Be politically correct, but only if you are part of the majority. Translated: the minority rules. In religious matters, if you are a member of a litigious nonbelieving or even believing minority, the law will stand on its head to hear you out -- and usually rule in your favor. Especially if you have the inimitable ACLU or any other such groups on your side.

If you are in such a minority:

• Demand that all cities whose names begin with "Saint" be renamed to expunge the offending word. Demand that no religion be discussed in a public school. Repeat: demand that no religion be discussed in a public school.
• With respect to the above demand, frequent exceptions may be made with regard to the Muslim religion, but of course that is perfectly reasonable inasmuch as the minority rules.
• Do not tolerate a cross on a piece of public property, even if it has been there for decades, harming no one, not even you.
• Forget about the Constitution, Declaration of Independence, and the Bill of Rights.
• Forget our founding fathers.

Getting your way is all that matters.

Well, here is a flash, in the brilliant words of Patrick Henry:

"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here."

It would be difficult to misinterpret that quote.

To litigious minorities: while you are aiming your sights on getting your way at any cost, imagine what life would be like for you in North Korea, China, Iran, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, or any other such freedom-loving nations you can dream of. And then go there. Find your dream. End some of our nightmares.

When you get there, demand your rights, for example, free speech and freedom of religion, along with all of the other freedoms Americans take for granted. Or, perhaps I should say, all the freedoms that Americans have hitherto counted on to be a fact of life in this nation.

And let us not forget there is a rabid militant fanatical extremist religious group spread out all over the planet whose stated goal is to kill all Americans and Jews. Even Patrick Henry might be reluctant to afford this group "asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here...."

To get back to where this started: be politically correct -- or else!

Me? Forget about it!  Anyone want to join me?

After reading Kathleen Parker's column (http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/KathleenParker/2006/10/27/dying_to_win), I remembered a letter I have sent a couple of times to "Letters to the Editor" of my local paper.

It was rather long, probably rambling, and probably incomprehensible to all but myself. It was never published. I surrendered to reality and admitted to myself that it was not the stuff of Letters to the Editor that gets published. However, it contained a quote which is not at all rambling or incomprehensible. That is, it is not incomprehensible until one truly begins thinking about all its implications. The quote follows:

Thomas Paine, in his Dissertation on First Principles of Government, December 23, 1791, wrote that "He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."

It seems to me that Thomas Paine understood something that a number of us plain folk would find incomprehensible. If we are to comport with the high ideals of Thomas Paine, we would of necessity have to guard our enemies from oppression. The problem is that our enemies are so many. Where to begin? And if they all decide to gang up on us, what then? Join them?

Would we begin with Hezbollah? Would we guard Hezbollah from, say, the Israelis? Would we begin with North Korea, guarding it from the sinister South? Would we guard North Korea from China? Would we guard Iran against Iraq? Would we guard Iran against China? Would we guard North Korea against China?

It was right and proper that we protected Kuwait against the plunder of S. Hussein. Thomas Paine would also have believed it right and proper.

It was right and proper that we protected Iraq from its own heavy-handed dictator, hoping that democracy would spring up like dandelions in May. 

I still have that hope; however, I am attempting patience and tunnel-vision single-mindedness for a successful Iraq, rather than stomping my foot and demanding that our mission be accomplished yesterday. 

I believe that in Mr. Paine's age, it was inconceivable that our United States could ever have so many enemies.

This is a puzzle.  What did Thomas Paine mean? Is Thomas Paine obsolete today? I do not want to believe so.  I want us to be a country that would "guard even [its] enemy from oppression...."

Who will guard us? Will any other country adopt the high ideals of Thomas Paine?

I wish I had answers.

 

There was a list of banned books in the 9/10/06 Chicago Tribune "Parade" section; it reports that "... The American Library Association says each book below has been pulled from some libraries or schools. You’ll be surprised by the list.... Visit parade.com."

Among the ten books were these five: 

The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn – racist language

Anne Frank: The Diary of a Young Girl – sexually explicit

Little Red Riding Hood – bottle of wine in basket for Grandma

Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary – offensive language

To Kill a Mockingbird – offensive language

Banning those books from any public library or school is morally offensive to me.

Who in the name of common sense could possibly choose those five books to be banned?  And just incidentally, it seems to me that banning the dictionary is tantamount to banning all books. 

When one looks around at some of the "entertainment" on various media, one can conclude only that the person or group making the decision to get these books banned has been looking up too many words in Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary  -- and finding them! 

And they should stop immediately -- they're learning too much.  Or they think they are.

     When apathy takes over, it leaves just a little more wiggle room for madmen like Ahmadinejad and his little friend Hugo Chavez and his little friend Kim Jong Il (I always pronounce that "ill" or "eel":  who cares which is correct?). 

    These madmen do not need any more wiggle room.  They're slippery enough already. 

    There are those who want diplomacy.  My contention is that diplomacy won't work on rabid dogs.  As I've said before, I have never heard of reason triumphing over rabies. 

    That being said, however, it is to be hoped that we have the decency to confirm John Bolton as U.S. Ambassador to the U.N.  We need all the persuasiveness and creativity we can muster to persuade nations such as Iran, North Korea and Venezuela to work for the common good of the world rather than for their own transient wants (e.g., nuclear weapons).  And, by the way, let us hope that these wants are indeed transient.  

    First there needs to be reason -- something sorely lacking in the little minds of the little trio mentioned above.  

    If reason is absent, alternative methods of persuasiveness need to be used generously. 

There is only one comment this writer could add regarding Suzanne Fields' moving column (October 12, 2006) on the story of Daniel Pearl in an upcoming HBO documentary ("The Journalist and the Jihadi: The Murder of Daniel Pearl").  That is that, even though Omar Sheikh, "the jihadi who conspired in his murder," may have been educated, that does not necessarily mean he was civilized. In my opinion it merely means that he had the honor of having obtained an education.

Omar was obviously not just any everyday, ordinary, ignorant, poverty-stricken, illiterate jihadi butcher-in-training who eagerly looked forward to the day he could martyr himself.

No.  He was too educated for that.  Instead, no doubt he found willing, ordinary, ignorant, poverty-stricken, illiterate jihadist butchers to do the dirty work.

One cannot doubt even for a moment that Omar quakes when contemplating his own death as he sits on "death row" awaiting his hanging, and that to him life is worth grasping until all his appeals have been exhausted and he is gasping for his last breath. To all living beings, life is sweet.

One must wonder if the savagery and senselessness of Daniel Pearl's murder arouses the tiniest whisper of regret, sorrow or shame within a heart such as Omar's.

I wouldn't bet on it.  First, the tiniest shred of humanity must exist.

 

This little blog follows a reading of Thomas Sowell's October 11, 2006 Townhall column "Frivolous politics:  Part II."  It was difficult to choose a post topic.  I would have chosen "Judges and Courts," but Mr. Thomas' column did refer to politics; therefore, "Campaigns & Elections" it is. 

It's easier to cry these days than it used to be. It all started on September 11, 2001.

There are reminders every day, sometimes several times a day, of that day.

Years ago, it was always easy to cry at a movie everyone called a tearjerker. Somehow, though, the tears were transient until the next tearjerker came along, and they were tears that actually removed one from the real business of living. The movies, though tearjerkers, were enjoyable. People kept going back for more and more. Movies really did that to people then.

Sometimes things happen that are serious enough to make a body cry real tears for real reasons. Those tears are the ones that revisit unbidden, at sometimes surprising and inconvenient times. They are inconvenient tears.

Getting back to those reminders, there are too many that too often take advantage of an already wrung-out emotional system.

Frankly, I am rather tired of this.

I love my country. And I proudly pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

My country and my flag are being beaten down by too many people who are thoughtless of the Pledge of Allegiance.

My country and my flag are being beaten down by too many people who have no concept of history except perhaps that beginning at their own respective ages of, say, five years.

My country and my flag are being beaten down by too many people who have no concept of justice.

My country and my flag are being beaten down by too many people who have no concept of the magnitude -- or the magnificence -- of the U.S. Constitution. 

My country and my flag are being beaten down by too many judges who have no concept of the magnitude – or the magnificence – of the U.S. Constitution. Judges have no excuse for such ignorance. If they are knowledgeable but attempt to subvert the Constitution, they should be disbarred and removed from the bench. 

My country and my flag are being beaten down by too many people who refuse to register to vote, or by those who refuse to vote.

Of voting -- we cannot abstain from voting because we believe our neighbor's vote will effectively negate our own. We cannot know how the vote will go in the next house or next block or next town.

Of voting -- we must get to know the habits of those judges who become judges through our votes. For example, will they be lenient toward people who abuse others? If so, why will they? Are they ignorant? Are they prejudiced? Are they cavemen (or women) in robes?

My country and my flag are being worn down by countries whose leaders are more shortsighted than two-year-olds who scream for a toy now.

My country and my flag are being worn down by countries whose leaders put their own superabundantly inflated and distorted egos above anything.

My country and my flag are being beaten down by its own citizens who fail to see the folly of attempting to reason with madmen who have vowed to see a world without Israel and the United States.

I have no answers. I am but one person in this great nation, but I do know this:  in November I will vote.

I will vote for those people I believe truly pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

I will vote for those people I believe comprehend the magnitude of their service.

I am tired of weeping so often, and so easily, for my country.

 

"Supremacist judges." That is an appropriate designation of those Supreme Court judges who opined that "eminent domain" could include takeovers for private enterprise.

The first thing that came to mind when I heard about this travesty was that Wal-Mart or a similar retailer would come along with a "need" for the properties of those judges who voted against the property owners in Kelo. Surely a Wal-Mart could bring in a great deal more revenue than the mere real estate taxes on the homes of those judges.

Talk about justice.

Per Ms. Schlafly’s October 2, 2006 column, "Conservatives on the march for private property," the justices "thought they could evolve the U.S. Constitution’s words "public use," which would include a highway or a public building, into the words "public purpose," which is defined to include transferring private property of lower-income people to higher-income people who will pay higher taxes,..."

Most average human beings are not lawyers. However, most average human beings have sense enough to know the difference between "public" and "private." One may conclude then that these Supreme Court justices (those Supremacists) do not have sense enough to know what average human beings know.

President Bush frequently speaks disparagingly of judges who legislate from the bench, but that is exactly what happened in Kelo, as well as in recent well-known cases not designed to make the President pleased.

Pursuant to Ms. Schlafly’s column referenced above, many states have jumped on or are jumping on a bandwagon being steered by those very same average people who are indeed capable of knowing the difference between "public" and "private." Those very same average people are in my view stomping justifiably all over the Supreme Court’s Kelo opinion via state legislatures who can read the handwriting on the wall. After all, how many average people must be dislodged or displaced before the so-called "Supreme" court hears the mighty roar of the unwashed masses?

One of the best things to come out of this legal travesty was the statement of Justice Thomas, who wrote that "Something has gone seriously awry with this court's interpretation of the Constitution."

Something has indeed gone very seriously awry with that court's interpretation of the Constitution. Something has indeed gone very seriously awry with those "Supremacist" justices. Possibly some form of dementia, or possibly some deficiency of mental acuity. Perhaps it is time for some of them to retire someplace and write their deathless memoirs – and hope that while in the process of such endeavors they are not uprooted for the "public purpose."

I agree wholeheartedly with Ms. Schlafly that "... the U.S. Supreme Court is fallible and we have every right to criticize and work to overturn wrong decisions made by supremacist judges who think they can rewrite the U.S. Constitution."

Few subjects arouse more anger and differing opinions than that of child molesters. 

Many years ago these subjects were not discussed; it was too shameful.  "Decent" people, out of misplaced embarrassment, seemingly refused to acknowledge that the behavior even existed, let alone attempted to do anything about it. 

At some point, and it must have followed closely on the heels of the "Women's Lib" movement, the subject became one that began popping up here and there in newspapers (buried on the back of pages generally overlooked by average readers), and there began to be a faint cry in the wilderness. 

Children were being abused more often than anyone could possibly have imagined, usually by some close relative or friend of the family.  This still occurs so frequently that when it happens, other friends and family pretend surprise, even while some of them likely had a nagging little hunch that something was just not quite right somewhere. 

Later, newspapers began giving a little more space and attention to this astonishing behavior -- probably because some newspaper editor freedom of speech freaks were finally brave enough to do so. 

Children began talking.  That's when everything hit the fan.  They had been stilled and stifled by fear, having been sworn to secrecy by their abusers.  Alternatively, some children began turning up dead or missing.  DNA began to be a damning factor. 

Anger replaced the misplaced embarrassment.

Laws were passed making it somewhat of a nuisance to be convicted of child molesting.  Later, more stringent laws were passed when it appeared incontrovertible that these convicts were actually dangerous, even if their prey were the youngest, least capable of fighting back. 

Later, even more stringent laws were made.  Some judges seemingly have no idea who makes the laws; they seem to believe lawmaking is their bailiwick and judge accordingly.  Lawyers should be taught first of all that they do not make laws.  Judges do not make laws.  Legislators -- the people -- make laws. 

The nation is inching ever so slowly to the point of convincing legislators that child predators are forever child predators.  There is no rehabilitation for a child predator.  While it may be true that one in a million may, like recovering alcoholics, simply refrain from acting upon his instincts, we, the people, cannot take that chance.  As Mr. Prelutsky asked, "[H]ow many chances should anyone have to brutalize a three-year-old?"

The answer to his question is simple:  none. 

Laws must be put in place to detain these creatures for the remainder of their unnatural lives.  Judges must be put in place who will sentence according to the laws. 

Personally, I care not where these cons are put.  The fact is that the public should be free from the need to concern themselves about these cretins.  The public should be satisfied that, once convicted, these criminals will not be free to commit further atrocities. 

I am part of the "public."  I am not satisfied. 

The title of Mary Katherine Ham's column was one of the best ways to get my attention. What better name for it?

It's a subject that has always warmed the cockles of my heart.

The stories remind me of a perhaps old wives' tale (but it may be true) about a wife who had taken all the beatings she could manage from a drunken husband who apparently felt entitled. After all, maybe he'd had a bad life on the curb or in the gutter.

One night, after such an episode, when her husband, drunk as usual, finally passed out, she proceeded to sew him up in a quilt. He was probably dreaming of "icy fingers up and down his spine." One could only hope.

Next thing she did was go get her iron skillet.

Next thing she did was to proceed to whale the living tar out of him. I should think an old iron skillet could do a fair job of whaling.

I never knew the veracity of this story. Nor did I care. It's a story that never fails to delight me. Who cares about the letter of the law about imminent danger in a case like that? Certainly not me.

It was never clear to me if the husband ever woke up. I tend to think not. On the other hand, perhaps it would be better if he had. I've imagined him as a brainless sod to start with; he would simply continue so, except that after the quilt was ruined, he might have been rather limited in his own whaling abilities. 

It's irrelevant. The main thrust (pardon the expression) of this story is that the little lady took action.

All the strong women described in Ms. Ham's column are just that: strong beyond their own imaginings. We no longer need old wives' tales -- they're just something to remember and keep working at.

It's the way we were. Past tense.

I don't buy it, either, Mr. Prelutsky – that Islam is or ever was a religion of peace. As an American I am entitled not to buy into that lie. What’s more, as a human being I am so entitled.

When one must make converts at gunpoint or sword point, as Mr. Prelutsky states Mohammed did fourteen hundred years ago, one must have very, very little to offer.

Oh, yes, there is the promise of all those virgins (71, isn't it?) when a martyr lays down his life in the enterprise of clearing from the earth as many infidels as possible.

As an aside, I once asked someone about what happens when the virgins are no longer virgins. I suspected strongly they were stoned to death because of their iniquitous behavior. His reply was that he'd heard they reverted wondrously back into innocents. Or something like that.

As a further aside, and, speaking as a female, I do believe I would find a way for my own martyrdom rather than contend with all those fumbling, bumbling cavemen-barbarian pieces of trash. Just imagine, if you can, being, say, an 50 year-old-virgin being subjected repeatedly to these contemptible specimens. I believe I might even become murderous before falling on a sword.

To return to the peace-loving Islamists, yes, I have seen a few – very few – TV interviews with American Muslims who seemed genuinely distressed to believe that someone like them – who call themselves followers of Mohammed – could be murderous savages. However, if there are American Muslim leaders who oppose the wholesale slaughter of innocent people in the name of Allah or whoever, they have made themselves scarce, if not invisible. And not even the mainstream media would pass up the chance to air such a public denunciation.

Also, I find it passing strange that, as Mr. Prelutsky said, "young American Muslims are not lining up to join our armed services and thus prove that their loyalty to this nation takes precedence over their religion."

Remember, this is the nation to whom Muslims flock by the thousands in order to enjoy America’s freedoms and educational opportunities.

Why do we let them?

Why do we as a nation allow these potential serial killers into the country to partake of the education surely unavailable to them in their home countries? Do we need educated barbarians in our midst? There are enough cavemen-types here already.

All we need to remember is the mirth and pure joy shown by OBL when speaking with his fellow criminals of the spectacular, surprising demolition of prime symbols of America’s commerce, the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center.

Then ask yourself how many more we want of anyone like him.

Profiling? Let’s roll!

All those words have cropped up like dandelions in a previously almost-weed-free lawn. Some of the definitions were known; most were not. I would prefer never to have seen any of the words or to have known any of their definitions.

The words are, well, ugly.

Not all of my life has been spent as intolerant. Much of my life has been lived with an attempt to learn tolerance. The remainder has been spent with the distinctly democratic, distinctly American attitude of laissez faire. Feel free to ignore me as long as I do not interfere with your life or the way you live it; I am free to ignore you as long as you do not interfere with my life or the way I live it.

On September 11, 2001, Americans became brutally awakened to the fact that there were some very ugly, intolerant people in the world whose primary attitude is "My way or the highway" (in this case a highway straight to perdition). 

I have long believed that wars are waged primarily over geography. I also believe that this particular spot of geography called the United States of America would not be a place where normal people would want to live if it were necessary to do so under the rule of "sharia."

Cavemen were thought to have disappeared from the earth millions of years ago.

Not so. Take a long, hard look at the jihadis.

 

When I read Phyllis Schlafly’s September 4, 2006 column "Greedy politicians seduced by siren song of filthy foreign lucre," I was angry – all over again. It takes writing such as Ms. Schlafly’s to put in a nutshell what so many of us know instinctively but find ourselves inadequate or too busy to describe to our lawmakers.

Lord knows I have tried.

My bio describes having spent the last three-plus years writing. Writing to lawmakers of all stripes about any matter I believed to be important. Writing Letters to the Editor of one of my local papers. Writing letters to columnists. Writing plain letters to the editor without the capital "L" and capital "E." Writing to Secretaries and Commissioners of Departments of the U.S. Government. Writing to the President. Writing e-mail messages or letters to conservative organizations. Writing. Writing. Writing.

In the end, tilting at windmills.

Recently, however, I heard just a small blip on TV about Townhall.com and the stir it’s making – apparently in political circles. And if it makes a stir, it would be in those concentricities.

When I learned of CFIUS and the proposed sale of some U.S. port operations to Dubai Ports World, then, propelled by anger, I could not write my U.S. lawmakers fast enough to let them know my opinion. Later, one of my Letters to the Editor stated, among other things, that

"We, the people, were recently a collective ‘mouse that roared’ with respect to the contract with a U.A.E. company to operate six U.S. ports. That was one spectacular case of roaring.

"Bush vowed to veto any mandate to kill the deal, but he realized soon enough that his veto would be unceremoniously and embarrassingly overturned. He was saved by the gracious withdrawal of the U.A.E. company that would have been a party to the contract.

Also,

"It is splendidly gratifying to know that when enough mice roar as one, that roar will result in accelerated action."

"Why not roar more?"

It is nauseating to contemplate that those who govern states have reached a new low in selling the states’ infrastructure – right out from under the noses of their citizens. Talk about courts going too far! Can courts go too far? Can states go too far? Yes, and yes.

In the words of Ms. Schlafly, "Almost weekly, we learn about other U.S. properties that have been sold or leased long-term to foreign companies.... Why the rush to sell our transportation systems to foreigners? ‘Follow the money’ explains all. State and local governments pocket the money upfront and get to spend it here and now, so politicians can cover their runaway budget deficits and enjoy the political rewards.... They ignore the fact that U.S. citizens must pay tolls to foreign landlords for the next two or three or even four generations" (emphasis mine).

And, "Indiana legislators are concerned that the Spanish firm [to whom Indiana leased the Indiana Toll Road] could rake in $133 billion over the 75-year life of the Indiana toll road lease for which Indiana received only $3.8 billion."

Are Indiana legislators concerned only now?

So who should be red in the face? Voters, that’s who. Red from anger. Red from the straining of roaring.

From what little places will politicians hear the loudest roar? Polling places, that’s where.

**************************************************************************

It was beginning to seem as though I were the only one talking about and asking for what Mark Alexander, in his September 1, 2006 column "American Hiroshima," calls "pre-emptive warfare against our enemies."

It seems harsh, being mindful of the horrors wreaked upon Japan after we Americans had had enough of its and Germany’s years-long attacks upon peaceful people in countries all over the world. Today it brings only sadness to know this had to happen before criminal aggressors were halted in their tracks.

Our current criminal enemies, now realistically called "Islamic fascists," are as mindless as mad dogs. As far as this writer knows, nobody yet has successfully reasoned with rabies. This in and of itself is justification for any American pre-emptive strike.

Mr. Alexander’s column stated that Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadi-Nejad recently claimed that "the Holocaust was a hoax dreamed up by the Allies and their Zionist cohorts...." Apparently in the next breath the Iranian President stated that "The peoples of the Middle East have also borne the brunt of the Holocaust. By raising the necessity of settling the survivors of the Holocaust in the land of Palestine, they have created a permanent threat in the Middle East in order to rob the people of the region of the opportunities to achieve progress...."

There seems to be some type of disconnect here. On one hand, the Iranian president apparently denied the Holocaust occurred; on the other hand, he seemingly blames the survivors of the Holocaust for the failures of others in the region to grasp opportunities to improve their lot. He can’t have it both ways.

That being said, however, Iran’s president appears to be unswerving in his determination to "experience a world without the United States and Zionism" (again quoting from Mr. Alexander’s column).

The United States cannot sit on its hands and wait for Iran or any other country or group to dictate the terms of our existence or that of our ally Israel.