimate economy, and develop a political system they can believe in that will never pose a threat to the world.

What happened forty years ago in Kent, Ohio changed the world. What innocence our country still held was forever obliterated. Those in power had blood on their hands. Those blood stains will surely never fade as the memory of those four normal Americans guilty of going to college were executed for that offense.

Kansas Killer Practices Retroactive Abortion on Tiller

George Tiller the baby killer was shot dead, murdered while attending morning services at the Reformation Lutheran Church in Wichita, Kansas where he served as an usher.

Few figures ignited more passion and anger in pro-life supporters since Dr. Tiller openly practiced late term abortions on what many consider very tenuous grounds for clients able to pay the $5000 fee. His advocacy and practice made him a lightening rod in the abortion debate.

The reaction to his murder will be intense and highly politicized. Consider the difference in emphasis between the coverage both sourced as A/P stories between how The Wall Street Journal and USA Today report the murder;

Wall Street Journal
Prominent late-term abortion provider George Tiller was shot and killed Sunday in a Wichita church where he was serving as an usher, his attorney said. The gunman fled but a city official said a suspect is in custody.

USA Today
Late-term abortion doctor George Tiller, a prominent advocate for abortion rights wounded by a protester more than a decade ago, was shot and killed Sunday at a church in Wichita where he was serving as an usher and his wife was in the choir, his attorney said.

What makes Tiller a particularly compelling figure in the abortion debate is that he operated one of three medical practices in the country that provide abortions after the 21st week, five months into pregnancy. An additional political element to Tiller’s practice is his political involvement having donated thousands to former Kansas Governor, Democrat Kathleen Sebelius, now confirmed as Secretary of Health and Human Services for the Obama Administration mindful that as a State Senator in Illinois, Barack Obama stood in contrast to that body favor provisions allowing viable babies to be murdered, destroyed in the act of an intended abortion, though found as viable at the time the termination was instigated.

Dr. Tiller’s activities drew intense legal scrutiny. Late term abortion candidates require second opinions to validate conditions that would provide legal justification that an abortion is medically required. Prosecutors contended Tiller referred patients a doctor employed by Tiller, not an independent source as required by Kansas law. Though acquitted by a jury of such charges, Tiller’s adversaries contend that any woman who can pay the $5000 for his services can obtain a late term abortion.

While the abortion debate remains intense and highly polarizing, a growing consensus of Americans steadfastly opposes late term abortions particularly partial birth abortions where labor is induced while the baby is mutilated to complete the termination. Furthermore, as ultrasound technology becomes more advanced providing much sharper imagery of the fetus functioning in its prenatal environment, mothers are able to see a real baby too tiny and not adequately defined yet to join the real world. These issues have contributed to a growing trend toward polls showing more and more Americans identify themselves as pro-life.

Be clear on this, if a person believes life begins at conception, there is no compromise position. Any termination of pregnancy is murder. In cases of rape and incest, the child did not choose his or her parents. A child cannot be killed for the sake of situations beyond its control. Only in the case of demonstrable threats to a mother’s life where her survival is weighed against the life of an offspring are there grounds for debate. Therefore, any allowance for pro-life positions are a matter of defending murder.

George Tiller’s murder will create a political firestorm. Within the next couple of news cycles, there will be righteously-toned editorials and commentary condemning this assassination and as the media mindset so often presents, rather than holding the criminal himself responsible for his crimes, blame will surely fall on their most outspoken political adversaries who are the most vocal in their opposition to abortion and who have specifically identified Tiller as a major player practicing the most objectionable forms of abortion.

Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and Newt Gingrich, among others, will be targeted for their rhetoric directed against Tiller’s activities. In the committed left-wing perspective of the mainstream media, such figures will be prosecuted and convicted in the media circus as accessories to this murder. One should not be surprised if somehow their influence will be worked in to help build the killer’s defense as being some kind of obsessive person, he then found moral license to murder Tiller based on the views of talk-show hosts he faithfully supported.

The left will come close to making a martyr of Tiller using his death as a rallying point for abortion rights, gun control, and the fairness doctrine as there should have been, in liberal ideology, immediate voices countering the anti-abortion positions aired by some of the country’s most popular talk show hosts.

Viewing his life’s work since going into the abortion business in 1973, George Tiller is a particularly villainous figure for pro-life believers. That he sought to eliminate all impediments to unrestricted abortions make him a hero to the so-called pro choice viewpoint.

That Dr. Tiller expedited the ease of securing a legal late term abortion against babies perhaps only days away from being ready for life in the outside world for the sake of mothers, who apparently could come up with psychological causes as justification for their medical reason to abort, is quite simply a moral atrocity. While we would prefer less inflammatory rhetoric, at what point do such justifications become the grounds for genocide against the unborn?

Doctor Tiller’s murder does nothing to advance resolution of this debate which must result into a higher respect for life and encouragement of more responsible behavior regarding everything that leads to the possibility of considering destroying babies.

The exact moment in the process from when sperm enters egg and develops toward a living baby becomes uniquely a human life, a soul, is a subject theologians and philosophers can possibly debate for eternity. Regardless of whether some argue there is a little window of time allowing for second thoughts about bringing a child into being, our own eyes can tell us what our hearts should feel, fetuses are being destroyed well beyond the point at which a collection of cells have multiplied and specialized into becoming a human life.

Society must evaluate the entire series of issues that lead up to the possible decision of ending a pregnancy. This includes teaching responsible sexual behavior and clearly indentifying some forms of behavior as wrong. Since the birth control pill provided for much more active sexual behavior while at the same time traditional values concerning sexual behavior and life have been reduced to relativity, society is suffering the consequences of such rampant permissiveness. Abortion is but one issue. Millions of children born without any paternal involvement other than serving as the sperm donor in the sexual act contributes to poverty, failing schools, and urban violence. The link between single parent children and a myriad of social problems is undeniable. Such behavior is glamorized by Hollywood sluts and their partners-du-jour. They might have the financial ability to provide for their children though their mental bankruptcy is subject to our criticism.

No debate is more polarizing that the issues regarding abortion but irresponsible sexual behavior is the underlying issue no one wants to talk about. Doctor Tiller is dead, but the debate surely will only get uglier, more emotional, more divided, and other tragedies beyond the babies being killed are a certainty.

Be clear on one thing, it is easy for white middle class men to categorically oppose all forms of abortion as they will never become pregnant. For their daughters, it’s a different matter entirely.

WARNING ADULT CONTENT: Charges Dropped Against Texas Woman Who Dropped F-Bomb at Walmart

First, let’s set the record straight, we are absolutely in favor of civility and deplore the coarsening of society. There is way too much gratuitous filthy language in Hollywood, case in point, the movie “Sixty One,” the Billy Crystal movie about Roger Maris’s pursuit of Babe Ruth’s homerun record that would have been a wonderful father/son bonding movie were it not for tirade upon tirade of foul language.

Second, there are situations where naughty language slips out. If a person drops a hammer on his toes, he is not likely to say, “Oh, fiddle sticks.” More often, the response would be something like, “God damnit!” “Aw fuck!” or “Jesus Christ.” There are even rare interactions with idiots where there is no other way to deal with the situation than a nice healthy, “Fuck you!”

Here's the story that caught our attention from the Galveston County Daily News.

http://www.galvnews.com/story.lasso?ewcd=1c9ca1ed16873a8e

The story that motivated this little blurb deals with a Texas woman, Kathryn Fridge, shopping for batteries at her local Walmart with her two year old daughter. She was arrested and charged with disorderly conduct for being overheard saying, “They don’t have any fucking more.” She might have been just a little bit anxious as Tropical Storm Edouard was approaching landfall.

Her words were overhead by Alfred A. Decker IV, assistant fire marshall for the town of La Marque, Texas who cited Ms. Fridge on August 4, 2008. Decker handcuffed her, took her to his car, and issued a citation.

At long last, months later, March 19, 2009, City Prosecutor Jay Brown dropped the charge against Ms. Fridge according to Interim City Manager, Eric Gage. Gage issued the following statement from Mr. Brown:

“After completion of his investigation to the facts of the case and existing case law, the state contends there is insufficient evidence to proceed and moves to dismiss,”

Reacting to her charges being dropped, Ms. Fridge indicated she felt her name had been tarnished observing that she has seen police deal with far more filthy language remaining stone faced despite a barrage of obscenities concluding, “Her flipped out about something that didn’t have anything to do with him.”

We make our opinion perfectly clear about this, what Mr. Decker did is a bunch of fucking bullshit, and to his self-righteous holier than thou big shot with a badge attitude, we say, “FUCK YOU.” For being such an pompous asshole, we say, “FUCK YOU!” For wasting public time over something so petty, we say “FUCK YOU.” For not understanding a woman might be rightfully upset about not being able to find batteries with a storm approaching, we say, “FUCK YOU.” Furthermore, just on the overall principle of the whole thing Mr. Decker, “FUCK YOU, FUCK YOU, FUCK YOU!!!”

More on Michael, One Day Later

American Hypocrisy 101: Olympic Gold and Acapulco Gold

Surely, it will be the fodder of talk shows, editorial pages, sports columns, and water cooler and lunch room chit chat at the office all week, but damnit, the Michael Phelps situation IS NO BIG DEAL!!!

I feel sorry for his mom who has the unfortunate job of being a middle school principal in Baltimore County with its insane “zero tolerance” policy which runs kids out of school for a little reefer as if they were carry a loaded gun or selling heroin or crack cocaine. Of course, this zero tolerance extends to aspirin or Tylenol too and will probably extend to Coke and Pepsi once the nutrition Nazis rule that caffeine and sugar is a dangerous drug too.

Mrs. Phelps sure must have a lot of explaining to do when kids being kids will ask the typical "emperor's new clothes" kind of questions on the subject.

That being said, the hypocrisy of America is on display, BIG TIME!

Be honest, how many people younger than sixty five have not at least tried marijuana and probably smoked it at least socially if they went to college in the late 60’s into the 1980’s and probably since then.

How many people have never taken the wheel of an automobile after consuming too much alcohol?

How many people have not driven at least fifteen miles over the speed limit? Yeah, it was a wide open country road and the speed limit was 30 mph. We hear yah.

How many people have purchased something in Delaware or some other state that doesn’t charge sales tax and not declared it when returning to their high tax states like Maryland and Pennsylvania?

How many people have neglected to do something necessary in servicing their cars or tweaked a little something to avoid pollution controls?

How many people have disposed of something that’s not supposed to be put in the garbage? What did you do with that old CRT monitor when you got a flat screen panel for instance?

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. It’s unfortunate we live in a culture that is governed more with the ethos of “Don’t get caught” than “Do the right thing” but let’s face it, laws come from our fellow man. They are not the divine orders of a supreme being. Some laws should never be broken, period. Others, well, it’s a personal decision and weighing the consequences of one’s behavior knowing that one’s reputation will be on the line for any illegal digressions.

Face it, most people have certain laws they chose to ignore and have all kinds of rationalizations for breaking the law.

Be clear on something, breaking the law does not mean someone is doing something wrong, just something illegal. But let’s be real, many laws that folks casually disregard are ones that simply are hard to justify being on the books. From 1974 until common sense set in, the national speed limit was 55 mph. People voted for revocation of that law with their right foot on the accelerator. Yes, we should be law-abiding citizens, but our country was founded on articulating the citizen’s duty to deal with government that becomes too intrusive.

Were marijuana legal, no one would be forced to smoke pot. It would probably be subject to the same smoking bans as cigarette smoking. Likewise, driving under the influence would be essentially the same as consuming alcohol. There would be company policies forbidding pot smoking by employees whose jobs involve public or personal safety likewise drug testing would be in place to ensure compliance.

Parents could probably discuss drug use a lot more intelligently removing the hypocritical barrier imposed by drug laws.

How to handle more dangerous drugs is a much tougher issue because there is no question that drugs like cocaine, LSD, and heroin can be extremely dangerous, but suppose marijuana were legal and enforcement efforts were devoted to the less popular but more dangerous drugs, could those efforts eradicate those scourges to society?

This writer has no idea, but thinks it would help some.

In the meantime, Michael Phelps’ stupid decision to party in the midst of folks he didn’t know and trust is causing a silly debate where the answer is clear.

Finally, recognize that this campaign that we have been supporting since “Right Minded Fellow’s” inception is from a voice that is essentially conservative on most issues. First, for us, conservative is an outlook not a dogma. Ultimately, what policies, values, and procedures are most beneficial to mankind should prevail regardless of whether they are liberal, conservative, Christian, or secular. We’ll be quick to concede, it’s mighty hard to argue with the wisdom of the Bible or the U.S. Constitution.

Our conservatism has a strong libertarian slant to it. While the libertarian philosophy is appealing on the surface, many of its assumptions crumble when realizing we live in a society of millions of individuals and simple pragmatism shows pure libertarianism would result in anarchy. That being said, conservatives need to heed more toward their libertarian impulses than holier-than-thou, flag waving, chest-pounding, lock ‘em up dogma, and realize that the legalization of marijuana is also a sensible belief for conservatives too.

Do conservatives not believe in less government intrusion, individual responsibility and freedom? Do conservatives not hate the concept of a “nanny” state? Do we not criticize the government over reaching its boundaries?

If you are conservative and believe the correct answer to those questions is “yes” then legalizing marijuana is also an issue conservatives can and must embrace.

It’s 2009 folks, not 1966. It might have been shocking when the world found out the Rolling Stones and Beatles smoked pot. By the end of the decade, the spicy aroma of marijuana filled college dorms and rock concert arenas around the world.

Michael Phelps is just who he is, and for this writer, this marijuana episode just makes him a little more human. That’s fine with me.

Christmas, 2008

For many, 2008 has been a terrible year. It’s hard to watch the news and not become depressed. Thousands of American soldiers will spend another season over seas. The economy is hurting and many have lost jobs or economic security. The ability to afford health care is out of reach for many. Schools are failing to accomplish their mission like never before but how quick some schools are to worry about things like who might be offended should a teacher display Christmas cards on his or her desk or God forbid any “holiday” song that mentions Christmas might be deemed inappropriate for fear someone might be offended. Many advertisers seem to treat mentioning the word Christmas in their barrage of advertising during the peak retail season more controversial than using one of those seven words George Carlin once cautioned could never be said on radio.

In Washington, the governor issued an edict that a placard harshly critical of traditional religion has every right to be displayed right next to a traditional Christmas display in the State House leading to a barrage of other attempts of seeking expression for off-the-wall beliefs and other expressions all mocking an event that the overwhelming majority of Americans celebrate. Christmas has been a Federal holiday since the Presidency of Ulysses S. Grant as our society’s values are founded as much in the teachings of the Bible as they are in any legal scholar’s work. The very essence of what entitled the people of America to declare their independence from the British crown was the belief stated in the Declaration of Independence that we are endowed with certain inalienable rights by our creator.

It is from that recognition that our freedoms in the Bill of Rights derive their authority and provides the moral and ethical foundation for our sense of human rights. Yet some in our government use the First Amendment as the basis to ban reasonable religious expression from the public square interpreting that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” in ways never intended by the philosophical genius of our founding fathers. What is being forced upon us by judical activists, those representing the radical secular humanism of the extreme left in our society, the embrace of an extreme concept of separation of church and state that many such proponents use to mandate that all forms of religious expression be curtailed in any form in any government sponsored activity where when analyzed how it has been forced upon us essentially makes only those who have no religious beliefs what-so-ever empowered while others are coerced to carefully take care to say nothing referring to traditional customs such a small minority insists upon. In the world of the secular humanists, the extreme left, and paranoid corporate lackies and HR directors fearing legal action is the notion that the 1st amendment guarantees little more than freedom from religion.

Sure Christmas has become grotesquely commercialized over the years, but even most atheists exchange Christmas presents. The many messages of Christmas including giving to the less fortunate ring as true today as they ever have. If there was ever a time for Christians and all those who partake in Christmas traditions to band together and reflect on the transcendent messages the birth of Christ symbolizes, that time has come today. We must maintain our highest moral values while we cannot ignore we are engaged in a war we did not initiate against the forces of pure evil who would kill us for our freedom, our faith, our values, and our rights guaranteed to all citizens. When radical Islam which pretends to be a religion of the Children of Abraham stirs up mad fervor in the name of Jihad where the most extreme would kill themselves in the act of killing many more of us for those beliefs we hold dearest, we must stand united, embrace and celebrate the goodness and virtue of what our society aspires to be while never failing to be diligent against those blind servants of false prophets and their doctrine of hatred and death.

These are difficult times, but as we awake on Christmas morning, most Americans have slept in a comfortable bed, live in a secure home warm enough to combat the cold of winter, and have plenty of food to eat. While some might feel depressed and angry some of the lavish trappings of holidays gone by in years gone by might be out of reach this year, we can be thankful we live in a culture that still values our basic goodness and provides living conditions that even for those living the most modest life styles among us would be the envy of the vast majority of the overall population of the world.

In 2008, Christmas is a time to celebrate what we have and not dwell on what we don’t have. Economic conditions and the threat of war can never restrict the love and devotion we feel for others around us. We can collectively join together to provide for better times for all in the very near future.

Saudi Cleric Issues New Ruling to Further Oppress Women

God, Please Grant Us The Day Our Islamic Sisters Can Run Free

How much evidence does the world need that the heart of Islam is EVIL. Let's add to that stupid, sexist, demeaning, cruel, and absolutely cruel. For fear of the seductive power of the feminine eye, Saudi women should wear a full veil, or nigab, that reveals only one eye.

Horror of horror to these sexist pig oppressors, revealing both eyes encourages (GASP) women to wear (HORRORS OF HORRORS) eye makeup thus looking (OH MY GOD, ALLAH) more seductive! Yes, these are the fears expressed by Sheikh Muhammad al-Habadan. While this edict has not yet be enacted, it shows what's a big part of the mainstream of thinking in the Islamic world, Saudi Arabia being one of the most severe.

It's time for us as westerners, part of the Judeo-Christian heritage, to recognize this kind of hateful behavior for what it is and speak out against it. Enough of the politically correct nonsense about "being tolerant of cultural differences." It sure would be boring if everybody in the world did things the same way, but the constant dictatorial behavior making women at best second class humans but much more like a simple commodity subject to the male culture's whims is unacceptable and must be condemned, period.

Western society has surely had its moments of shame and historically has done some shameful things to its women and minorities, but we have the capacity to change, to grow, and strive to be better. In most western nations women can aspire to be anything they wish. On personal appearance, we accept all kinds of fashion, styles of dress and personal preference. The bottom line is we take for granted it's a woman's responsibility to chose how she wants to look. We still have some room for growth as we've seen with a woman candidate for President and now an official nominee for Vice President, both Hilary Clinton and Sarah Palin have been subjected to snarky comments and suggestions that would never be applied to their male counterparts. Chances are, their presence in the national spotlight will help us overcome that kind of sexism to.

In the west, we progress. In the Islamic world....more oppression.

Source article:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7651231.stm