Having been privileged to share the stage with radio host and Fox News phenomenon Glenn Beck at a recent event, I had the opportunity to form personal impressions about a man that I had only previously observed from a distance.

I came away from the encounter convinced that Beck is real, that he has an unshakable love for our country, and that he is committed to using his platform to promote the values necessary for it to endure.

But those impressions only complicate what I perceive as a glaring inconsistency in Beck's thinking, exposed in a late summer exchange with Bill O'Reilly.  O'Reilly asked "Do you believe gay marriage is a threat to the country in any way?" Laughing, Beck mocked, "A threat to the country? No, I don't...will the gays come and get us?"

As one who frequently faces inane and myopic criticism from those on the left who don't care to actually confront his positions, it was disappointing that Beck would employ the same rhetorical condescension towards so many of his political allies whose opposition to homosexuality is far more nuanced than that.

Opposition to same sex marriage is not born out of a fear of some imminent onslaught of homosexual warlords, but out of a keen understanding that the voices advocating it are part of a larger movement seeking a cultural transformation - a larger movement that, ironically, Beck consistently exhorts his faithful to confront.

Paula Ettlebrick, once the policy director for the National Center for Lesbian Rights, put it this way: "Being queer is more than setting up house, sleeping with a person of the same gender, and seeking state approval for doing so...Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family; and in the process, transforming the very fabric of society."

Surely someone as well researched as Glenn Beck is aware of this.  As an enthusiastic proponent of the values of Western civilization, he undoubtedly recognizes the three "f's" that form its backbone: family, faith and freedom.  And as a watchdog and vocal antagonist of the progressive humanist movement seeking to undermine each of those foundational cornerstones, his apparent failure to identify their most insidious strategy is tragic.

For while Beck courageously blows the whistle on their bludgeoning of constitutional freedoms and their rabid assault on faith in the public square, he leaves the most vital of all institutions - the family - open to attack.

As Selwyn Duke previously articulated, what the homosexual activists seek is not the much ballyhooed "redefinition of marriage."  It can't be, since the activists have offered up no replacement definition for the institution's traditional understanding.  Indeed, they can't offer one.  The moment homosexual activists define marriage (in other words, place parameters defining what constitutes marriage and what does not), they would be guilty of the very act of moral exclusion they condemn in others.

For instance, if they seek to redefine marriage to mean the union of two human beings (regardless of gender), they have excluded from their definition those whose preferred sexual expression is polyamory or polygamy.  At that point, the very arguments they have leveled against proponents of "traditional marriage" get turned around on them.  They become the bigots, the haters, the narrow-minded.  Therefore, they will offer no new definition for marriage...thus "un-defining" it.

But un-defining the nucleus of the family is tantamount to saying the family is insignificant and unimportant in the preservation of society.  Reason and experience both tell us otherwise.

In other words, outside of physical intimidation and plunder, live and let live.  Fair enough.  But that Beck or anyone could fail to see how the "gay rights" movement violates both of those principles is astonishing.  Though they may prefer to "break legs" through legal force rather than physical, the results remain the same: charities ended, adoption agencies closed, churches bullied into compliance, and free speech stifled.  Beck should ask his own Church of Latter Day Saints how their legs are feeling after the vicious threats they received for daring to cross this supposedly passive movement.

And when it comes to pocket-picking, the sexual depravity crowd takes a back seat to no one.  Besides their demands for government funding for sex change operations, the rewriting of publicly funded school curriculum to embrace sexual anarchy, and affirmative action for those practicing homosexuality, consider the consequences that come from their cultural ascendancy.  The abandonment of sexual morality in a society breeds illegitimacy, disease, and the breakdown of the family.

Even libertarian economist Ludwig von Mises (Beck considers himself libertarian) recognized that for a free market system to thrive, people had to be willing at times to sacrifice for the future (deferred consumption).  Ask any parent who wants something better for their children...family breeds such sacrifice.  That isn't something to laugh off.

This is one of the only issues where I believe Beck is misguided.  And it's a real shame, because we desperately need his voice.  I am comforted, however, by this one other thing I have come to believe about him: he is a diligent student.  He will eventually get it right.  Given his platform and widespread influence, the sooner the better for the country he unquestionably loves.

Thanks to their elected representative Joe Donnelly, residents of Indiana's 2nd Congressional District are getting front row seats to an embarrassing spectacle: the timeless art of political deception.

Over the course of the last few months, Donnelly has been working overtime to make himself into a joke throughout much of the nation with his bizarre behavior.

For instance, though he attempts to market himself as an affable, mild-mannered Hoosier, Donnelly became the first national candidate in the country to go dirty.  He began slinging mud against his capable challenger, state lawmaker Jackie Walorski, in late July - over 3 months before the election. 

While avoiding his own voting record entirely, Donnlley alleged Walorski's "goofy ideas" have shipped jobs overseas and threaten to raise taxes.  That's pretty influential stuff for a woman who has been just one of a hundred votes in a small Midwestern state legislature.

Donnelly also made his contribution to the biennial Democrat Party strategy of scaring seniors into the voting booth by accusing Walorski of a diabolical scheme to allow Wall Street to gamble away all of Social Security's funds on the stock market.  In contrast, Donnelly informs his constituents that he is responsible for helping keep their Social Security "rock solid."  Yes, he is speaking of the same government-run Ponzi scheme that has a $7 trillion structural shortfall and begins running permanently in the red this year.  Evidently that's how Joe defines "rock solid."

Moreover, despite the fact that recent polling shows only 1% of voters in IN-2 regard immigration as the major factor in their voting decision, Congressman Donnelly spent precious campaign money on an ad bragging how he opposed his party on the issue.  In it, he displays an image of Obama and Pelosi while declaring, "That may not be what the Washington crowd wants, but I don't work for them...I work for you!"

One can almost envision Joe standing behind the controls of the wizard head feverishly shouting, "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain," as Toto pulls back the drapes to reveal his voting record.  That record includes a vote for the Wall Street bailout, the failed $800 billion Obama stimulus bill, and two votes in favor of ObamaCare.  In fact, Donnelly has voted with the Pelosi/Obama agenda 88% of the time.  And though that isn't overly surprising given the fact that since 2007 Donnelly has accepted $84,000 worth of donations from liberal politicians including Pelosi, you would never know it by watching his "Mr. Independent" ads.

As if that weren't enough, Donnelly recently released an equally deceptive commercial, accusing Walorski of wanting to enact a national sales tax of 23%.  Donnelly's ad ominously recites how much money that would cost his constituents.  What Donnelly purposefully omits, however, is that the Fair Tax plan Walorski supports would also eliminate all federal income tax, estate (death) tax, gift tax, payroll tax, and would totally obliterate the IRS.  If enacted, that plan would not cost his constituents, but rather save them thousands of dollars.  It would also mean less control for Washington politicians over the people's money, which explains Donnelly's opposition.

Perhaps all this was to be expected from a politician like Donnelly who, in just four years, has morphed into the very Congressman he once campaigned against.  Back in 2006, Joe Donnelly told the voters of IN-2 that his opponent, then-Congressman Chris Chocola, was aloof and unaccountable, representing only those who agreed with him politically.  Fast-forward to current day and such complaints are embarrassingly laughable.  Consider this is the same man who is so interested in political dialogue that he has ignored almost 200 voicemail messages I have left with his press secretary on live radio requesting an interview.

But Donnelly's behavior has been getting attention far outside my radio audience.  After seeing the Congressman's ad on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace, Democratic National Committee Chair Tim Kaine called Donnelly crazy for running away from who he is.  Time Magazine noted Donnelly's propensity for using "unflattering photo(s)" of Obama while arguing he is, "not one of them."  Even David Gregory on NBC's Meet the Press noted the bizarre Donnelly sideshow, forcing liberal columnist E.J. Dionne into some mental gymnastics as he attempted to explain it away.

As Donnelly's propensity for half-truths and deceptive ads earns uncomfortable snickers from national audiences, his constituents should recognize what this says about his character.

Bristling at this possibility, Donnelly's campaign manager Mike Schmuhl pouted, "Joe Donnelly's independence is reflected by his pro-life, pro-gun, anti-amnesty positions."  This, of course, begs the question: what kind of a pro-life, pro-gun, anti-amnesty conservative crusader would ever vote to put the gavel in the hands of someone like Nancy Pelosi?  Yet, Joe Donnelly has done so every chance he's gotten.

One month ago, the prideful Donnelly campaign was mocking Walorski, challenging, "What evidence can her campaign produce that shows she is even competitive in this race today?"  Besides the subsequent Sarah Palin endorsement and recent polling that shows the race a dead heat, it remains Congressman Donnelly's shameless resort to deception and deceit that offers the best evidence of all.

When the mainstream media dedicated themselves to providing equal coverage between the massive "Restoring Honor" rally orchestrated by radio and TV personality Glenn Beck, and the much more, shall we say...intimate "Reclaim the Dream" rally orchestrated by radio host Al Sharpton, they undoubtedly thought they were doing their liberal brethren a huge favor.  As it turns out, they accomplished the exact opposite.

The images and sounds that emerged from the two competing events did more to damage the credibility and cause of left-wing activists from Sharpton to Obama than anything Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh or other conservative spokesmen could have done in 20 years.  Why?  Because for any American citizen willing to pay attention (and many of them did), it was a real-time depiction - no filter, no interpretation, no cosmetics - of the stark contrasts between two totally different views on this country, its heritage and its destiny.

Sure, there were the anecdotal comparisons like noting how the media incessantly referred to Beck as a "controversial conservative," while the uber-controversial and race-baiting Al Sharpton received the undeserved title of "civil rights leader."

There was the humorous exercise of comparing the cleanliness of the National Mall after Beck's rally (supposedly full of environment-hating corporate polluters) to the trashed Mall after Obama's inauguration (attended by the environmentally conscious left). 

Or the irony of liberal columnists like Alexander Zaitchik writing at the New Republic about how the Beck rally was all about Beck, when it was Al Sharpton who chose to grandstand, speaking beneath a large vinyl banner with his name tattooed across the front. 

And then there was the classic moment when ABC reporter Tahman Bradley commented on how the "almost all white" crowd at Beck's rally gave "critics an open door."  Besides the obvious self-indictment such a statement brings of Mr. Bradley's obsession with the color of people's skin, notice that there was no similar acknowledgement of Sharpton's "almost all black" crowd and what that might indicate.

But the meaningful contrasts - the ones that spoke volumes to a watching nation - were far more profound.  While the Beck rally featured speakers honoring God and country, the left's rally was laced with anger, bitterness and profanity. 

Jaime Contreras, a local SEIU president, took Sharpton's stage to proclaim, "We are here to let those folks on the Mall know that they don't represent the dream.  They sure as (expletive) don't represent me.  They represent hate-mongering and angry white people."  Meanwhile, at the Beck rally, the participants were singing "Amazing Grace."

Then came the image of a Sharpton enthusiast marching down Constitution Avenue cautioning, "We need to be shouting ?we are America.'"  This call for unity came just moments before she directed attention towards the Beck supporters and bellowed, "See all those tea baggers?!"  A unifying message indeed.

And there was Sharpton himself who, after admonishing his faithful to not be deterred by the hateful conservative hecklers they were sure to encounter, watched his own followers become the hateful hecklers.  As the Washington Post reported, "One group of black women chanted, ?Yes we did and get over it,' [while] those part of the Glenn Beck rally clapped and passed out Restore the Honor bottles of water." 

Moreover, to thinking Americans, the label of hate-filled white racism doesn't fit a crowd eagerly applauding Dr. Alveda King (MLK's niece) as she calls for restoring the "foundation of the family."

Indeed, the greatest irony of all came in the title of Sharpton's liberal lollapalooza: "Reclaiming the Dream."  As Jerome Hudson, a black man who participated in the Beck event explained, "Al Sharpton is a pretender.  He is going to tell you to pretend that the color of your skin matters.  He is going to ask you to ignore the overwhelming proof that 50 years after the Civil Rights movement, blacks are now destroying each other faster than the KKK could have ever dreamed."

That truth didn't phase Marc Morial, however, as the president of the National Urban League thundered to his fellow left-wingers, "We will not stand silent as some seek to bamboozle Dr. King's dream.  We reclaim the dream of Dr. King for the 21^st century." 

But anyone who has ever read Dr. King's "Letter From a Birmingham Jail" knows he was a man inspired by a faith and a purpose higher than himself - a belief that America's wrongs and injustices would be corrected not by the arbitrary actions of the state, but through an obedience and submission of the people to their Creator. 

On August 28, 2010, there was only one rally in Washington, D.C. preaching that message...and as Americans witnessed, it clearly wasn't the left's. 

NOTE: This column was first published at The American Thinker. 

On Friday, August 7, 2009, Sarah Palin wrote on her Facebook page: "The Democrats promise that a government health care system will reduce the cost of health care, but [it] will not...it will simply refuse to pay the cost.  The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's ?death panel' so his bureaucrats can decide...whether they are worthy of health care.  Such a system is downright evil."

The response of Democrats and the media to Palin's assertion can only be described as outrage.  Howard Dean went on ABC and called it "totally erroneous," concluding, "She just made that up."  Even David Brooks, the closest thing to a conservative the New York Times can bring themselves to hire, proclaimed on Meet the Press, "That's crazy...the crazies are attacking the plan because it'll cut off granny, and that - that's simply not true.  That simply is not going to happen."

And even last week, Newsweek magazine ranked the idea that there would be bureaucratic boards making life and death decisions for people as one of the, "Dumb Things Americans Believe."

The only problem for Dean, Brooks, Newsweek and the whole lot is that it now appears that under ObamaCare there are bureaucratic boards making life and death decisions for people.

Take the anti-cancer drug Avastin, which was fast-tracked by the FDA years ago.  It is primarily used to treat colon cancer, but is also prescribed now to treat nearly 18,000 women a year who are fighting the late stages of breast cancer.  While Avastin doesn't cure the disease, it can and does significantly lengthen and improve the quality of a victim's last months.  Perhaps to be expected, Avastin is also very expensive, costing up to $100,000 a year.

But now suddenly, despite the stringent objections being made by both the Susan G. Komen Foundation and the Ovarian Cancer National Alliance on behalf of patients, the FDA is considering removing Avastin from its approved drug list for breast cancer.  Such a move would mean ending its coverage by both Medicare and the government program for low income women.

ObamaCare proponents say this FDA action has nothing to do with the expensive nature of the drug, but rather about questions over its effectiveness.  That's possible...but there is strong circumstantial evidence to suggest otherwise.

Consider that if the FDA continues to approve Avastin, it puts the ObamaCare system in a very difficult and awkward position: it could either subsidize the expensive drug for low income women, or refuse to subsidize it.

If it does the former, the government will be shelling out billions of taxpayer dollars a year for a drug that is increasingly popular, but doesn't cure the disease.  That destroys the promise of ObamaCare to lower costs.  But if it does the latter, thereby denying treatment to patients that they could have received prior to ObamaCare, they prove Sarah Palin and conservative critics of the plan totally correct on the issue of rationing.

So to avoid this uncomfortable dilemma, Obama's FDA simply pulls its recommendation of the drug altogether.  This may allow ObamaCare's supporters the chance to temporarily dodge the political fallout of what they've foisted on the American people, but it also devastates the families of nearly 18,000 women who will suffer the deadly consequences.

Is this the vaunted "compassion" our President and his allies promised they were delivering to our healthcare system?

ObamaCare has already devolved into the nightmare we should have seen coming from the moment the President told Jane Strum in a town hall meeting that perhaps her 100 year old mother should have gotten a pain pill instead of a life-saving pacemaker.

The frightening reality is that this controversy over Avastin is only the beginning.  This is what our healthcare system is on the verge of becoming under ObamaCare: battles with faceless bureaucracies who make decisions about treatments and drugs looking at financial records and cost-benefit analyses, not people. 

Covering the Avastin story in the Washington Post, reporter Rob Stein begins, "Federal regulators are considering taking the highly unusual step of rescinding approval of a drug that patients with advanced breast cancer turn to as a last-ditch hope."  Highly unusual...until now. 

Welcome to Obama's brave new world where "perhaps you're better off with a pain pill."  I dare say that for those of us with family members or friends who have bravely battled breast cancer, Sarah's not looking quite so crazy anymore.

The presence of liberal bias and radical left-wing professors on America's college campuses is as predictable as the rising and setting of the sun.  Whether it takes the form of inviting domestic terrorists to lecture on campus, requiring Marxist propaganda to be read for course completion, or offering the classic "Peace Studies" program, radical leftism flourishes in the land of academia.  In fact, there are so many well documented cases of it that pointing out examples of such educational malpractice is like shooting fish in the proverbial barrel.

But every so often you find one that is so bizarre, so inexplicable (and yes, so maddening), that it warrants mention.  And when it happens in your own backyard, it becomes particularly noteworthy.

About a month ago, I received an e-mail at my radio show from a student at Indiana University Kokomo, enrolled in Dr. Earl Wysong's Introduction to Sociology course.  The student was frustrated because he had been marked down on a class assignment for identifying Nancy Pelosi as a liberal on a political spectrum test.  Professor Wysong believed she was a moderate.

I had no reason to doubt the young man, but as an educator myself, I know it's important to not jump to conclusions based on the accusations of a single student.  So I asked him if he could send me an electronic copy of the assignment.  Within hours he had scanned the worksheet and sent me the image: Rush Limbaugh dutifully identified by the student as a far-right "ultra-conservative" with Dr. Wysong's approving checkmark beside it; but Nancy Pelosi, whom the young man labeled "liberal," was circled by the professor with a corrective arrow pointing to "middle of the road" (the incredible image is posted at here).

Now obviously, it isn't too difficult to understand Wysong's strategy.  By ingraining in students' minds that the ideas and beliefs of a radical leftist like Pelosi are "middle of the road," their perspective of the entire political spectrum in the United States becomes skewed.  Mainstream conservative beliefs become "ultra" or far-right, reactionary thought.  Simultaneously, left-wing thought becomes "moderate and centrist," with radical socialism and communism receiving the much more palatable label of "liberal."

So yes, I understand the strategy.  What I don't understand is why Dr. Wysong, and his superiors who allow this professional malfeasance to occur, think they can get away with it.  There is not one respected, rational political scholar in the United States today who would seriously try to attach a moderate label to the positions or person of Nancy Pelosi.

Pelosi has garnered 100% ratings from the National Abortion Rights Action League for her rabid support of child sacrifice, the NAACP for her support of reverse discrimination, the radical Human Rights Commission for her promotion of the homosexual agenda, Americans United for her commitment to eradicating religion from the public square, the National Education Association for her commitment to funneling more money into failed education policy, and the left-wing lobby group SANE for her anti-military voting record.  She has received a 21% rating from the National Taxpayer Union for her consistent attempts to raise taxes, a 0% rating from the Federation for American Immigration Reform for her support of illegal immigration, an "F" rating from the NRA for her anti-2^nd Amendment positions, and is rated by the online issues analysis organization "On The Issues" as a "Hard-Core Liberal."

That anyone then, particularly an esteemed college professor, could ludicrously consider Pelosi a moderate is as outrageous as it is telling. Such an incident teaches us far more about the political perspective of Dr. Earl Wysong - and IUK, should they continue to stand by him - than it does of Nancy Pelosi. 

On behalf of the student, I called Dr. Wysong's office and e-mailed him three times in the last month seeking an explanation.  And while he has ignored me, he has not ignored the incident.  The student reports that shortly after I ran with the story, Dr. Wysong announced a policy change for his classroom.  He is no longer returning student work for them to keep after he has graded it. 

Upon learning this, I contacted IUK's Department of Social Sciences, Office of Academic Affairs, and the Office of the Chancellor seeking comment.  No one has given the courtesy of a response.  Given that IUK is an institution being financed with taxpayer dollars, they not only should rectify this situation, but they owe the public both an explanation and an assurance that such flagrant pedagogical misconduct won't continue. 

When George W. Bush spoke on the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln back on May 1, 2003, he reminded Americans, "Our mission [in Iraq] continues...we do not know the day of final victory, but we have seen the turning of the tide."  No one remembers those words because the mainstream media chose to ignore them entirely.  Instead, they focused on a banner hanging above Bush's head, emblazoned with the phrase, "Mission Accomplished."

Having sought from the first day of the Bush presidency to undermine it, the media and the left (but I repeat myself) finally had their iconic image, around which they could construct the narrative that Bush was an out-of-touch imbecile who lived in a White House bubble of delusion, all while reality told an entirely different story. 

Fair or not - after all, Bush's message was the exact opposite of what it was portrayed to be - the imagery stuck.  But rather than fighting to correct the record of an event that happened over seven years ago, we would be smarter to highlight what journalist Lachlan Markay has observed: Barack Obama has had his ?Mission Accomplished' moment...times ten.

On August 2, Obama dispatched his Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner to write an op-ed piece for the New York Times entitled, "Welcome to the Recovery."  This was to be an exclamation point to the White House's strategy of declaring the last few months, "Recovery Summer."  Are they serious?

As Markay observes, just three days after Geithner's column, "the economy shed about 131,000 jobs.  The administration and its left-wing media cheerleaders touted the 71,000 private sector jobs created, not mentioning of course that about double that number would need to materialize for the economy to keep pace with new entrants in the job market."

Still, "Team Recovery" continues whistling past the graveyard of lost jobs, assuming Americans are content with what Obama and Pelosi call a "jobless recovery."  But Americans aren't idiots.  They realize that without jobs, there is no recovery.  Without jobs, home foreclosures spike, businesses collapse, retirement investments deteriorate and the real estate market is devastated.

And yet, while unemployment has stagnated for months between 9-10% (keeping in mind that doesn't even count those who have given up looking for work or those who have accepted temporary part-time work - with those factored in, the Obama unemployment rate is closer to 20%), there is President Obama standing aboard the USS Clueless, praising his failed policies in front of a banner that reads in bold letters, "Summer of Recovery." 

But what makes this oblivious and dishonest rhetoric all the more galling is that President Obama is not the unfortunate recipient of economic conditions beyond his control.  He is not merely putting on a brave face for the country.  This is a mess that, after nearly two years of complete control of the White House and Congress, is largely of his own making.

The "smartest president we've ever had" and his crew of financial wizards have created the conditions that have brought us a perfect storm of economic turmoil.  Take the ingenious idea of raising minimum wage in the midst of a recession.  Small businesses took the largest hit from this and were forced to cut entry-level employees (young people and minorities).  So when your kid graduates college and ends up on your couch, celebrate the "summer of recovery."

Or how about the Obama promise to let the Bush tax cuts expire for the wealthy.  In economic terms, that means capital gains, dividends, and upper incomes will be punched in the gut right at the time we need them to robustly invest in job creation.  Embrace the recovery!

Let's not forget the Democrats continued pursuit of a cap and trade energy scam that will cause, in the words of President Obama, "electricity rates to necessarily skyrocket."  Since energy is somewhat important for any business to function, this massive additional cost to their budgets will certainly cause them to want to hire more employees, don't ya think?

And of course, who can forget ObamaCare?  The job killing impact of that unconstitutional monstrosity has already been worse than forecasted, and promises to - when fully enacted - obliterate profit margins of virtually every business, large and small.

While the formula for economic growth and job creation is well known (tax cuts, reduced regulations, incentives for investment), this administration is pursuing the exact opposite: tax hikes, massive new regulations, mandates and rules, increased costs and undue burdens.

So live it up, America.  This is as good as it gets with liberals.  As long as they're in charge, welcome to your recovery.

A little over a year ago, I wrote a column suggesting that due to the blatant hostility the National Education Association was expressing towards Christians, it was time for Christian teachers to withdraw their membership from the NEA.  As it turns out, the focus of my call to abandon this radically left lobby group was a bit too narrow.  As evidenced by its own website, the NEA is not merely anti-Christian, they are anti-American as well.

How else can you explain the plan that appeared on the NEA's "Diversity Calendar" instructing teachers to make October 1st a special recognition of the Communist revolution in China?  The NEA recommended teachers celebrate how the world's most notorious butcher, Chairman Mao Zedong, proclaimed the "Chinese people have stood up," as he established the regime that would slaughter more innocent human beings than any other in world history.

As incredible as it may seem, such a proposal is completely consistent with other actions of the NEA.  On their page highlighting recommended reading for teachers, the group touts the work of self-proclaimed Satanist (and Obama motivator) Saul Alinsky.  In calling Alinsky, "an inspiration to anyone contemplating action in their community," the NEA encourages those charged with educating our children to immerse themselves in the tactics of progressive community organizing.  They heartily endorse Alinsky's 1971 book, "Rules for Radicals" - a socialist how-to guide for gaining power and redistributing wealth.

As commentator Brannon Howse explains, "The NEA is a group of radicals who are opposed to parental authority, opposed to accountability, and they're not for traditional education...They are for a progressive, liberal, anti-American worldview."  It's why the NEA applauds the work of communists like John Dewey and domestic terrorists like Bill Ayers, all the while publishing guides on how to defeat the "religious right."

Why conscientious, patriotic teachers continue sending their money to these Marxists is beyond comprehension.  As I wrote last year:

"Sure, there are excuses we can use to justify our capitulation and spineless allegiance to causes we know to be wrong.  We can accept the fear-mongering about how we'll all lose our jobs without the NEA.  We can delude ourselves into believing that when we check the box stating our dues can't be used for political purposes that we aren't still contributing to the very executive councils, legal offices, and management that is publicly acknowledging their hatred towards everything we stand for.  We can rationalize that it's impossible anymore to keep from spending our money on things we don't really support.  But we shouldn't do it any longer.  Our consciences shouldn't allow it."

Here's the truth: no teacher has to affiliate themselves with the NEA.  There are two excellent alternative organizations - the Christian Educators Association International and the Association of American Educators - that provide sometimes double the amount of liability coverage to teachers for a fraction of the NEA's price for membership.  They can do this because they, unlike the NEA, aren't using the dues of teachers to lobby for left-wing social and political causes. 

And even in those states where the law requires membership, there are legal alternatives for opting out.  The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation offers assistance to any such teacher.

Moreover, besides just individuals, there is no reason that local associations should continue affiliating themselves under the leadership of such a backwards organization.  A local association can willfully choose (in most states) to operate independently of the NEA's belligerently left-wing leadership.  And those that do find they operate much more effectively.

The NEA and its state affiliates have proven themselves disinterested in the business of actually improving the quality of education for students.  As the NEA's own summer convention demonstrated, they are preoccupied with using dues dollars to advocate: repeal of all right-to-work laws, federal funding of sexual orientation instruction, federal funding to educate illegal aliens, universal healthcare, and (of course) killing human children in the womb. 

The NEA's support of these positions is not just symbolic.  According to the Center for Responsive Politics and the National Institute on Money in State Politics, the NEA is the top spender in national and state politics, spending four times more than any other donor.  And - surprise, surprise - 95% of that money went to the Democratic Party and leftist ballot initiatives.

Simply put, there is no excuse for any American teacher (Christian or not) who believes in the values and principles of Western civilization to remain associated with the NEA.  They are a culturally Marxist organization that holds a flagrant antipathy towards this country and its traditions. 

Fellow teachers, let's drain them of their dues.

The ink had not yet dried on my last column that discussed the fact that Barack Obama was woefully unprepared for the presidency and as a result is making deadly missteps in the execution of that role, when news broke of General Stanley McChrystal in essence saying the exact same thing to Rolling Stone magazine.  This isn't just a story to be brushed off.  This is a bombshell.

Don't be distracted by the media comically chastising the General for daring to speak out against "The One" (yes, the same media that hailed military officers who were willing to "speak truth to power" in criticizing George Bush).  That isn't the story. 

The true meaning of the McChrystal episode is titanic, because it is quite apparent the General was sending a stern message directly to the American people.

For more reasons than I can count, it is beyond obvious that McChrystal's public criticism of Obama was not a lapse in judgment or a mistake.  It was unquestionably intentional.  First, four-star generals have not achieved that rank without knowing the chain of command and the expectation of subordination to superiors.  Second, all of McChrystal's advisers were touting the same message, demonstrating this was no fluke, nor an offhand comment taken out of context.  Third, McChrystal spoke the inflammatory words to Rolling Stone, a well known anti-war, anti-military magazine.  Fourth, reports are that McChrystal actually saw the piece before it went to print and offered up no objections to its content.

If all that is true, then it naturally begs the question: why did he do it?

McChrystal is one of the lead authors of the "counterinsurgency" strategy that, despite the nay saying of liberals like then-Senators Obama and Biden, transformed Iraq from a quagmire into a success.  He knows the strategy works.  But as its architect, he also knows this new military policy requires two vital elements: lots of troops, and as much time as necessary for them to do their job.

While other factors are important (cultural bonds, regional partnerships, financial investment, troop morale, etc.), the two most crucial ingredients to making counterinsurgency work (in Afghanistan or anywhere) is a massive amount of troops on the ground to overwhelm the enemy and live among the people, and a commitment to stay as long as necessary to break the will of the enemy.

This is precisely why counterinsurgency worked in Iraq.  Over the ignorant objections of both Obama and Biden, then-President Bush listened to his military commanders and ordered the troop surge.  And while being pummeled by the media and Democrat political opportunists for not setting a hard deadline for withdrawal, Bush committed to stay in Iraq until the job was finished.  The result speaks for itself.

As the Afghan war began to deteriorate, Stanley McChrystal was put in charge to implement that effective strategy there.  But he quickly found that Barack Obama is no George W. Bush.  First, Obama - having championed himself as the anti-war candidate - cut the number of troops McChrystal requested.  And then, in what has to be one of the most foolish wartime moves in history, he announced an arbitrary date for the beginning of American troop withdrawal.

This may please the ex-hippies in the anti-war crowd that Obama courted during the campaign, but it has emboldened our enemy, imperiled our troops and created a giant mess of our counterinsurgency efforts in Afghanistan.

Having pressed his case privately with Obama's war team in Washington, McChrystal certainly saw the handwriting on the wall, and as a final recourse, pled his case to the American people.

Were his actions a breach of protocol?  Yes.  Did they rise to the level of insubordination?  Probably.  Was Obama justified in removing him from command?  I think so.  But after we're done hammering McChrystal for going over the President's head, we better give some serious thought as to why he was so willing to put his career on the line like that.

The reason is as clear as it is frightening: our political leadership in Washington is clueless.  And their incompetence is costing us not only resources and money, but most importantly the precious lives of brave American soldiers. 

General Stanley McChrystal was willing to lose his job to send that message to the only people who can do something about it.  He was talking to you.

To say I was dumbfounded would be an understatement.  About a week before the 2008 presidential election, I was talking to a friend who had just informed me he had decided to vote for Barack Obama.  "Why, given the most serious state of national and international affairs we were facing, would you be so willing to roll the dice on a political novice like Obama?" I asked.  His incredible response: "Sarah Palin." 

It was his concern that she was unprepared to be just a heartbeat away from the presidency, and if something were to happen to John McCain, she might be thrust into a role where inexperience can be deadly.  So his solution was to vote a man into that very office who had far less experience than even Palin.  Amazing.

I have often wondered if 18 months into the tenure of what is quite apparently the most woefully unprepared president the United States has ever known, my friend is among the ever-growing majority of Americans who regret the Obama gamble.

Domestically, we have seen Obama take the staggering deficit and debt he inherited and double down on it.  Even now, as studies show our debt preparing to overtake our Gross Domestic Product (a watershed moment that virtually guarantees an economic calamity on par with the meltdown occurring in Greece), rather than declaring a national economic emergency that requires deep cuts in government spending, President Obama is attempting to add billions more to his unsustainable budget.

We have witnessed the man whose primary constitutional responsibility is to carry out the laws of Congress utterly fail to enforce those laws regarding border security and immigration.  As a result of his flagrant dereliction of duty, Americans are being killed and individual border states like Arizona have had to assume the task of doing it themselves, only to be criticized by the negligent president himself.

Then, in dealing with the environmental disaster occurring in the Gulf of Mexico, our President has looked like a deer in the headlights.  He vacationed in the early days until media reports hammered him for not visiting the region.  So he visited, and then declared a moratorium on all off shore drilling, destroying thousands of American jobs.  Then when media reports suggested he wasn't being tough enough on those responsible, the President went on the Today show and cussed.  Impressive stuff.

Then came last week's bizarre Oval Office address.  Such speeches are historically reserved for wars, which is appropriate given that Obama announced the next front in his war on the American middle class.  Outlining nothing meaningful to the problem in the Gulf, the President called for a massive national energy tax that if enacted will increase the average family's cost of living by thousands of dollars per year, completely destroy the auto and manufacturing industries in our country, and send the economy into a tailspin from which it will never recover.

On the positive side, BP - the original architects of the energy tax Obama proposes - will benefit tremendously.

And yet if it's possible, the President has proven to be worse in the dangerous world of foreign affairs.  He has foolishly sided with thug communists like Castro, Chavez, and Ortega over the democratic demands of the Honduran people, stood shamefully silent while freedom-loving Iranian citizens were beaten to death in their streets, and has joined the jackals in condemning Israel's completely rational and legal right to defend itself from annihilation.  And despite promising how his departure from Bush's "go-it-alone" strategy would bring the world to our side, the record is unmistakable: Bush led the UN to unanimously condemn Iran's nuclear plans three times.  Obama's best effort failed to convince even two close allies.

We're learning the hard way: Barack Obama was spectacularly unprepared for this office.

Following that recent Oval Office address on the Gulf oil spill, even President Obama's most ardent supporters seemed baffled at his incompetence.  MSNBC's tag team of Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews could barely find words to explain how pathetic the president's speech was.  Olbermann stammered, "It was a great speech if you were on another planet for the last 57 days.nothing specific was said at all."  And Matthews - the same man who just 19 months ago was getting thrills up his leg at the mere sound of Obama's voice - concluded, "No direction...I don't sense executive command."

The reason for that, Chris, is that there is none.  The man who now occupies the White House is overmatched, overwhelmed and overcome by the responsibilities of an office he was not equipped to assume.  An office that is now - much to the chagrin of an embarrassed nation - utterly dwarfing him.