My last two pieces dealt with the hypocrisy of pro-abortionists.  It’s a subject I simply can’t let go of. 

The liberal mantra that abortion must be “safe, legal, and rare” to preserve a woman’s “right to choose”, has always been a smoke screen. 

Any suggestion to make it less common (isn’t that rarer?) while keeping it safe and legal is viciously attacked.  Any suggestion to provide more information to a woman – thus giving her a more informed choice – is viciously attacked.  Any suggestion that hints of concern for the unborn child is viciously attacked.

A shameful case in point is the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act (which has been re-introduced in the new 110^th Congress as S-356).  This bill would have made it mandatory for abortion providers to furnish their patients, after the 20^th week of pregnancy, with a printed form that advises them their unborn child will feel pain and informs them that they can request anesthesia to ease its suffering.  (Congress mandated similar treatment for livestock and lab animals years ago.)

Sidebar

Do you remember those incredible photos of the fetus in it’s 21^st week that reached out to “shake the Doctor’s hand”?  (See Slide Show)

Three and a half years later, Samuel Armas posed with his mother in this photo (See Samuel).

End Sidebar

But the pro-abortion crowd doesn’t want a woman to know the facts about her unborn child or all the options available to her.

December 6, 2006, during the lame duck session of Congress, the act, which required a 2/3 closure vote to pass, was defeated.  But the vote count was quite revealing.  Republicans voted 210 to 9 in favor, while the Democrats voted 152 to 40 in opposition.

Another bill that pro-abortion forces opposed was the Informed Choice Act.  (This bill has also been re-introduced in the new 110th Congress as HR-223.)  This bill would have given government grants to community-based pregnancy resource centers for the purchase of ultra-sound equipment.  

But the last thing the pro-abortionists want is for a pregnant woman in these clinics to actually see ultra-sound pictures of her unborn child and gain a better understanding of what is involved in her decision to abort.  Why, this kind of informed consent might actually cause some of these women to decide not to have that “safe, legal abortion” – actually making abortions a little rarer.

Because of cries of “unfair interference” with a woman’s “right to choose”, this bill is likely to languish in committee as did its predecessors in the previous two congresses.

One more example is the funding of mental health studies.  Congress is willing to fund all sorts of scientific studies – except those involving the mental health of women who have had abortions.  So it was left to a New Zealand study to find (as published in the Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry) “that exposure to abortion was associated with increased risks of mental health problems” – increases of as much as 33 to 42 percent.

Are abortionists required to inform their patients of these risks?  Are Doctors advised to follow up on their patients who have had abortions?

In an age where even a prescription for sleeping pills comes with an advisory sheet of directions, side-effects, and precautions, providing this information to a pregnant woman is labeled an infringement of her “right to choose”.

After an honest assessment of these three cases, any Freeborn American would have to conclude that none of them restricts a woman’s choice.  But the lack of this kind of information only makes the choice to have an abortion less informed and abortions less rare.

The stench of hypocrisy reeks all the way from Washington D.C.!

I wrote a piece last week about “Choose Life” license plates in Illinois and how the so-called “pro-choice” crowd was going to extraordinary, hypocritical, and – as it turns out – Illegal lengths to squash the pro-adoption specialty plates.

But this little temper tantrum is just one more rabid Pavlovian response by the Left to anything they can even tangentially label as “anti-choice”. 

Take for instance the Child Custody Protection Act (S-403).  This law would have stopped adults (read statutory rapists) from legally taking underage girls across state lines for abortions without their parents’ approval. 

A little background.  Most expectant teenagers – girls in junior high (ages 13 to 15) and high school (ages 15 to 18) – are impregnated by substantially older men.  The majority of these men are older than 25 (in some cases much older) – which belies the spurious rationalization of “young love”.  In case you missed it, most of these men are more than 7 to 13 years older than the girls they’ve impregnated.  It’s called statutory rape.  It’s immoral.  And it’s against the law. 

Over half the states right now have parental notification laws.  These laws assure that parents become involved in a potentially life-altering decision, by a frightened young girl, in a woman’s body, who’s being pressured by a lecherous man a dozen years older than she, to snuff out the evidence of his lascivious behavior.

The problem is that after sexually exploiting these girls, these same men often circumvent state laws – and the girls’ parents – by driving them to a neighboring state where an abortion can be obtained – no questions asked.

The Child Custody Protection Act would make it a federal offense to take “minors across State lines in circumvention of laws requiring the involvement of parents in abortion decisions”.

That’s why over 80% of Freeborn Americans supported this bill – these bills actually, because they’ve been passed by the House and killed by the shadowy use of Senate procedural rules in every Congress for the past ten years.

Even those who support “pro-choice”, as they prefer to call it, say they would like abortion to be legal but rare.  Well, abortion in this country is anything but rare – we kill more human fetuses in America every day than the radical Islamo-fascists in the entire Iraq war.  In spite of what they say, abortion advocates will go to any length to stop reasonable attempts to actually make it rare.

So Democrats, it seems, have a dilemma.  They want to appear to that 80% that they’re on their side, but they’re loath to vote on their side.

Enter Harry Reid (D-NV) who actually voted for S-403 before he voted against it!  During the last (109^th) Congress when he was Senate Minority Leader, Reid gave the go-ahead for his fellow Senate Democrats to vote in favor of the bill for the benefit of the folks back home. 

Thus the Senate overwhelmingly voted 65 to 34 in favor of the “Child Custody Protection Act”, just as the House had overwhelming voted 270 to 157 for its version called the “Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act”.

But on the very same day as the vote, the Democrats – under Harry Reid – objected to the naming of a House-Senate conference committee to reconcile differences between the two bills.  By the end of the Congressional session, they objected two more times, killing the legislation.  Thus the Democrats got to have their cake and eat it too – too bad it didn’t gag them!  They could publicly proclaim that they voted in favor of the Child Custody Protection Act, and their trusting constituents would never suspect they aborted it behind the scenes.

While the Democrats tell us they stand for “open and ethical” government, they’re helping statutory rapists cover up their crimes!

My Grandmother used to tell us “Don’t cut off your nose to spite your face”.  Now, I not sure how many politicians she knew, but she did know spiteful, self-destructive, childish behavior when she saw it.  And we’re seeing it again today in the Illinois State Legislature.

A little background.  Illinois began offering specialty license plates to former POWs in 1980, and has expanded the list of available plates until today there are 60 different designs.  For an extra registration fee, as well as higher annual renewal fees (which vary by plate), Illinois residents can show their support for various causes such as Organ Donation, Mammograms, Hospice Care, and the Environment.  The extra fees are split between the state and the specified cause – the state’s share amounting to tens of millions of dollars over the years.

Groups wishing to add a license plate supporting their cause must submit 850 valid signatures – lowered from the original requirement of 10,000 signatures – submit a design, and await legislative approval.

Illinois legislators were sitting fat and happy with this arrangement.  That is until a few years ago when “Choose Life Illinois Inc.”, a group made up of adoption advocates, petitioned for a “Choose Life” license plate.  They had over 25,000 valid signatures.

Pro-choice advocates went apoplectic.  Although the purpose of the plates would be to promote adoption, they just can’t have cars driving around the state sporting “Choose Life” license plates which might cut into their abortion business!  Why, desperate young girls and women facing an unexpected change in their comfortable lifestyles might just be reminded that they actually do have a choice!

Sidebar

Interestingly, presidential hopeful, and darling of what I call the “mid-evil media”, Barack Obama, was a state senator when legislation for the Choose Life plates was introduced.  He voted against it saying, “If we're going to promote one side, the other side has to be promoted as well.”

I see his point though.  Somehow “Choose Abortion”, or “Choose Death”, or maybe “A Mother’s Right…Tear them Limb from Limb” somehow just don’t seem quite as noble.

End Sidebar

Democrat State Rep. Lou Lang even went so far as to charge anti-abortion advocates with joining Choose Life Illinois Inc. to promote a campaign to ban abortions.  To this charge I say “So what?”  If “pro-choice” advocates are really pro-choice, why do they try to stifle any mention of a choice? 

The answer, of course, is that they really aren’t pro-choice as much as they are pro-abortion, and consider anyone with a different view to be the enemy.  As such, they will go to any length to silence them – legal or otherwise.

Year after year, Choose Life folks met all the requirements for Illinois Specialty License Plates, and year after year the legislature voted them down.  Left with no other options, Choose Life filed a federal lawsuit in 2004.

Last month, the Northern Illinois District Court ruled that in disapproving Choose Life specialty license plates the Illinois legislature was “viewpoint discriminatory” and in violation of the First Amendment.  It then ordered the Secretary of State to issue the Choose Life plates.

Ah, but as my grandmother also used to say. “life isn’t always fair”.  And neither, apparently, are Democrats in the Illinois legislature. 

Exhibiting what can only be called obsessive/compulsive behavior, these “representatives of the people” have thrown themselves on the ground, kicking and screaming in the legislative equivalent of a two-year-old’s temper tantrum.  At the expense of millions of dollars a year to not only the state, but to 60 worthy causes, Illinois Democrats are threatening to scrap the specialty license program entirely!

The irony of their hissy-fit has completely escaped them.  It seems these “pro-choice” supporters will go to any length to prevent Freeborn Americans who support other choices from getting their message out. 

All of which reminds me of one other saying my grandmother often used: “Actions speak louder than words.”

Edwin J. Feulner,

President, The Heritage Foundation,

214 Massachusetts Ave NW

Washington D. C.  20002-4999

info@heritage.org

phone: 202-546-4400

fax: 202-546-8328

Dear Ed,

“Read my lips: no new taxes.”  So George H.W. Bush campaigned in 1988 – and again promised in his acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention.  He won 41 states with almost 80% of the electoral vote.  But less than two years later, he agreed to several tax increases in an ill-advised compromise with the Democrats.  Conservatives were outraged.  They felt betrayed and lied to.  Many concluded that Bush had abandoned his principles.  As a result, William Jefferson Clinton was swept into the White House, and Bush became a one-term President.

In 1994, Republicans ran on the “Contract with America” and promised lower taxes and fiscal restraint.  They swept the elections and became the majority in both houses.  But in less than 12 years, they started out-spending the Democrats, in terms of the number of earmarks and amount of money spent.  Conservatives were outraged.  They felt betrayed and lied to.  Many concluded that Republicans had abandoned their principles.  As a result, Democrats were swept into congress, and the Republican contract was null and void.

Over the years, The Heritage Foundation has become one of the most respected conservative “think tanks” in America.  Most active conservatives know of it and have great respect for it.  Millions of other conservative Americans know Heritage, if not by name, by the “fruit of its labors”. 

The Heritage Foundation’s own web page says that its mission “is to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, [and] traditional American values…”.

Now I read that David John, representing The Heritage Foundation, is publicly advocating a tax hike in the form of an increase in – or even elimination of– the Social Security earnings cap.  I, as a conservative, am outraged.  I feel betrayed and lied to.  Am I to conclude that Heritage has abandoned its principles?

Please Ed, say it ain’t so!  If the Heritage Foundation doesn’t distance itself from Mr. John’s strange remarks, I fear it will loose its previously well-deserved, prominent position in the hearts and minds of Freeborn American conservatives across the country. 

Almost immediately, however, the newly empowered Democrats denounced what they labeled an “escalation of hostilities” – invoking memories of our national nightmare in Vietnam.

Now, just as these forces are being deployed, Senate Democrats are escalating their own political war by proposing a resolution of “non-support” for our troops.  

Now you may feel – as do I – that this is a long time coming, and that the handling of the war has been bungled.  But even for those who have honest objections to this or any other war, what possible benefit to the country or to our troops can this resolution have?  We are at war.  The troops are in theater.  The terrorists are listening.  Will they not delight in hearing that the United States Senate passed a resolution of non-support for the very troops they are fighting?  Is this not the definition of giving aid and comfort to the enemy?

Even worse, a handful of Republicans are suggesting that they will vote for this resolution – Republicans like Chuck Hagel, Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, and Lindsey Graham.  Some of whom are members of the “Gang of Fourteen” and all of whom have thumbed their noses at the conservative base many times before.

Well this time, conservatives are mad as hell and they aren’t going to take it any more. 

Approximately 72 hours ago, Freeborn Americans from around the country started signing an on-line petition known as the Pledge.  In that short amount of time, we have almost 30,000 signatures – and the number is quickly growing

We can’t change Congress for two more years, but we can – and we have – started a drive to rid the party of the kind of RINO who will jeopardize our troops for political gain.

Kick sand in my face and you’ll make me mad, but kick sand in the faces of American forces fighting Islamofascists and I’ll do everything in my power to kick your sorry butts out of the Senate.  And I urge everyone who reads this to do the same.

The Pledge can be signed at http://www.thenrscpledge.com/.

Last week our local newspaper ran a story telling us that, for the first time in history, 51% of American women are now living without a spouse.  I heard the same report on the radio newscast, and I’m sure I’d have seen it on the television news if I watched television news.  I pulled up copies of several other newspapers across the country – ain’t technology wonderful? – and sure enough they all carried their own versions of the same story.

They all referred to a piece in the New York Times, and they all had a decidedly anti-marriage slant.  Every one of them carried the quote by a certain Elissa Terris – divorced after 34 years of marriage.  “Marriage” she said “kind of aged me…”  Well yeah, 34 years will do that.  “Now I have choices”, she continued.  “One night I slept on the other side of the bed, and I thought, I like this side.” 

Of all the possible reasons for getting a divorce, I won’t even try to argue with that one! 

But the more I thought about it, the more perplexed I became.  The numbers just didn’t ring true.  While at the same time, it fit too nicely into the current politically correct line of building up same-sex “marriage” by tearing down traditional marriage.

Turns out the answer wasn’t as hard to find as I anticipated.  The government has a website – well, actually it has hundreds if not thousands of websites (your tax dollars at work) – maintained by the Census Bureau.  Many of the statistics are updated through 2005 – since we only have a census every ten years (as mandated by the Constitution) I haven’t a clue where they get the raw data. 

Sidebar

A lot of the stuff on this site would put a statistician to sleep, and it’s not presented in a consistent format.  But it does have some pages that caught my eye.

For instance, check out the U.S. Population Clock in real time (POP Clock), or the Fact Sheet on your community (Hometown).  My favorite is the page with the Males-per-100-Females Chart (Chicks Chart).

End Sidebar

According to the Census Bureau, a 56% majority of women over age 20 are currently married.  So what is this story all about? 

It’s all about discrediting marriage, but it’s based on Mark Twain’s observation: “There are three kinds of liars – liars, damn liars, and statisticians.”

In order to get the slant he wanted, the NYT columnist manipulated the Census Bureau data. 

First, he included all “women” 16 and over.  Now just how many 16 year old “women” do you know who are married? 

Then he added women who are widowed.  Yeah, as if they’re making an anti-marriage statement! 

And finely he added those women whose husbands are “temporally” away like serving in the military, working away from home, or in jail – well, maybe some women should get divorced.  I work with many people in Texas who are “living” in a company-paid apartment or motel but actually live with their families in another state when they’re home.

Regardless of the NYT’s wishes, marriage is alive and well.  The dream of the average little Freeborn American girl is still to get married, raise a family, and live happily ever after.

I think Mark Twain could have added one more “kind of liar” to his list – columnists with agendas.

Isn’t technology grand?  In years past, news would take weeks to travel across the country.  Here in Texas, “Juneteenth” is celebrated every year on June nineteenth, the date when, in 1865, Union troops arrived on Galveston Island and made the announcement that Abraham Lincoln had issued the emancipation proclamation freeing the slaves on January 1, 1863 – two and a half years earlier.

Contrast that with speed at which last week’s front page headlines appeared across the country:

Senate Democrats to begin with proposal to change ethics laws

New House rules aimed at curbing spending

Coming within Nancy Pelosi’s first 100 hours, the casual voter is left with the impression that the Democrats are living up to their promises, preventing the scandal-ridden, budget-busting Republicans from any more scandal-ridden, budget-busting.

Never mind that the earmark restrictions would have affected only about 5% of the thousands slipped in by both republicans and Democrats in the last Congress.  And never mind that most of the ethics rules had already been passed in the Republican controlled 109^th Congress.  And never mind again that many Democrats are already saying that it will be “difficult” to abide by the pay-as-you-go budget rules.

The important thing is they got their headlines.  Now casual voters can go back into hibernation for two years, wake up in time to vote in 2008, and remember those big black headlines during the opening days of 110^th Congress.

The Democrats are only doing what politicians have done for centuries – exploiting the opposition.  And frankly the Republicans only have themselves to blame.  They got power-hungry, they got greedy, and they got lax. 

Nancy Pelosi promises the Democrats will lead the most ethical Congress in history – with a balanced budget to boot.  It will be up to Freeborn Americans to pay attention and hold their feet to the fire.

Mom & Pop Corner Grocers 

Company Memo

From: Mom and Pop

To: All Baggers, Stockers, and Cashiers

Subject: Elimination of Bagger position

Because of the recently passed increase in the Federal Minimum Wage, we regret to announce the elimination of the Bagger position.

Through the years, we have enjoyed providing employment opportunities to you, our “little family”.  Some of you are working your way through college, or needed a few hours every week after high school to earn “gas money”.  During school hours, Denise and Rose have worked the mid-day shift on alternate days while their own kids are in school.  And of course, we all know Jack who has pitched in whenever someone needed to take a day off – it helped the store, allowed you some flexibility, and provided a little extra cash to supplement his retirement.

It’s not that we don’t want to give you a pay raise, but this government-mandated 40% increase is beyond our store’s ability to fund.  The realities of the grocery business simply do not allow that kind of increase in our cash outlays. 

Effective immediately, all bagging will now be done by the cashiers.  If a customer needs assistance carrying her bags, cashiers will call for a stocker.  Stockers will be expected to promptly stop their stocking activities and rush to the checkout line.  Remember, “The customer comes first.”

We know this will increase the checkout time for our customers, and we will probably loose some of them to Super-Mega Store over on the State Highway.  But we will be able to absorb the loss of a few customers better than we could subsidize a 40% pay raise.

Over the years, we have trained many baggers to become cashiers.  This option is still available to all of you, and we are taking currently applications for one trainee.  We will maintain a list of others who are interested as positions open up in the future. 

We will, however, be forced to limit cashier training to one week.  We have found that this is ample time for “fast trackers” to pass their proficiency checks.  But many of you simply cannot memorize all the codes or master the keypad in that amount of time.  If you are in this position, we will be happy to provide references based on your attendance history. 

To those who do not qualify for a cashier position, or who can not lift the 75 pounds required of a stocker, we understand that Joe’s Burger Joint down the street is looking for a few good hamburger flippers.  We wish you the best of luck!

Sincerely,

Mom and Pop

P.S. Be sure to pick up your final paycheck on the way out.

On November 5, 2006 Saddam Hussein was sentenced to be hanged by the Iraqi High Tribunal for “crimes against humanity”.  The Washington Times reported that he trembled as he shouted, “Long live the people and death to their enemies.”

Fifty-five days later, Freeborn Americans awoke to the news that he got his wish – Saddam Hussein, the Butcher of Baghdad, was hanged this morning before dawn.

Saddam was not hanged for the murder of one man, or the murder of 148 Shiites.  He was hanged for the murder, for the torture, for the rape of hundreds of thousands of victims – quite literally crimes against humanity.

He truly was the “enemy of the people”.

Sic semper tyrannis!

Question:  Who is next in line to the Presidency after the Vice President?  As Freeborn Americans are remembering this week, the answer to this trick question is… the Vice-President. 

Such was the case on August 9, 1974 when Vice-President Gerald R. Ford was sworn in as President after the resignation of President Richard M. Nixon.  Spiro Agnew was Nixon’s original Vice President, but resigned less than a year earlier just before he pleaded “no contest” to charges of tax evasion and money laundering.  Nixon then nominated Ford under provisions of the then six-year-old 25^th amendment. 

After confirmation of both houses of Congress, Gerald Ford became not “Acting President”, not “Temporary President”, but President of the United States.  Ford then nominated, and Congress confirmed, Nelson Rockefeller as Vice President, who would have ascended to the President had Ford vacated the office – which was a very real possibility considering the two assassination attempts against him.

With Ford’s death the day after Christmas, the media has gone “gaga” as they trip over themselves heaping praises upon his memory.  They sang a far different tune, however, during his administration.

When President Ford issued a “full, free, and absolute pardon” just 30 days after Nixon’s resignation, far from “healing the nation” – as is now the PC line – Ford himself faced possible impeachment. 

I had fully expected the pardon, and was surprised it wasn’t issued sooner – but, it seemed to me at the time, I was the only one in the country who did.  Democrats forced Congressional hearings.  Ford was called to testify in defense of his actions (which he did – declaring that he had made no private agreement to grant a pardon in exchange for Nixon stepping down).  The media vilified him.  There were protests in front of the Whitehouse.  It was hardly the healing balm the media is now claiming some 32 years later.

His pulling out of all American troops from Vietnam won no kudos for healing from many Americans who can still see visions of desperate civilians hanging on to helicopters during the evacuation of South Saigon.  Never mind that, in the face of a full-scale invasion by the North, Ford had asked Congress for – and was denied – assistance for South Vietnam.

Accusations flew in the wake of the fall of South Vietnam and Cambodia; the execution of tens of thousands; the desperate attempt by perhaps a hundred thousand more to flee by boat.

The backlash of Ford’s Presidency – and all of the above – led to the election of Jimmy Carter in 1976.

No, it wasn’t a time of healing. 

In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth, to a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary.  And the angel came in unto her, and said, “Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.”  And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be.  And the angel said unto her, “Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God.  And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.  He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.” – Luke 1:26-33

Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.  Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily. 

But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.  And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.”  Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying:

“Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.”

Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS. – Matthew 1:18-25

And it came to pass that [Nephi]cried mightily unto the Lord all that day; and behold, the voice of the Lord came unto him, saying: “Lift up your head and be of good cheer; for behold, the time is at hand, and on this night shall the sign be given, and on the morrow come I into the world, to show unto the world that I will fulfil all that which I have caused to be spoken by the mouth of my holy prophets.” – 3 Nephi 1:12-13

And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night.  And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid.  And the angel said unto them, “Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.  For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.  And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger.”  And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying, “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.”

And it came to pass, as the angels were gone away from them into heaven, the shepherds said one to another, “Let us now go even unto Bethlehem, and see this thing which is come to pass, which the Lord hath made known unto us.”  And they came with haste, and found Mary, and Joseph, and the babe lying in a manger.  And when they had seen it, they made known abroad the saying which was told them concerning this child.  And all they that heard it wondered at those things which were told them by the shepherds.

But Mary kept all these things, and pondered them in her heart.  And the shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God for all the things that they had heard and seen, as it was told unto them. – Luke 2:1-20

For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. – Isaiah 9:6

The Democrats remind me a lot of that farmer.  They profess concern for the minimum-wage earner.  They say they want to help him work his way up the wage ladder.  Yet they plan to start cutting off his legs one at a time.

The Democrats have been bragging that within the first 100 hours of the opening of the 110^th Congress, they plan to raise the Federal minimum wage in steps from $5.15 to $7.25 an hour.

Even my youngest son – a college sophomore – expressed surprise.  “Dad, don’t they know that will reduce the number minimum-wage jobs and increase unemployment?  All my ‘Econ’ professors tell us that.”

Of course they know – and 80% of economists agree.  But that 15 second sound bite in favor of an increase plays a lot better to the folks back home than trying to explain why they voted against it. 

An even bigger shocker is that President Bush has already said he will sign the bill into law.  Did he learn nothing from the November 7 elections?

Every Freeborn American need to understand this concept.  Wikipedia has a chart showing the relationship of minimum wage to unemployment among lower-educated workers.  For even more charts and details, check out this Wikipedia entry on minimum wage.

Let your Congressman, Senators, and wishy-washy President know you don’t approve of treating minimum wage earners like peg-legged pigs.

Last Tuesday, passengers waiting to board their flight from Minneapolis to Phoenix noticed a curious thing.  Six men – of apparent Middle Eastern descent – had started to gather in a corner of the waiting area.  They became a little unnerved when the six began chanting “Allah, Allah, Allah”. 

When the gate attendants called the passengers to board the plane, these travelers watched apprehensively as the six men walked toward the gate.  Their stomachs began to churn when they heard them – with heavy accents – make critical comments about the war in Iraq.

Once on board, the six took separate seats scattered throughout the cabin.  Some asked for “seatbelt extenders” – although one flight attendant later said they didn’t appear to need them.

Finally, three of them stood and conspicuously start chanting again.  The passengers couldn’t understand the words, but did recognize “Allah akbar”.

Now, actually frightened, at least one of the passengers passed a note to a flight attendant.  She gave the note to the pilot and he contacted airport security.  It was quickly determined that three of the men had one-way tickets and no baggage – a huge red flag.

All six were asked to step off the plane so that security concerns could be addressed.

This should have been the end of the story. 

But in these days of political correctness, these six Imams are now threatening to sue, the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) is calling for a boycott of US Airways, and the passengers are being called racists. 

But any Freeborn American placed in the same situation would be justified in taking reasonable precautions.  Removing the chanting Imams from the plane until their security threat could be evaluated is certainly reasonable.

In a post 9/11 world – as President George W. Bush recently said – “We can’t be in a position of evaluating a threat after it happens.”

This isn’t a case of racial profiling, it’s an example of behavioral profiling.

Had US Airways ignored this suspicious behavior and these chanting Imams actually hijacked the plane, they would have correctly been vilified. 

Yet the FBI is now investigating – not the Imams, but US Airways!  This is the same FBI that ignored a report of one of its own agents – also in Phoenix – detailing suspicious behavior of three of the nineteen 9/11 hijackers!

Were these chanting Imams a real threat?  Were they testing the system?  Was the whole thing a stunt aimed at ridiculing airport security?  Were they simply naive and surprised their behavior elicited concern? 

I don’t know.  But this much I do know:

• Rather than praying silently, these chanting Imams deliberately drew attention to themselves in a crowded airport. 
• The passengers were vigilant and justifiably concerned. 
• The authorities acted prudently in removing them.
• US Airways is my kind of airline.