In 1994, the Republican Party won a majority in Congress for the first time since 1946.  In that election 12 years ago, the GOP rode into power on the “Contract with America”, promising lean government, lower taxes, welfare and tort reform, and term limits.  Indeed, the Republicans were the “party of ideas and reform”. 

Many of the points in the contract were passed into law – many more were passed by the House but died in the senate or were vetoed by President Clinton.  Some were even passed on a veto override.

The Republicans proved that they can run and win on solid conservative principles.  They proved that conservative issues can be translated into bills and passed into legislation. 

But for the last two years, they also proved the potential value of term limits – because that part of the Contract with America didn’t pass.  And that failure – and the ensuing scandals – proved Lord Acton’s observation that “power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” 

During the last Congress, Republicans had become so enamored with their own power they lost sight of the reason they were elected in the first place.  Their arrogance was epitomized by Tom DeLay when, in 2005, he said there was no fat left in the budget to cut – when in fact it was loaded with pork. 

Look at which bums the voters threw out.  This isn’t an exhaustive list, but I count seven notorious big spenders, three under indictment or investigation of corruption, two (or is it three now) for sex scandals, one with an abuse report, several RINOS, an untold number of earmarkers, and I don’t know how many were caught up in the Abramoff affair.

In the end, the voters wouldn’t even forget Rick Santorum’s endorsement of Senator Arlen Specter or his support of the “bridge to no where”.

None of this has escaped those who survived.  Rep. Mike Pence – possibly minority leader in the 110^th Congress – admitted “the American people didn’t quit on the Contract with America, we did”.

President James Garfield warned us that “The people are responsible for the character of their Congress.”  This week the people took the first step in regaining control of Congress. 

The next step is up to you.  Write, phone, e-mail your Congressman and Senators.  Let them know you were disappointed with the previous Congress.  Tell them your position on the issues, and that you expect their support.

Remember Harriet Myers, Dubia Ports, border security, no amnesty, and the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban.  Congress supported these issues because Freeborn Americans like you demanded it.  Just don’t stop demanding!

Dear Jaimi,

Thank you for forwarding the article from the London Daily Telegraph about “a leading British medical college call[ing] on the health profession to consider euthanasia for seriously disabled newborns… to spare parents the emotional and financial burdens of bringing up such children.”

I wrote in August (Read Here) about so-called bioethicists teaching that babies under three months old aren’t really “self-aware” and therefore can be “euthanized” – read killed – “ethically”.  
 

Where else can you expect a society to go when it allows the abortion of millions of babies to spare mothers emotional and financial burdens?  With certain Supreme Court Justices now basing their decisions on judicial opinions from other countries, are we beginning to slide down that same slippery slope?  Who next will we mark for death?

Interestingly, this Wednesday – one day after the elections – the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on the prohibition of gruesome partial birth abortions.  With the current make-up of the court, it is a toss-up which way they will decide. 

This is exactly why I called this election so important – because there WILL be another vacancy for Bush to fill.  Would you rather have another John Roberts or Samuel Alito with the Republicans, or another Ruth Bader Ginsburg with the Democrats?

Yes I’m tired of the “Vote-for-us-because-the-other-guys-are-even-worse” argument – but no way am I going to vote for the “Borking” of another Constitutional Constructionist.

So I will hold my nose, along with millions of other Freeborn Americans, and vote for Republicans, because the alternative IS worse!

A noted political historian once commented…

If God wanted us to vote, he would have given us candidates.
—Jay Leno

Well, we have plenty of candidates, but do we have any worth voting for? 

In the last three elections, millions of Freeborn Americans went to the polls & thought they were voting for less government, less spending, and greater control of our borders.  Now, after 6 years of Republican control of both houses of Congress and the Presidency, millions of Conservatives see one big wasted opportunity and believe it makes little difference which party they vote for one week from today.

I can’t tell you the number of times I’ve heard “there’s not a dime’s worth of difference between the Republicans and the Democrats.”  When it comes to many issues, like spending, I’ll even give you nine cents change!  Certainly this is true of the 109^th Congress.

However, to its credit, the 109^th Congress did confirm two conservative justices to the Supreme Court.  And, after considerable arm-twisting, passed a watered-down border security bill.  There were few other accomplishments for our stalwart elected officials to brag about to the folks back home.

Digging a little deeper, the 109^th Congress actually had the poorest record of overall judicial confirmations of any of the last three Congresses.  The real kicker is that they accomplished this disgraceful record with more Republican Senators than at any time during President Bush’s administration.

To be fair, the reason they confirmed so few judges was the threat of filibusters by the Democrats – just the threat mind you, no actual filibusters required.  (Then on the eve of a return to sanity via a rules change to allow the majority of elected Senators to actually cast a vote on the judicial nominees, seven so-called Republicans slinked over to the dark side.)

Now here’s that penny’s worth of difference.  Imagine if you will, what will happen if the Democrats win majority control of the Senate one week from today.  Conservatives can expect no confirmation of the judicial nominees currently languishing in the Senate to be confirmed.  No confirmation of future nominees submitted by President Bush for the next two years.  And no confirmation of the next Supreme Court nominee – yes there’s little doubt there will be one and maybe two justices to step down during the 110^th Congress.

As one reader wrote, “the Republicans are disappointing but the Democrats are dangerous.”  Disappointing?  Yes!  Deserving of our support?  No!  But with the alternative being so “dangerous”, now is not the time to stay away from the polls.

I have never hesitated to criticize Republicans – I’ve actually quit the party on more than one occasion, staying away for years.  But the cold hard facts are that Republicans are (generally) more conservative than Democrats.  And if we are to have any hope of confirming another Constitutional constructionist to the Supreme Court, it won’t be under the Democrats’ watch.

As Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said, “You don’t go to battle with the army you wish you had – you go with the one you have.”

I think my son summed it up quite well – if maybe a little graphically – with the following observation:

It’s the difference between an adulteress and a prostitute.  The adulteress will cheat on you behind your back about things she vowed to hold sacred.  The prostitute doesn’t even try to hide what she does.

I know I won’t get what I want from Democrats, but with Republicans they will give lip service to their principles and – if I keep a watchful eye on them – they may even stay home at night.

Ronald Reagan knew this.  I was there when he quipped that…

Politics is supposed to be the second-oldest profession.  I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first.

Yet he stayed with the Republicans, energized the Conservative base, and achieved successes that we still enjoy today.

It is up to us, who profess to be Conservatives, to keep the Republican majority we already have and to energize it to keep its sacred vows.

“Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigues of supporting it.” —Thomas Paine

After reading my piece last week (click here) – in which I chided those who vote without knowing the candidates or the issues – my wife (also a Freeborn American) told me she thought I was too harsh on well-meaning voters who just don’t have the time to become informed.  Thank you – it seems I made my point!

Since I’ve noticed over the years that she has exhibited extraordinarily good sense – going back to when she agreed to marry me – I’ll take her advice and make a few suggestions for those who wish to become more politically informed.  But first, a few comments.

What passes for political news nowadays seems to be divided into two components – issues and scandals.  (Of course both are peppered with innuendo, exaggeration, spin, and outright lies – to the point that sometimes the difference between the two are so faded as to become indistinguishable.)

The more the media and politicians of both parties can talk about scandals involving the other party, the less they have to talk about the real issues.

Scandals involving Republicans are echoed, repeated, and rehashed by the media until you’d think it was the most important issue facing the country – e.g. Mark Foley.  On the other hand, those involving Democrats seem to be relegated to somewhere just before the want ads – e.g. William Jefferson and Harry Reid.

Often the scandal of the month is bogus from the beginning, but is repeated so often that it takes on a life of its own and becomes true in the mind of an uninformed public – e.g. “Bush lied; men died” and “Bush is manipulating the price of oil”.

I think the way a political party handles scandals – both real and trumped up, involving one of their own or one of the opposition – tells a lot about that party’s integrity, direction, and faith in the American public.

But it also tells a lot about the American voters’ attention span, values, and overall political ignorance.  There is a very real question that will be answered on November 7 – will the American public vote on the issues and the candidates or will they vote on the scandals, the lies, and the distortions?

Sidebar

It merits repeating – the price of both crude oil and gasoline are set daily (in fact minute-by-minute) at the New York Mercantile Exchange.  This is where futures are traded for these commodities and prices are established by global supply and demand in an “open outcry auction” market as buyers and sellers – employees of hundreds of companies – vie for the best prices they can get.  The NYME is price neutral – in fact it would be to its own detriment if it tried to influence prices to the financial harm of either side.  President Bush has no control over these prices.

The media knows this, as shown in the following:

CBS Evening News September 12, 2006—

“Crude oil prices are set in response to worldwide supply and demand.”

Associated Press (AP) October 5, 2006—

“Wednesday, oil futures settled at $59.41 a barrel in [the] New York Mercantile Exchange.”

Yet, it is discouraging to read in the September 26, 2006 edition of USA Today that “42% of respondents agreed with the statement that the Bush administration ‘deliberately manipulated the price of gasoline so that it would decrease before this fall’s elections.’”  (67% of these conspiracy-believers are Democrats!)

End Sidebar

As I said earlier, it is a disservice to vote if you don’t know who or what you’re voting on!  If the elections November 7 are to be of any value, at least 50% of all voters will have to cast an intelligent vote in a majority of the races.  Unless we want to rely on chance that they will accidentally vote the right way, each of us needs to take on that responsibility ourselves.

Here’s a suggestion from your humble Freeborn American Blogger:

Make a list of the things that impact your life or will impact the lives of your children and grandchildren.  The list doesn’t have to be long, but it does have to include what’s important to you.  It might include some of the following issues:

Immigration

Crime

Energy Independence

Tax cuts

Government spending / earmarks

Social Security

Abortion

Gay Marriage

Education vouchers

Eminent domain

The War in Iraq / Afghanistan / Islamofascists

Spying on the enemy

Giving foreign combatants Constitutional rights

Nuclear proliferation in North Korea and Iran

The next step involves taking the time to do your homework.  This isn’t the “busy work” you used to hate in grammar school; it’s more like studying for the final exam.  And with the internet, it not all that difficult.

Check out each candidate.  Find out what his position is on the issues that are important to you.  I check out candidates’ web pages, read their speeches, and pull up their voting records.  You can even go a step or two further and write a letter asking their position on an issue or call or visit their campaign/Congressional/Senate offices.  I’ve even talked to them personally on the telephone, and occasionally face-to-face.

I said this wouldn’t be difficult, so at least at first, stick to the internet.

You may not find one candidate that agrees with your position 100%, but chances are one will emerge as the obvious choice.

If spending an evening researching the candidates and missing a night of TV seems a burden, remember perhaps the most valid thought ever expressed by Charles de Gaulle:

“I have come to the conclusion that politics is too serious a matter to be left to the politicians.”

Every year you hear it.  “Voter turnout is too low.”  “Exercise your civic responsibility to vote.”  “If you don’t vote you can’t complain.”

Yup, it’s the Get-Out-The-Vote-Campaign Season again!

Only this year there’s an added twist.  Some self-proclaimed “patriotic” do-gooder with too much time on his hands has been running around collecting enough signatures to place his “So You Want to Be a Millionaire” lottery scheme on the Arizona ballet.  If passed, the state will start holding a drawing of all those who vote in each election – the winner to receive $1Million.  (Of course, he’ll let the good citizens of Arizona pay the $1 Million.)

Yeah, turn your ballot stub into a lottery ticket – that ought to entice those pesky non-voters to turn off their MTV long enough to find their way to the polls. 

All these get-out-the-vote campaigns have one thing in common – improve the voter turnout.  But they all start out on a false premise – that increased voter turnout, by itself, is a desired “improvement”.

This bi-annual feel-good bandwagon reminds me of the quip from Adlai Stevenson.  During his 1956 Presidential campaign, a supporter told him “Mr. Stevenson, you have the vote of every thinking voter in the country.”  To which he replied, “Thank you, madam, but that’s not nearly enough – I need a majority to win!”

Side Bar

By the way, do you know who Adlai Stevenson was running against in 1956?  And do you remember the two famous lines he delivered at the emergency session of the U.N. Security Council called during the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962?  I remember watching him on TV as he cream the Soviet Ambassador; but for those of you who weren’t around at the time, try practicing your research skills and look it up.  It shouldn’t take you more than a couple of minutes.

End Side Bar

Adlai made the point that our Arizona do-gooder should have heeded.  Why should fully informed and actively involved Freeborn Americans have their votes cancelled out just because the siren song of a Million-Dollar Lotto persuaded some politically ignorant citizens to enter the polling booth? 

If he’s not interested enough to make the effort to get out to the polls for the purpose of voting on the issues and the candidates, will the bribe of a free lottery ticket induce him to suddenly become informed on those same issues and candidates?  

As of this writing, even the Supreme Court hasn’t found a constitutionally proscribed “civic duty” to vote.  But if you do choose to vote, you should at least feel a moral obligation to cast an informed vote. 

If you don’t know anything about the issues, don’t vote!

If you favor one candidate because of his metro-sexual bouffant don’t vote!

If you’re standing in the voting booth and reading the candidates’ names for the first time, or trying to figure out what the passage of “Prop A” will mean, don’t pull that leaver.  Submit your blank ballot, collect your lottery stub, go home, and try to make some sense out of MTV – just do us all a favor and don’t vote!

I’m shocked – SHOCKED – by the Liberal hypocrisy exposed by the on-going scandal involving Rep. Mark Foley and a (supposed) 16 year old Congressional Page. 

Liberals are demanding the resignation of House Speaker Dennis Hastert for allegedly ignoring the “warning signs” of a known homosexual man with an inordinate interest in boys and young men – allowing him to have further contact with, and supervision of, boys and young men for whom the Speaker was responsible. 

These unsuspecting boys and young men – along with their parents – expect the Congressional Page program to be a safe, wholesome, learning experience that is supervised by ethical adults.

But it is these same Liberals who, for years, have been vilifying the Boy Scouts of America for barring homosexual men with an inordinate interest in boys and young men from serving as Scoutmasters, camping together, and coming into close contact with boys and young men for whom the Scouts are responsible. 

Boys and young men – along with their parents – expect the Boy Scout program to be a safe, wholesome, learning experience that is supervised by ethical adults.

Just hours ago, Hastert held a news conference wherein he “assure[d] the boys and their parents that the Congressional Page program is safe”.  He said that these boys and young men “must be protected.  We will do everything we can to protect them.”

The Boy Scouts of America have gone to great lengths to assure the boys and their parents that the Boy Scout program is safe.  Their policy is that these boys and young men must be protected.  They are doing everything they can to protect them.

They require the certification of all Scoutmasters by periodical participation in “Youth Protection” training.  A minimum of two adults are required on all Boy Scout activities – and their names must be submitted on the “Tour Permit” describing the activity in detail.  Also required on this permit is the name of the adult who is certified in “Youth Protection”.  Adult leaders are never allowed to be with a single boy in a closed room.  “Scoutmaster Conferences” must be conducted with the door open and another adult just outside the open door within sight and hearing distance.

In addition, for the protection of these boys and young men, the Boy Scouts do not permit homosexuals to be scoutmasters.  Unlike those responsible for the Congressional Page program, the Boy Scouts of America have taken the common-sense precaution that a known homosexual man with an inordinate interest in boys and young men might just pose a threat to those boys and young men!  (Two hours a week, plus one weekend a month, plus one week a year, plus monthly adult training, plus Boards of Review, Courts of Honor, and planning meetings is an inordinate commitment of time for any man who does not have his own child in the program.)

The Boy Scout program includes boys and young men between the ages of eleven and eighteen.  Liberals who have led the charge against the Boy Scouts may not want to hear it, but men who molest boys and young men of this age aren’t pedophiles – they are homosexuals.  Pedophiles are attracted to young pre-pubescent boys.  (Puberty generally starts abound age nine.)  While not all homosexuals molest boys and young men between the ages of eleven and eighteen, all men who do molest them are – by definition – homosexuals.

As such, the Boy Scouts of America have every right – indeed, they have the duty – to exclude homosexual men from positions of leadership in their organization.  As a Freeborn American, I would expect no less.  Yet this is exactly what Liberals are accusing the Congressional Page program of NOT doing.  It appears that – at least for the Boy Scouts of America – no Good Deed goes unpunished!

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Back in the days before the Internet – some of my younger children don’t even remember life without the Web – I was part of a grassroots conservative movement that launched a new political party.  Like a “shooting star”, it momentarily blazed across the political landscape but has largely faded into little more than a footnote in history.  Oh, I don’t think our efforts were in vain.  We – along with thousands of other like-minded Freeborn Americans – ultimately were responsible for electing our 40^th President – Ronald Wilson Reagan – and helping him illuminate that “Shining City Upon A Hill”.

Since the Internet at that time was only a gleam in Al Gore’s eye, we relied on community meetings held in private homes and in meeting rooms in banks, schools, and libraries.  Banks would often let our groups use their facilities as a community service – for which we were appropriately appreciative.  But schools and libraries were a little different.  If a public school or library allowed any community group – Scouts, PTAs, Women’s Reading Groups, etc. – to use their meeting rooms after hours, the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech required them to allow all groups the same access.  We were polite, not overly demanding, and rarely had any problem scheduling our meetings.

That’s why I was disappointed – not shocked – when my wife and I returned from our recent vacation and noticed that a panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has once again thumbed its nose at the Constitution and all Freeborn Americans.

It seems the Contra Costa County, California Library has a rule prohibiting the use of its community room by religious organizations.  So when the Faith Center Church Evangelistic Ministries of Antioch requested its use, it was turned down. 

A lower court – no doubt remembering its eighth grade Constitution class – ruled in favor of the church.  But this panel of the most-overturned-Circuit-Court-in-America reversed that ruling.

The Senor Judge on the panel, one Lawrence Karlton, wrote:

“As the First Amendment notes, religious speech is categorically different than secular speech and is subject to analysis under the Establishment and Free Exercise Clause without regard to the jurisprudence of free speech… It is simply untenable to insist that there is no difference between a prayer and, e.g., political speech.”

Well yes…  That’s why the Founders added the “free exercise clause” as one additional protection – contrary to Judge Karlton’s incomprehensible assertion that it affords it less protection.

The United States Supreme Court, by the way, long ago ruled that Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment makes the prohibitions and protections against the Federal Government applicable to the states.  In his opinion, Judge Karlton tries to poke his thumb in the Supreme Court’s collective eye when he wrote “To coin a phrase, one can only pray for the Supreme Court’s enlightenment.”

This ruling will, of course, be appealed.  But I think it’s high time Freeborn Americans stand up to activist judges.  The Constitution says – In Article III Section 1 – that Judges “shall hold their offices during good behavior.”  I call upon Congress to start enforcing this “good behavior” clause and initiate impeachment proceedings against those federal judges who stray from this constitutional admonition.

When Thomas Jefferson said “The price of freedom is eternal vigilance”, he was not referring to enemies from outside our borders – he was referring to vigilance of our own elected and appointed officials.

In just a few short hours, dawn will break on the fifth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.  I remember the unfolding of those atrocities half a decade ago with the same clarity I recall the awful events of November 22, 1963 – as do all Americans from that era.

We had about half an hour left on the graveyard shift when we noticed the images on the monitor showed smoke pouring from what we later learned was the World Trade Center North tower.  Someone quickly turned up the sound, and we all gathered around – trying to absorb the extent of the destruction.  My mind was eased a bit when a commentator guessed that this might be comparable with the 1993 bombing and we might be looking at six dead.  But as I saw the gaping hole, and the billowing smoke, I had an ominous feeling that prediction wasn’t entirely correct.

We were still working under the assumption that it was an accident when flight 175 slammed into the South Tower… and we immediately knew America had been hit.  I was able to blurt out the name “bin Laden”, but “Osama” was beyond my memory capabilities. 

On my way home, I hear the report that there was smoke coming from the Pentagon, but there are no reports yet of flight 77. 

Unknown to me or anyone else at the time, Tom Burnett on flight 93 had called his wife Deena and told her to call the FBI.  She did, and they were listening in when he called back to say the passengers weren’t about to go down without a fight.  “I know we’re all going to die.  There’s three of us who are going to do something about it…  It’s up to us…  I think we can do it.”  He took a moment to say “I love you” then hung up to do what he had to do.

As I rushed into the house, my family already had the TV on and was gathered around watching, in real time, as America was attacked.  My 22 year old daughter started to tell me what was happening, but I hushed her up, trying to take in what was happening.  I sat down on the floor next to my 23 year old son.

Suddenly one of the towers didn’t look right – was it tilting?  I grabbed for my son’s arm but missed – at the same time he blurted out that it was falling.  My daughter jumped up from the couch, staring at the TV.  I didn’t believe it… but my eyes told me it was true.

As the dust was still rising from the collapse of the South Tower, another passenger on flight 93 was talking to a Verizon phone operator.  Todd Beamer lay the phone down, but left it turned on.  The operator heard the commotion begin… “Oh my God!”… “God help us!” 

Then Todd’s voice is heard again “You ready?  Okay… Let’s roll!”

Two other passengers were also using cell phones.

Sandy Bradshaw tells her husband, “Everyone’s running to first class!  I’ve got to go!  Bye!”

CeeCee Lyles’ husband hears her say, “They’re getting ready to force their way into the cockpit… they’re doing it!  They’re doing it!  They’re doing it!”  There’s screaming in the background… a “whooshing sound, a sound like wind,”… … …

Ken Mehlman, Chairman

Republican National Committee

Dear Ken,

In your letter requesting funds, you asked if I have abandoned the Republican Party.  As I ponder that question, I must reluctantly answer yes – until the Republican Party starts acting like… well, like Republicans.

The current President, rumored to be a Republican, has the luxury of both a Republican House and a Republican Senate.  Yet this combination has provided our country with the following:

·       Federal spending that is totally out of control.  In President Bush’s first term alone, Government spending increased by 33%, jumping from 18.5% to 20.3%.of GDP. 

Republicans have out “LBJed” LBJ.  While Lyndon B. Johnson boosted discretionary spending by 33% to finance his “Great Society”, Republicans have managed a 45% increase in the last five years!

·       One big contributor is earmarks.  In 1987, President Reagan vetoed a transportation bill because it contained 152 earmarks.  In 2005, President signed a transportation bill that had 6,370 earmarks.  To date, the Republicans have passed, and the President has signed, over 15,000 earmarks.  Each and every one of these earmarks is a slap in the face of the American taxpayer, and adds to shamefully wasteful government spending.

This is what former Republican Majority Leader Tom DeLay called a “bare-bones” budget!

·       A massive Medicare drug benefit which threatens to dwarf the Social Security crisis.  This new $17 trillion entitlement – the single largest entitlement in American history – was passed by Republicans in an attempt to buy votes.  During the Clinton years, my Republican party told us that government wasn’t the answer to our country’s health-care problems.  Who are these people in Congress, and what have they done with the real Republicans?

·       President Bush’s vague “plan” to save Social Security.  I say vague, because all he told us about it was some kind of personal accounts funded by some small percentage of our own money.  Then, after months of agree-with-me-and-I’ll-tell-you-what-you-agreed-to-later pleading, he comes out with “means testing”.  So now – in addition to being taken for a ride by a governmental ponzi scheme – it seems the harder we work and the more we earn, the less of our own money this Republican President wants to “give” back to us.  When this went over like a lead balloon, Republicans dropped Social Security reform completely.

·       The “No Child Left Behind Act”.  A Federal Government control of education that some states are refusing to follow – even at the loss of federal dollars.  Competition, parental choice, and the resulting innovation at the local level is the key to education reform.  Not another expensive federal mandate written by Ted Kennedy.

·       In spite of the fact that 100% of the 9/11 hijackers were Muslim men between the ages of 16 and 35, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) thinks it is more politically correct to body-search all passengers – less we should make Muslim men between the ages of 16 and 35 feel uncomfortable if subjected to a little extra scrutiny.  Former TSA Secretary Norm Mineta explained that “We must protect the civil rights of airline passengers.”  If I donate to the RNC, will Republican President Bush tell the TSA they should be more concerned with protecting the lives of airline passengers?  Profiling helps stop terrorists.  Treating everybody equally helps waste limited resources.

·       Porous boarders.  Five years after 9/11, we still have no control over our illegal alien problem.  Heck, we can’t even call a spade a spade – we have to refer to them as “undocumented workers”.

When American citizens – fed up with the Government’s inaction – took on the task of monitoring 22 miles of the Arizona border with Mexico for a month, President Bush called them “vigilantes” – even before they took up their positions.

Just last month – after an avalanche of protests by the American public, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff announced the end of “catch-and-release”.  (Perhaps he was motivated by the discarded jackets bearing military patches in Arabic found by Texas law enforcement officials along the Rio Grande River.)  This was four years and eleven months too late.

·       The 2001 steel tariff.  By the time it was removed a year and a half later, this action cost more jobs than it saved – and lost more votes than it bought.  (When was the last time we heard a Republican politician advocate eliminating the heavy tariffs on lumber, sugar, and brassieres that American consumers have to support?)

·       Restrictions on Freedom of Speech.  When Republican President Bush signed the McCain-Feingold “Protect-Incumbents-By-Restricting-Campaign-Finance” Bill in 2002, he told us he thought these restrictions on Free Speech were unconstitutional – but he signed it anyway. (Whose hand was on the Bible when he swore to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States”?)

Those Republicans who signed the “contract with America” knew – and apparently today’s Republicans do not -- that any law restricting American citizens from voicing our support for, or displeasure with, candidates for public office is an attack on our freedom of speech.

·       Just last month, in an attempt at political slight-of-hand, Republicans in both houses voted for a bill raising the minimum wage.  At the same time they acknowledged that if passed, this bill would raise the unemployment rate of the poorest Americans.  Did we buy any votes with that one?

What has happened to the Republican Party I joined in 1966?  Back then, we stood for less government and more individual responsibility.  Now, after twelve years in power, Republicans have replaced big government with super-sized government and accountability with a government handout!

I have donated generously to the Republican Party in the past.  But I’m beginning to think I should have hidden that money under my “personal retirement mattress” instead. 

Sincerely,

A Freeborn American

P.S.  Contact me again when you start behaving like Republicans.

Some 1800 years ago, two massive statues of standing Buddhas were carved into the shear cliffs in the Bamiyan area of Afghanistan.  These statues – one 114 feet, the other 165 feet tall – were made during the 2^nd or 3^rd B.C. during Afghanistan’s days as a key stop on the ancient Silk Road.

In March 2001 – in spite of a world-wide outcry to save them – the Taliban ordered the destruction of both of these statues (image) in an attempt to “cleanse” Afghanistan of perceived “Hindu heresy”.

Some 60 years ago, a 29-foot concrete cross was erected atop a 25 foot base near the summit of Mt. Soledad in the Dan Diego area of California.  This cross was later incorporated into a memorial to American troops killed in the Korean War (image).

Last month – in spite of a wide-spread outcry to save it – a judge ordered its removal in an attempt to “save” the public from a perceived violation of both the State and Federal constitutions.  He ordered the city of San Diego to pay a fine of $5000 per day until the cross is removed.

Yesterday, however, President Bush signed a bill – overwhelming passed by the House and unanimously by the Senate – for the Federal government to acquire the concrete cross and the park around it to prevent its destruction.  But since both state and federal judges have ordered the cross removed, it may yet share the fate of the Bamiyan Buddhas.

“But” you say, “Surely as a freeborn American, you know that the Constitution requires a ‘separation of church and state’.  The judge was right, the cross must be destroyed.”

Actually, religion is mentioned only twice in the U.S. Constitution.  The first is Article VI, Section 3 which states: “No religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”  Obviously, no relevance to this case.

The only other mention of religion is in the First Amendment – the very first article in the Bill of Rights – which guarantees such freedoms as that of religion, speech, assembly.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

As explained in the Preamble, these are “declaratory and restrictive clauses” requested by “a number of the States. . . to prevent misconstruction or abuse of [the new government’s] powers”.

In the case of religion, there is not only the “Free Exercise Clause” but also the “Establishment Clause”. 

The Founding Fathers clearly had England in mind when they prohibited the federal government from establishing a religion or dictating religious practices, or taxing the people to support particular denominations whose tenets they may not even believe.

But the cliché, “separation of church and state” is never mentioned – in fact, it is never mentioned in the entire Constitution, or the Bill of Rights, or any of the other Amendments.  It was first penned by Thomas Jefferson less than a year after he took office as the third President.

A little history is intriguing. . .

The presidential campaign of 1800 was perhaps more bitter than even those of recent years.  Candidates themselves didn’t campaign, thinking it unsavory.  But supporters of the incumbent, John Adams, spread rumors that should Jefferson be elected, he would confiscate and burn all bibles – public and private – that could be found. 

To the horror of some, Jefferson was indeed elected.  Upon hearing this shocking news, some people actually hid their family Bibles by burying them in their kitchen gardens.  Others lowered them into wells for safe keeping.

In the midst of the continuing controversy, a group of Baptists from Danbury, Connecticut sent Jefferson a letter of congratulations.  In actuality, they had an ulterior motive.  The Congregationalist church had long been the legally established church in Connecticut, and the Danbury Baptists were outsiders.  (All of the states except Rhode Island had a state sponsored religion – unaffected by the restrictions of the Federal Constitution.)  They were asking for influence from the newly elected President.

“Sir, we are sensible that the president of the United States is not the national legislator, and also sensible that the national government cannot destroy the laws of each state; but our hopes are strong that the sentiments of our beloved president, which have had such genial effect already, like the radiant beams of the sun, will shine and prevail through all these states and all the world, till hierarchy and tyranny be destroyed from the earth.” (full letter)

Jefferson responded with a carefully written, and later edited, letter that he knew had the potential gaining wide public attention.  He was sympathetic to their situation, but gave no encouragement to any thought of influencing state government. (full letter)

The crux of the whole controversy is found in the following excerpt from his reply:

“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.” (emphasis mine)

In this one paragraph, Jefferson restricts his reply to the still-new Federal Government; quotes the relevant passages of the First Amendment – the Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause; and states his opinion that this “wall of separation” prevents the Federal Government from thus establishing or restricting religion.

Today, Jefferson’s very words of assurance are being so twisted they are now used as a club against all religious, moral, and spiritual expression.  His “wall of separation” has been used to prohibit a 5-year old kindergartner in New York from saying grace before snack time; ban the placing of crosses at the sites of traffic deaths; forbid an 8-year old Florida girl from singing “Kum Ba Yah” at a talent show; ban the playing of Christmas music from the bell tower at Bloomsburg University in Pennsylvania; censor secular Christmas trees from city property in Eugene, Oregon; deny the use of public buildings from faith-based charities while offering them to pro-abortion groups; withhold education vouchers from children attending parochial schools; confiscate Bibles given as gifts at a school Easter party in Houston Texas; attempt to prevent President Bush from using a Bible to take the oath of office in Washington D.C.; and another attempt to stop a moment of silence during the national mourning following the attacks of 9/11.

Are these attacks on religion, and is the proposed destruction of the Soledad Cross so different than the Taliban’s demolition of the Buddhas?

The Founding Fathers did not want protection from Religion, but rather protection of religion. 

Thomas Jefferson himself wrote that…

“No nation has ever yet existed or been governed without religion.  Nor can be.  The Christian religion is the best religion that has ever been given to man, and I as chief Magistrate of this nation am bound to give it the sanction of my example.”

God save us from those who seek to “save” us!

How could he be so cold-hearted? Well, let’s take a step back and look at it objectively.

Stem cells are the building blocks used to generate replacement cells, tissues, and organs for people with certain diseases and injuries. We’re not yet to the point of running down to the local “Body Parts” store and ordering a new heart, but that, in essence, is the goal. Currently, there are three sources of stem cells; human embryos, bone marrow, and umbilical cord blood. Interestingly, however, not all stem cells are created equal.

Embryonic Stem Cells

Two sources of embryonic stem cells are aborted fetuses and unused embryos – discarded by in-vitro fertilization clinics. There are risks involved for the women who donate eggs to be fertilized, including stroke, cancer, and occasionally even death. That is why embryos that might otherwise be discarded are obtained from clinics rather than from eggs donated for that purpose.

The embryos are allowed to develop for one to two weeks, and then destroyed. Their embryonic stem cells are harvested and processed according to the cell types desired.

While billions of dollars have been spent during 20 years of research, no one has medically benefited from embryonic stem cells (financial benefits to the researchers is another story); no therapies have been developed; in fact, researchers have not even progressed to the point of being able to conduct even one human clinical trial. Alarmingly however, trials using animals have triggered the formation of malignant carcinomas. Given this inconvenient fact, I can understand their reluctance to conduct human trials! It’s not surprising then, that there is little if any interest from private investors in funding this research.

Bone Marrow Stem Cells

Bone marrow stem cell technology has progressed well beyond the clinical trial phase, and has been successfully used to treat tens of thousands of patients for almost 100 different diseases. Much of this success is the result of private research financed by private funding.

Unfortunately, there is a downside to the use of bone marrow for the source of stem cells. The bone marrow must be extracted from donors, and there are risks involved to these donors. In addition, there is a risk of transmitting diseases from the donor to the recipient. Finally, the tissue grown from the donor stem cells can attack the recipient’s own cells. Hence, the research continues.

Cord Blood Stem Cells

Cord blood stem cells are obtained from the blood found in umbilical cords – a “byproduct” of live births. So the first advantage is that there is no risk to the donor. In addition, there is less of a tendency for the donor cells to attack healthy patient cells.

The use of cord blood stem cells is newer than bone marrow stem cells – the total count is fewer than ten thousand patients. But the success rate is good – from 70% to 90% depending on the disease being treated. So far, there have been close to 70 diseases successfully treated – and the list continues to grow.

Am I dodging the ethics question?

No. There is no real ethics dilemma if your choice isn’t even viable. But what if embryonic stem cells had a better track record? What if instead of letting the embryo develop for one to two weeks, researchers let them grow for six weeks? Fourteen weeks? The first trimester? Full term? Where is the limit? Will we eventually be arguing over the experimentation on – and harvesting of organs from – the terminally ill? Or the disabled? Or those with IQs under 100? How about babies less than 24 hours old – after all, do they really have a soul yet? Who are we allowed to mark for death?

Millions of Americans believe that the ethical limit is zero. Do their opinions count for nothing? Must they be forced to pay – through their tax dollars – to destroy, what they consider, human life? Is it unreasonable to maintain that because each embryo has its own unique genetic code, it isn’t a mere growth of protoplasm, but a living human being?

Don’t forget, it was President Bush who, in 2001, authorized the use of tax dollars for research into embryonic stem cells in the first place – limiting research to then-existing embryonic stem cell lines. Rather than giving him credit for this, the mid-evil media is vilifying him for not authorizing ever more money into a technology that is not only considered immoral by many Americans, but which has not even shown reasonable promise. And don’t forget, money spent on embryonic stem cell research is money that is not available for umbilical cord stem cell research.

There is no federal law limiting the killing of human embryos for research or for harvesting their stem cells. Regardless of my feelings on the ethics involved, or the mid-evil media’s pontificating, President Bush’s recent veto does not change that.

Before you say “Freeborn, you’re reaching”, consider this.

The first story talked about the movement to impeach President Bush for the detainment camp at Guantánamo Bay Naval Base. This wasn’t a real news story mind you, but a rehash of efforts to stick it to Bush.

These detainees were captured in Iraq and Afghanistan. Every one of them attacked, or were plotting to attack, US Solders. None of them are American Citizens. By keeping these enemy combatants in camps, we keep these off the field of battle and out of the war.

As a mater of fact, the Washington Post reported back in October 2004, that 10 detainees previously released from Guantánamo have been recaptured or killed fighting our troops. An additional 15 have been identified as again fighting with the Taliban or the terrorists. One, Abdullah Mehsud, is now a Taliban leader.

The hypocrisy is that these same liberals never miss an opportunity to tell us that FDR was the greatest president of the 20^th Century… since the Civil War… in our country’s history.

Yet it was FDR who authorized the relocation camps for Japanese-Americans during World War II. Unlike the enemy combatants being held today, those forced into FDR’s camps were never accused nor suspected of any crimes against the United States. An estimated 62% were American Citizens. It is interesting that neither Italian-Americans nor German-Americans were relocated. (Those of Japanese, Italian, or German descent who were deemed actual security risks were detained separately under an entirely differently program.)

The second story dealt with another FDR program – Social Security.

“But Freeborn, what’s wrong with Social Security? It provides a retirement for old people!”

Well, what’s wrong with a Ponzi Scheme? In spite of Bill Clinton’s often referred-to Social Security “LOCKBOX”, there is not now – and never has been – any such thing. Social Security is a pay-as-you-go system.

Ida May Fuller, Social Security’s first beneficiary paid $44.00 in Social Security Taxes – then lived to receive $20,934 in benefits. It worked out well for Ida, after all in 1950, there were 16 workers for every retiree. Today, however, there are 3 workers for every retiree, and by 2030 there will be only 2 workers for every retiree receiving benefits.

“But Freeborn, where else would you invest your money?”

Changes have to be made, but liberals in congress have consistently voted down any Social Security reforms for years. Granted, President Bush didn’t do a very good job selling his “privatization” proposal. But the “mid-evil” media didn’t let him.

The Social Security Administration tells us that an average citizen can expect to receive 1.5% to 2% interest on this mandatory “investment”. On the other hand, a typical 401(k) account receives 4% and over the last 80 years, a conservative investment portfolio has averaged 8%.

Since I have been writing about it in the 1970s it has gotten worse every year – to the extent that today Congress would have to set aside $61 Trillion at current interest rates to meet future Social Security obligations! To put this number in perspective, our entire Gross Domestic Product is only $12 Trillion!!

Who’s going to pay for it? One thing’s for certain… It’s not going to be me – I’m going to be riding on your backs!

So the next time you hear a liberal say FDR was the greatest president of the 20^th Century… since the Civil War… in our country’s history, ask him “based on what?”