To say it was the most reckless thing Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has ever said might be underestimating his reputation of irresponsibility, but it had to be close.  In attempting to shame Senate Republicans for not supporting a plan to destroy the quality and affordability of healthcare in the United States, Reid made the following statement:

"Instead of joining us on the right side of history, all the Republicans can come up with is, 'slow down, stop everything, let's start over.' If you think you've heard these same excuses before, you're right.  When this country belatedly recognized the wrongs of slavery, there were those who dug in their heels and said 'slow down, it's too early, things aren't bad enough'...When this body was on the verge of guaranteeing equal civil rights to everyone regardless of the color of their skin, some senators resorted to the same filibuster threats that we hear today."

Who is advising this man? 

There are so many reasons this statement is foolishly unwise, it is tough to know where to start.  First of all, Reid might want to remember that it was the Democratic Party that was the Party of slavery.  While Lincoln and the Republicans fought for the abolition of this terrible practice, it was Reid's progenitors that bitterly clung to the racist institution of enslavement.  Mr. Reid, it's best not to reference the cowardly effort to perpetuate slavery when that legacy belongs to your own party.

Secondly, Reid's comment about the civil rights filibuster is undoubtedly a reference to Strom Thurmond's famous 1957 effort against that legislation.  But at the time Thurmond led the filibuster, he was a Democrat.  His switch to the Republican Party wouldn't happen until several years later.  In fact, over 80% of those who filibustered in an effort to kill the civil rights legislation were of the same party as Harry Reid.  Mr. Reid, it's best not to reference the cowardly effort to prevent civil rights advancements when that legacy belongs to your own party.

Next, it evidently hasn't occurred to Mr. Reid that the consequence of this healthcare legislation would be to restrict the freedom of choice to individuals.  It would require government approval of healthcare decisions, government approval of health insurers, an individual mandate that doesn't allow a person the option to choose not to purchase some government approved insurance, and (as nearly all of its supporters recognize) is a step towards the complete abolition of the private insurance industry.  That means socialized medicine.  Mr. Reid, it's odd that someone who favors stripping people of their freedom of choice in something as significant as their health and well being (making individuals completely at the mercy of government for it) would be referencing slavery at all.

But what makes Reid's slavery remark most incoherent is that he apparently fails to recognize that there is but one issue in modern American politics comparable to slavery, and it has nothing to do with legislation currently before Congress. There is only one other similar issue where the basic rights of man are being denied by those in power, and that's the issue of abortion. And it is Reid and his Democratic party that have taken the slaveholders' position.  Mr. Reid, it is you who boldly stands in the shadow and proudly walks in the footsteps of the plantation owners.

Remember, those plantation owners were the "pro-choicers" of their day. They believed that anyone should have the choice to own another human being and do with them whatever they pleased. And when the abolitionists spoke up and said that every human had value and should be granted unalienable rights, the pro-choice slave owners scoffed. That is exactly what Harry Reid and the Democrats in Washington are doing right now with regard to innocent life in the womb. 

In the name of choice, they are saying that it's okay for one human being to own another human being and do with them what they please - even if that means killing them. And when the human rights advocates known as "pro-lifers" speak up and say that every human has value and should be granted unalienable rights, Reid and his Party scoff.

Mr. Reid, there is but one party and one Senate leader that is comparable to the slavery advocates, and you needn't look further than a mirror to find him. 

For the first time since September 11, 2001, I find myself seriously questioning whether or not the United States is capable of winning the War on Terror.  And it's not because of my lack of faith in our supremely naïve Commander-in-Chief.  Though his discomfort in even identifying our enemy and his indecision in how best to pursue them is cause for great concern, my questions are motivated by something much deeper and much more sinister. 

America's moral confusion has now reached the point where it has become routine for us to treat the good guys as the bad guys, and vice versa.  The most recent example of this tragic reality came with the news that three U.S. Navy SEALs will face court-martials for the mistreatment of an enemy terrorist they captured.  In 2004, Ahmed Hashim Abed masterminded a successful plot to ambush, murder, mutilate and burn the bodies of four American security agents.  Abed's ruthless cohorts then hung the charred remains of these Americans from a bridge in Fallujah to allow the world press to photograph and publicize.

Abed came into U.S. custody when a team of the Navy's elite commando squad captured him just recently.  But Abed is a trained al-Qaeda fighter and knows all to well the Achilles heal of the mightiest military force the world has ever known: political correctness.  After being taken into custody, Abed cried that he had been punched by his American captors, resulting in a bloody lip. 

In a sane culture, this plea would have elicited uproarious laughter at Abed's plight.  This is a man who has excelled at sawing innocent people's heads off, and he is complaining about a bloody lip?!  These SEALs should be given the Congressional Medal of Honor for demonstrating the remarkable restraint to only punch this murderous savage.  But we don't live in a sane culture, and consequently Navy SEALs Matthew McCabe, Jonathan Keefe, and Julio Huertas are now facing court-martial trials for prisoner abuse that could unbelievably end their military career in shame.

The real shame rests with a society that allows such a backwards travesty to occur.

But it's not the first time.  Following an intense firefight in Haditha, Iraq in November of 2005, eight U.S. Marines were charged with the murder of innocent Iraqi civilians.  While the liberal "tolerance" police evidently want us to avoid rushing to judgment when a Muslim radical murders 13 soldiers at Fort Hood, they aren't that interested in waiting for due process when it comes to charges brought against our own troops.

Keith Olbermann called the Haditha incident, "willful targeted brutality."  The liberal rag "The Nation" reported that there was enough evidence to prove the Marines had committed a "massacre."  The New York Times called it the "nightmare defining atrocity" of the Iraq war.

But worst of all, Democrat Representative John Murtha (a former Marine himself) stood on the floor of the House of Representatives and, taking the word of our enemy over the word of our soldiers, slandered those Marines by stating, "they killed innocent civilians in cold blood." 

As it turns out, these liberal loudmouths were dead wrong.  Charges have been completely dropped against seven of the eight Marines, and the one who still faces trial is being charged with not properly investigating the incident.  In other words, there was no massacre.  Our soldiers acted properly and responsibly, which is far more than can be said for these left-wing elitists here at home.

To this point, neither Olbermann, The Nation, the New York Times, nor Rep. John Murtha have uttered one word of apology for acting as prosecutor, judge, and jury in their false condemnation of our soldiers.  And stunningly, Congressional Democrats are so void of any conscience and integrity, Rep. Murtha still maintains his position of leadership within their party.  It's an embarrassment to Democrats, but also to the country at large.

Which brings me to my larger point.  There's a reason that confiscated al-Qaeda training manuals show that the first lesson they teach their converts is this: when captured by the Americans, immediately allege abuse.  And why?  Because it works.  Just ask the three Navy SEALs, the eight Marines, and countless other brave defenders of freedom who are falling victim to this culture's viral stupidity born out of backwards, politically correct liberalism.

And if Americans of both parties don't speak up to stop it, that is the one force on earth that I am sure will defeat us.

When Representative Joe Donnelly was elected to Congress in 2006, he joined the fictitious club of supposedly conservative Democrats called the "Blue Dogs."  By betraying constituents with his recent embrace of Nancy Pelosi's healthcare takeover, Joe Donnelly has proven himself not a blue dog, but a lap dog.

When Donnelly conducted a town hall meeting in Kokomo last August, he heard from a host of citizens angry about the irresponsible behemoth of a bill that Congressional Democrats had put together.  Despite misleading media reports coming from papers like the Kokomo Tribune that suggested the crowd was "evenly divided" on the issue, over 80% of the comments directed at Donnelly were skeptical and condemning of the Democrats' plan to interject more government into our healthcare system. 

Perhaps surprised by the crowd's hostility towards turning over their freedom to him and his fellow elites in Washington, Donnelly put on his "conservative Hoosier hat" for the evening, promising his constituents he: 1. would read the entire bill before voting, 2. would not vote to add to the deficit (odd, since he had just voted in favor of Obama's pork-laden, deficit-exploding, economy-depressing "stimulus" bill), 3. preferred government stay out of healthcare, and 4. wanted to clean up Medicare first.

Call me a cynic, but I didn't believe a word of it then.  Sometimes I hate being right.

This isn't to suggest that Congressman Donnelly was in an easy spot.  The leaders of his party had put him in a position where he had to choose between losing the support of his party bosses like Pelosi and Obama (and thus the money they would send his way for a re-election campaign), or betraying his constituents by going back on his word.  It was a test of character for Donnelly.  A test he failed.

On his website, Donnelly boasts of himself that, "It has never been about Democrats or Republicans. It's about doing what is right for families here in Indiana and across the country."  Yet when it mattered most, Donnelly proved those to be empty words.  They are the hollow ramblings of just another Washington politician whose primary objective is preserving his own power, even if it means throwing those "families here in Indiana" under the socialized medicine bus.

Donnelly's critical vote allowed a bill to pass that is blatantly unconstitutional.  Democrats, including Donnelly, have not yet been able to explain where Congress gets the authority to force Americans to purchase health insurance.  This is not like auto insurance.  If you choose not to drive, you don't have to purchase auto insurance.  If this healthcare plan goes through, Joe and his compatriots will have left you the following options: buy it, die, or go to jail. 

Thanks to Donnelly's sell-out, we are one step closer to a bill that will slash Medicare spending (section 1161), put the government in charge of approving all health insurance plans (section 224), hammer small businesses with fines for not obeying orders (section 412), cut reimbursement rates for doctors (section 1158), and cause the tax burden on middle class Americans to skyrocket.

This is why when Donnelly brags about having read the entire bill, I actually hope he is lying.  Because if he did read this monstrosity and still voted for it, the degree of his lapdog status becomes even more glaring.

So how does Donnelly explain this outrageous betrayal?  He doesn't.  I've been waiting to ask the Congressman myself, but after setting up a monthly interview with me on my radio program two years ago, Donnelly has participated in just one, earning him the moniker "Silent Joe."  He is apparently more content to talk with media outlets that aren't interested in holding him accountable for his votes.

And evidently Congressman Donnelly has adopted a new policy for interaction with his constituents...fly in and out of the district in secret appearances before anyone catches wind that he's in town.  It is reminiscent of the way the president will fly into a war zone to visit the troops unexpectedly, and then leave before the enemy has a chance to gather.  A word of advice to Mr. Donnelly: when you're having to make stealth appearances in the district you supposedly represent, that should tell you something about how well you're doing your job.

Then again, after reading Donnelly's response to a senior citizen who questioned his vote, this strategy of avoiding his constituents might be wise.  He attempted to pacify her concerns by stating, "I [say], turn off the TV and listen to a Frank Sinatra record."  And there you have it...a perfect indictment of Donnelly as a bona fide member of the inner-Washington crowd sending us peons the message: "Don't you people worry about paying attention to what I'm doing and what I'm voting in favor of...just listen to your records and let me run your life for you.  Just trust me."

Silent Joe must go.

The storyline is hauntingly familiar: terrorist detainees were moved to a major city to await trial.  While there, fellow Islamic terrorists decided to make a daring and dastardly attempt to gain their release, not by attacking the well-protected courtroom or the heavily guarded detention facility (they are bloodthirsty but they are not stupid),but by going for a more tantalizing target. 

Thirty-five bomb-laden Muslim terrorists stormed a crowded middle school full of parents, teachers, and children.  By doing so, they immediately gained what they desired most: the eyes of a watching world paralyzed with fear at what they might do.  And the world had reason to fear.  Over the course of this three day massacre, the terrorists barricaded doors and tied up authorities in "negotiations" that were used only to buy them the time they needed to coldly execute the stronger men hostages, rape young girls in front of their watching mothers, and rig explosives throughout the complex to ensure that when the authorities stormed the building there would be massive casualties.

This horrific drama played out in the quiet Russian town of Beslan just five short years ago.  In the end, 394 lay dead (over half of them children) with another 704 injured. 

And stunningly, Barack Obama has just invited the same carnage to our shores.

When the President's Attorney General Eric Holder announced the administration's breathtakingly ignorant decision to bring 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed (KSM) and five compatriots to New York City to stand trial in civilian court for their act of war, there was undoubtedly a collective gasp in the small towns outside New York.  The citizens there surely must recognize that the high profile status of KSM alone is enough to tempt every terror cell this side of Basra to consider making their rural middle schools the stage for Beslan: Act Two.

Why any president sworn to protect the lives of his fellow citizens would take such an outrageously absurd and completely unnecessary risk is unfathomable.  And make no mistake.it is unnecessary.  KSM and his fellow terrorists were already being tried by military commissions far away from American children and out of the international spotlight that they so desperately crave.  Many, including KSM, had already pled guilty and requested execution. 

But Barack Obama halted these commissions when he came into office, apparently more concerned with bolstering his image as a "citizen of the world" than protecting his own people.  He then passed the buck to Eric Holder who announced that the terrorists would be brought to one of America's largest cities for the trial of the century. 

The negative consequences of this decision are plentiful.  From endangering innocent Americans to gift wrapping a perfect propaganda opportunity for the terrorist world, this decision is inexcusable.  And considering that the choice to try these monsters in civilian courts was to supposedly ensure that justice would be done, this decision becomes  incomprehensible.  (How, for instance, will these show trials result in any better or more just outcome than a guilty plea and execution sentence - something that the military commission had all but secured?)

In short, this is about to be a circus.

Obama and Holder have now given constitutional "rights of the accused" to these terrorists (something that has never been done throughout all of American history). And if you don't think that their lawyers are going to bring up the manner of their detainment, the circumstances surrounding their capture, any perceived threats or mistreatment, any notion of coerced confessions, their lack of immediate access to attorneys, demand for relocation, complaints about a biased jury, calls for mistrials, and the need for an extensive appeals process, you aren't thinking...sort of like the Obama administration.

With a decision this bad - one that is receiving scorn across the country from angry Americans of all political backgrounds - one might hope that Team Obama would come to its senses and reverse course.  Not likely.

When announcing this preposterous decision Holder stated, "To the extent that there are political consequences, I'll just have to take my lumps." 

Frankly, sir, the grisly images of Beslan are a little too fresh in our minds to be overly concerned with your personal political consequences.  We're a bit more concerned about the potentially deadly consequences this ragingly incompetent administration may have just brought on innocent American citizens.

Vice President Joe Biden once criticized Barack Obama's lack of preparedness for the serious responsibilities associated with the job of president by saying that the presidency was "not something that lends itself to on-the-job training."  God forbid that we're about to see just how right he was.

Government healthcare is such an emotionally-charged issue that it's become nearly impossible for people to think about rationally, without immediately putting up ideological defenses that thwart any serious conversation regarding its merits.  But the recent "Cash for Clunkers" debacle doesn't have such emotional overtones, and thus allows us a perfect example through which we can view the difference between what the liberal model of central planning and the conservative model of freedom offers the country.

Remember the worthy objectives of this government-run program: 1. benefit the consumer by giving them a financial incentive to purchase a car; 2. benefit the auto industry by stimulating demand for cars; 3. benefit the environment by replacing gas-guzzlers with fuel-efficient vehicles.  No one can or should fault the government planners for their intentions.

But what happened?  Certainly some consumers benefited from the rebate they received for purchasing a government-approved car.  But what about the consumers that didn't need cars but could have used a new refrigerator, washing machine, or oven?  What made their need any less than those looking for new wheels?  Why did the government need to show such favoritism, and how is it justified? 

Wouldn't the wiser path have been to take the conservatives' approach by giving all taxpayers a rebate in the form of tax cuts?  Putting money back in everyone's pocket would have allowed those that wanted a car the opportunity to go buy one, as well as those that wanted to pay off debt the ability to do the same.  Would that not have actually done more to stimulate economic growth instead of the liberals' attempt to specifically target one area of the economy and incentivize it?

Liberals said that the auto industry was in excessive peril and so intentionally focusing on them was appropriate.  If that's the argument, then it's helpful to see how successful the program was in benefitting the automotive industry here in America.  As it turns out, it wasn't.

Consumer Reports highlighted the embarrassing statistics: American-made cars accounted for the top ten vehicles traded in by consumers, while eight out of the top ten purchased vehicles were foreign made.  What that means is that the American government used billions of taxpayer dollars to pay citizens to buy foreign cars.  And that was supposed to stimulate a stagnant American auto industry?  Pathetic.

But what about dealerships?  There was undoubtedly a sudden rush on auto dealerships during the 2-3 month span of the program.  But it was short-lived.  Whereas giving people tax cuts (again, the conservative proposal) would have had long-lasting economic benefit, the liberal solution created a instantaneous burst of economic activity that essentially crammed six months worth of sales into a small window of time. 

This didn't create any new jobs, nor did it produce any increased demand for automobiles.  In fact, the only long-lasting impact it had was frustration and stress to the auto dealerships waiting for reimbursement from the ever-slow government bureaucrats administering the program.  Their sluggish pace put an incredible financial burden on dealers who had to absorb costs associated with the rebate mandated by the central planners.

Okay, so maybe the liberals failed disastrously on their first two objectives, but surely their strategic central planning achieved that most politically correct of all goals: helping the environment, right?  Not exactly. 

As the Associated Press recently reported, "The most common deals under the government's $3 billion ?Cash for Clunkers' program, aimed at putting more fuel-efficient cars on the road, replaced old Ford or Chevrolet pickups with new ones that got only marginally better gas mileage, according to an analysis of the new federal data by the AP."  Get that?  People exchanged gas guzzlers for gas guzzlers, despite the planners' intentions.  And it gets worse.

Other studies have shown that many of those vehicles that were traded in to dealerships in exchange for the government rebate were ones that their owner hadn't been driving anyway.  These were truly clunkers...sitting abandoned in a driveway or junk pile until liberals offered to pay tax dollars for them.  In other words, the government planners took non-polluting, immovable paper weights off of people's hands, and paid them to go purchase a vehicle that would pollute! 

What should all this tell us?  Central planning liberals always have the best of intentions.  They want to help the Indians and less fortunate, they want to give everyone a nice place to live and cars to drive, they want to help you go to college, they want to give you affordable healthcare...but time and time again we see that despite those intentions, their solutions inevitably make the crisis they hope to solve worse.  Visit an Indian reservation to see how well the government provides healthcare, good housing, good jobs, and affordable, quality education to people.

Planners fail not because they are evil, but because people are too different, unique, and have too widely varying skills and needs to be manipulated into happiness by a top-down government bureaucracy.  No matter how wise, well-intentioned, or intellectual our leaders may be, they simply cannot plan our lives better for us than we can do ourselves.

Perhaps we would be wise to learn that lesson before Clunkernomics becomes ClunkerCare.

There is a quote that hangs on the wall of my classroom that says, "War is an ugly thing.  But it is not the ugliest of things.  The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling that thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse.  A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing he cares about more than his own personal safety...that man is a miserable creature, who has no chance of being free unless he is made and kept so by the actions of better men than himself."

I don't know the author of that quote, but I do know that it is one of the most powerfully true statements ever spoken.  I also know that it has been read by nearly every student that has come into my classroom, some of whom transitioned from being my students to being my heroes as they set aside their own personal ambition to serve their country. 

For the purposes of full disclosure, the next few words I will write are not those of a veteran.  I chose, as many do, to go to college right out of high school and serve my country in ways other than military service.  Therefore, the position I am about to take in this column is not one born out of any self-serving motive.  I do not stand to benefit from this simple proposal.  Rather, these are the words of nothing more than a grateful American who believes our country has profited immeasurably from the valor and service of its veterans, and that it is time we do more to say thank you.

Parades, tributes, speeches, and church services are all important ways to demonstrate our thanks.  But our veterans, particularly our combat veterans, deserve more...something that is beyond a mere sentimental gesture, no matter how powerful and meaningful those may be.

It is time that American combat veterans be relieved of their responsibility to pay income taxes to the federal government.

I know all the arguments.  There are those who suggest that "paying taxes are our civic responsibility and duty."  I do not disagree.  But surely no one would pretend that those who have served our country in combat have not already met any definition of civic responsibility and duty.  They have not just met such a requirement, they have surpassed it.  They have defined it.

Still others would argue that though military service is undoubtedly an honorable career, so is the ministry, so is teaching, so is saving lives in a hospital.  Again, I have no disagreement with such a conclusion.  I would merely propose that while we can find reasons to honor anyone for their efforts to serve their fellow man (something we should do more of, in fact), there is something particularly distinguished about the American soldier.  While the minister, teacher, and doctor work to improve their communities, the soldier is willing to die in order to protect the very opportunity to do that work.

But what would such a change cost us?  According to U.S. Census Bureau numbers, there are currently 24.5 million military veterans in the United States.  Obviously, eliminating the tax burden of every one of those veterans would provide an excessive and immediate strain on the operations of our national government.  And whereas the eventual elimination of such a debt would be my choosing, I understand that it might not be practical to do abruptly.  But the number of combat veterans, those who have seen action in the field of battle, is a much smaller percentage.  And for those heroes, it is my opinion that their days of paying taxes should be finished...now.

When discussing this belief with others, I have been challenged by those who attempt to pit my belief in a small tax burden for private citizens against this suggestion.  "If you permanently end all tax payments from combat veterans, other people - like yourself - will see their taxes increase to offset that cost," they argue.  And while I would maintain that there is much to eliminate in the federal budget that could prevent such a reality, I am also a realist in knowing that such is not likely given our current political environment.

So let me be unequivocal about this: as one who loathes the excessive tax burden our federal government places upon us, I will consent to paying an even greater percentage of my income in federal taxes if it means that those who have seen combat in service to our country will receive their U.S. tax form with the words, "PAID IN FULL" stamped across it.

I'm not sure if such a bill has ever been introduced, but I am quite sure that now is the time.

Back in February, Eric Holder - the country's first black Attorney General - announced that we were a nation of cowards because, "we, as average Americans, simply do not talk enough to each other about race."  Holder is right.

That there are still organizations operating in this country that demonize, target, and victimize innocent people simply because of the color of their skin is unconscionable.  That there are still hate groups in our midst whose very foundation is rooted in a malevolent contempt for minorities is disgusting.   That, while we stand quietly, there are those working daily inside this country to commit genocide against blacks is an abomination.  And worse, still others go beyond complicit silence and actually attempt to give legitimacy and offer defense for such institutions perpetrating these atrocities. 

These devastating realities only prove Holder's assertion to be accurate.  It is inescapable...as long as Planned Parenthood continues to operate in this country, we are a nation of cowards.

In her book, "The Pivot of Civilization," Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger wrote that unless something was done to stop them, those living in the slums (blacks, Hispanics, and Jews) would eventually leave the boundaries of their neighborhoods and mix with the better parts of society (whites).  Their inferior genes, she argued, would then infect the rest of us.  Therefore, she suggested we cease all charitable giving to the inner city poor, segregate these "morons, misfits, and maladjusted," sterilize these "genetically inferior races," and begin a process of eliminating such "human weeds."

And her organization, Planned Parenthood, has done just that.  In the 1980s, the organization began intentionally targeting black inner-city neighborhoods for their clinics.  Author George Grant pointed out that, "of the more than 100 school-based clinics that have opened nationwide in the [1980s].all have been at black, minority, or ethnic schools."  By 1991, Planned Parenthood was reporting that 43% of all its abortions were performed on minorities - a time when the minorities accounted for only 19% of the total population.  And in a comparative analysis between the 2000 U.S. Census data and the location of Planned Parenthood clinics, Cybercast News Service concluded, "The results appear to bolster the charge that the organization targets black communities."

Consider also a recent sting operation conducted by The Advocate, a student magazine at UCLA.  In the sting, an actor posed as a potential donor to Planned Parenthood wanting to contribute his money to help "lower the number of black people."  In the seven states where the sting took place, each clinic agreed to take the racially earmarked contribution, with none of them expressing concern over the motivation.  In one exchange, the actor said, "the less black kids out there, the better."  The Planned Parenthood Director responded by saying such sentiments were "understandable."

Combine those grim realities and you begin to see that Planned Parenthood is doing its part to carry on the eugenic and racist policies of its founder.  But don't take my word for it.  Alan Guttmacher, who led Planned Parenthood for 12 years, stated, "We are merely walking down the path that Ms. Sanger has carved out for us."  And recent Planned Parenthood President Faye Wattleton stated she was "proud" to be "walking in the footsteps" of Sanger.  When you consider that Wattleton is black, it is difficult to know whether to be outraged or just cry at such a statement.

As a leftist himself - whose boss got elected to the White House thanks in no small part to contributions from Planned Parenthood and its allies - I recognize that Eric Holder certainly wasn't calling for an open discussion about the abortion mills' racial genocide.  This only proves that while preaching against racial cowardice, Holder is ignoring his own.  You simply can't be taken seriously when discussing America's racism problems if you are willing to ignore the greatest perpetrators of racial injustice in our midst. 

Talk to me all you want about Rush Limbaugh and his comments regarding Donovan McNabb.  If you are not simultaneously sickened by the revolting racism of Planned Parenthood...if you are not demanding that immediate action be taken against it and the evil it encourages...if you are not ashamed that such a group continues to operate with a third of its budget financed with your tax dollars...you are a coward with absolutely no credibility to ever be taken seriously on this issue. 

And worse, you are a willful accomplice to the racist violence of a group who, as Dr. Alveda King (the niece of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.) points out, "has done what the Klan only dreamed of."

Never underestimate the stupidity of the Republican Party leadership.  In the midst of an attempted power grab of unprecedented proportions by the current Democratic administration that is turning off millions of Americans...as TEA parties and town hall protests against massive government intervention continue to spread...as large percentages of Democrats are recoiling as they find "hope and change" really meant "control and loss of freedom"...the Republican Party has been presented with the chance to saddle this momentum and ride it to power.

Americans are rediscovering the wisdom and insight of their Founding Fathers - men who embraced personal responsibility, cherished liberty, eschewed big government, and understood that the government had a role to play in promoting the moral character of its people. 

It is fair to say that under the leadership of Pelosi, Reid, and Obama, the Democratic Party will not be moving its platform in the direction of such wisdom anytime soon.  Therefore, astute and prudent Republican leaders would recognize this as an incredible opportunity to field candidates who appeal to these values, and return the Party to national prominence. 

But proving that they have no greater enemy than themselves and seemingly possess a desire to ensure a permanent minority status, the leadership of the Republican Party has decided to do the exact opposite.  The special election in New York's 23rd Congressional District is a perfect example.

In a primarily conservative district, Republican John McHugh has resigned his seat to serve as secretary of the army.  One of the candidates vying to take that position in the special election is Dede Scozzafava, a radical liberal who has won the Margaret Sanger award for her commitment to destroying life in the womb.  She favors gay marriage, supports the freedom-destroying "card check" bill that would deprive workers of the right to a secret ballot, and has a penchant for supporting big-government budgets.  She's been endorsed by ACORN, public-employee unions, Markos Moulitsas (the founder of the far-left blog, Daily Kos).and has received two other recent endorsements: the National Republican Campaign Committee and alleged conservative leader Newt Gingrich!

Sending out a plea to supporters, Gingrich wrote that Scozzafava is "our best chance to put responsible and principled leaders in Washington."  It's a dark day when supposed conservatives like Gingrich call reckless spending and evil social positions, "responsible" and "principled." 

But it actually gets worse.  There is a bona fide conservative in the race, Doug Hoffman, who despite being opposed by the Republican Party establishment has surged in the polls.  Offering common sense, traditional morality, and a return to individual responsibility, Hoffman has closed the gap on Scozzafava, which has prompted the Republican National Committee to transfer a six-figure sum into Scozzafava's campaign.  That's right, the RNC is contributing hundreds of thousands of dollars to defeat a conservative and elect a woman who might easily pull an Arlen Specter and switch to the party that more closely aligns with her leftist ideology.

Gingrich defends this unconscionable behavior by warning conservatives, "If you seek to be a perfect minority, you'll remain a minority."  Good grief.  Mr. Gingrich, we don't expect perfection, but we would like to at least be able to distinguish between our candidates and the ones we're trying to defeat.

Newt added this little jewel of idiocy at the end of his statement: "That's not how Reagan built his revolution."  Actually, Reagan spelled out how to build a successful majority in a 1975 speech when he said, "A political party cannot be all things to all people.  It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency."

Reagan understood that building a winning coalition meant influencing people with the power of your ideas.  He understood that leadership was about embracing your convictions and passionately articulating them - not compromising on them and thereby convincing the country you stand for nothing.  Newt doesn't get that.  The RNC doesn't get that.  And until they are replaced with those who do, the Republican Party will continue to flounder as merely a lukewarm version of what the Democrats offer.

So to my Republican friends, when the RNC fundraising letter comes in the mail asking you to contribute to defeat the "radical liberals in Washington," I would heartily encourage you to do the following: open it up, paste a picture of Newt and Scozzafava in the middle with a red heart drawn around them, and on the line for your contribution amount write, "Not one darn, dirty dime."  After that, promptly send a donation to Doug Hoffman's campaign.

Admittedly, my first reaction upon hearing the news of President Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize was - like many - to snicker.  While several felt outrage over giving someone who had been in office 11 days at the time of the nomination deadline an award of this caliber, I wasn't indignant or even surprised by it. 

Keep in mind this award has become cheapened to a mere political endorsement in recent years.  It has been given to a terrorist (Yasser Arafat), a bumbling weapons inspector who struggled not only to do his job but also to hide his obvious anti-Semitism (Mohammed El Baradei), and to Jimmy Carter!  But perhaps most egregiously, the Nobel committee overlooked Irena Sendler, who risked her life repeatedly to single-handedly smuggle Jewish children from the Warsaw ghetto, sparing them from Hitler's human ovens.  She saved over 2,500 children, and after being captured and sentenced to death by the Nazis, escaped only by bribing the guards.  This miraculous story of risking everything to defend the defenseless didn't seem to impress the committee, as they chose to give the award to Al Gore for his slideshow on the dubious man-made global warming theory.

Given these sad examples, my initial thoughts were simply to yawn at the reality of a group of left-wing ideologues giving to one of their own an award they have sadly stripped of its meaning.

I've changed my mind.

Not because I just want another opportunity to criticize President Obama.  Not because it is merely a chance to hop on my soapbox, though those will undoubtedly be the conclusions some will choose to draw.  I've changed my mind because the idea of "peace" should mean something to us.  If we don't object to the notion of giving the highest civilian award for fostering peace on earth to a man who has no regard for the intrinsic worth of humanity, we are complicit in removing any fundamental meaning to the word.

President Obama's radical stance on the issue of abortion categorically disqualifies him from any consideration for this award.  Not only does he hold to the slave-owners ideology that some humans should be given the "choice" to deprive other humans of their inalienable rights, but he has enacted policies to use tax dollars to fund such an abominable belief.  Further, when questioned on the critical issue of when humans are to be protected and given human rights, this supposed "man of peace" takes a pass - not because he doesn't know the answer, but because the answer exposes the grotesque evil behind his position.

But don't take my word for it.  While accepting the 1979 Nobel Peace Prize, Mother Teresa powerfully stated:

"We are talking of peace...the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a direct war, a direct killing - direct murder by the mother herself. And we read in the Scripture, for God says very clearly: Even if a mother could forget her child - I will not forget you - I have carved you in the palm of my hand. We are carved in the palm of His hand, so close to Him that unborn child has been carved in the hand of God. And that is what strikes me most, the beginning of that sentence, that even if a mother could forget something impossible - but even if she could forget - I will not forget you. And today the greatest means - the greatest destroyer of peace is abortion.

Many people are very, very concerned with the children in India, with the children in Africa where quite a number die, maybe of malnutrition, of hunger and so on, but millions are dying deliberately by the will of the mother. And this is what is the greatest destroyer of peace today. Because if a mother can kill her own child - what is left for me to kill you and you kill me - there is nothing between."

President Obama's defenders may point to his opposition to "unjust war" and the new tone he is extending to a world that they perceive as tired of American imperialism.  Longing to end conflict and wars - something I believe our President truly desires - is a noble calling, and one worthy of admiration.

But peace is about far more than being willing to sit down at a conference table, trying to work out differences with men who want to kill you.  It's about how you view humanity itself.  It's about doing everything within your power to protect the powerless and defend the defenseless.  If President Obama wants to be considered a man of peace, he must begin by reversing policies that facilitate the slaughter of the innocent - not in Afghanistan or Iraq, but in the womb.

On July 6, 2009, CNN commentator Jack Cafferty summarized the conclusion of the mainstream media by stating that former Governor Sarah Palin, "won't have the same impact if she doesn't carry the mantle of governor of Alaska...she becomes...a thumbsucker."

In a related story, on September 30, 2009, Sarah Palin's memoir "Going Rogue" shattered records by hitting number one at Amazon and Barnes & Noble...48 days before the book even hits shelves.  Not bad for a thumbsucker.  To put it in perspective, at the time Sarah's book catapulted to the top of the bestseller list, it didn't even have a cover and hadn't even been edited yet.

One might begin to wonder how Cafferty can be so clueless and still keep his job - even if it is on a network that just became a laughingstock by fact-checking a Saturday Night Live skit in defense of their beloved Obama.  But the truth is that Cafferty is merely mimicking the uncontrolled Palin-derangement that plagues the entire left-wing old media. 

Since the moment she burst onto the national scene, there has been an unparalleled effort amongst the so-called sophisticated elites to destroy Sarah Palin.  Unparalleled, but not unprecedented.

In the 1970s, the dominant left feared the rise of another radical right-wing governor of a western state named Ronald Reagan, and they utilized a full arsenal of tactics to try to slow his meteoric rise.  Comparing their words and actions then to their current anti-Palin crusade now is stunning.

First, the media attempted to downplay Reagan's intellect.  They called him a buffoon, an empty suit, dim.  They said this despite Reagan's articulate approach to issues and his effective leadership of the country's most populous state.  Surely no one needs to be reminded of the Tina Fey parodies, the New York Times references to "Caribou Barbie," or Newsweek's declaration that Palin was an "ill-informed, inarticulate, shopaholic" to see how little has changed in the left's playbook.  They said all this of Palin despite her breadth of knowledge on key domestic issues like energy and her effective leadership of the country's largest state.

The old media also denounced Reagan as unqualified.  He was just a "B-movie actor" who spent more time focusing on campus athletics at his second rate college than he did academics.  That sounds startlingly similar to CNN's Fareed Zakaria who wrote, "Sarah Palin is utterly unqualified to be vice president," and other left-wing media sources that scoffed at her degree from the "substandard" University of Idaho.

The parallels don't end there: 

Reagan was the target of ageism (New York Times Magazine in 1976 proclaimed Reagan "too old to run"), while Palin is the target of sexism (the Today Show, Washington Post, and PBS all suggested Palin should be staying home with her kids). 

Reagan was proclaimed politically dead after his term as governor ended (Newsweek in a 1971 piece called "Ronald Reagan's Slow Fade" said that Sacramento would "mark the end of Ronald Reagan's political road"), while Palin has been labeled finished after resigning the governorship of Alaska (David Shuster on MSNBC prophesied, "I've said it before, I'll say it again, Sarah Palin will never recover from this...she has no future"). 

Reagan was termed a radical (columnist John Coyne wrote, "Reagan seems somewhat out of step with the new political stirrings"), while Palin is called a right-wing nut (columnist Jonathan Alter lamented, "She is a far-right conservative who...thinks global warming is a hoax and backs the teaching of creationism in schools").

Reagan used TV and radio appearances to address fundamental issues of the day without having to worry about his words going through the filter of the liberal media.  Palin is accomplishing the same thing through her utilization of Facebook, Twitter, and the new media.

Is it possible these are nothing but coincidences?  Sure.  But perhaps they're not.

Try as they might, the left ended up completely impotent in their efforts to dampen the American public's fascination and admiration of Reagan.  As Palin chooses which of her over 1100 speaking offers to accept, packs venues and sells out banquets, watches her book soar to unmatched sales numbers, curries political favors from Republican Party officials for lending her star power to their events, and uses her charisma - unrivaled on the right - to build momentum towards 2012, perhaps the mainstream media helplessly sees the writing on the wall.

After all, everyone knows how the Reagan story ended: the annihilation of a bumbling predecessor, a clear conservative agenda that revitalized the American economy and ended the Cold War, a landslide re-election of embarrassing proportions, and a legacy as one of America's greatest Chief Executives.  Considering then the striking parallels between the "Gipper" and the "Pitbull with lipstick," maybe the left's deranged animosity towards her is simply born out of a fear of the inevitable.