There are flaws in Hillary’s theory about why Bill Clinton does what he does.

She claims that because of the conflicts between the mother and grandmother that he has a great need to make everyone happy.

If that is the case, he would not veto the tax cut bill and give everyone back their hard earned money . . . that would make everyone happy. Start telling the truth to the American people . . . that would make everyone happy.

But the other part of the theory is that he is addicted to sex because of the same reason. But how would Hillary know that?

She denied Jennifer Flower’s allegations on national T.V. She claimed the Lewinsky scandal was part of a vast right wing conspiracy . . . she has refused to acknowledge or give credence to any other claim brought by the myriad of other women against her husband . . . so now he’s the sex addict?

What made a believer out of her? Or did she just happen to know it all along, but now it is politically expedient to abandon loyalty. But if all of this is true and he legitimately has a psychological problem… should the American people have been shown his medical records, or is all of this still no one’s business?

A Denver couple is challenging a city order barring them from holding more than one prayer meeting at their home each month.

So if one week they did a Bible study, the next week a prayer meeting, the next week praise and worship, and the next week a foot washing, then the city would not have a problem with it?

That would be four different functions in the month. Or what if they decided to gather for Monday night football, every week during football season? Would the government come knock on their door and tell them they were breaking an ordinance.  Apparently not, because the administrator of the zoning department is reported to have said that they were only being shut down because the gathering was religious in nature.

Maybe the citizens of Denver need to elect officials who understand freedom of speech and assembly, who have a semi-grasp of the U.S. constitution, and who have the guts to protect and defend it.

In the meantime, I want to encourage people in Denver to hold prayer groups during Monday night football, until they pass a law saying it is illegal to pray for the Denver Broncos. Then, we might see some changes in government.

The recent Woodstock 99 concert was a disaster by anyone’s standards. Looting, burning, rape, mayhem.  But the reaction has been restrained with explanations ranging from “its just kids having fun,” to “this isn’t the sixties anymore.”

Well that’s true, but arson, rape and larceny are still crimes, no matter what decade you hail from. But what is amazing is the lack of concern about the debauchery against women, when there was such great concern, during the Promise Keepers rally, that women were being forced to be submissive.

The talk shows were buzzing, feminists were pulling out their hair, and liberals were wringing their hands that women could possibly be happy with one man in a committed, loving relationship. There was a cry to liberate the women from this brand of brainwashing by dangerous men.

So dangerous that a million of them, testosterone laden, could gather on the mall, for an entire day, and not have one incident of violence or abuse.

So, let me ask those who condemned Promise Keepers while ignoring the abuse of women at Woodstock 99 . . . which group of men would you want their young virginal daughter walking through alone?

Apparently, movie critic Tom Shales thinks that Jack Valenti is practicing censorship by insisting upon ratings for movies. He claims that he harms the work of “serious filmmakers who tackle challenging themes.” He’s very upset that an orgy scene in “Eyes Wide Shut” has been blocked from view by a few clothed participants.

To not tell viewers what they are going to be paying good money to go see, would be like allowing food manufacturers to keep the ingredients off a container of food, or keep the cancer warning off the side of a carton of cigarettes.

He whines about the anonymous people who sit on the panel of raters of the Motion Pictures Association of America as “people with no credentials . . .. [who] dictate to the rest of the country.”  Tom, if they are anonymous, how do you know they have no credentials?

But if he is so concerned about censorship in America, he should begin rallying immediately for a complete and thorough teaching of the Bible… or maybe even an uncut film version.

Now that would cause a real conflict in the ratings world. This is Nina May reminding Tom, that there is nothing new under the sun, even in an uncut version of “Eyes Wide Shut.”

The recent ruling in New Jersey saying that the Boy Scouts should be forced to have scout leaders who profess to be homosexuals, brings new meaning to their motto . . . Be Prepared.

Anyone who cares about these young boys enough to want to “lead” them, certainly would want to protect and defend their innocence and virtue. We must give this man, who fought for eight years to be reinstated as scout leader, the benefit of the doubt, and assume that he would want to teach the little boys about sexual predators who target children for molestation. He would want to teach them about how to protect themselves against unwanted advances.

You know, don’t take candy from strangers, don’t get in a car with anyone you don’t know. This might even give the Boy Scouts a reason to create another merit badge designed to teach young boys to use weapons effectively for protection against predators when walking alone or camping out. After all, Girl Scouts learn self-defense.

So if this man’s intentions are as pure as he claims, and he wants only what is best for these young boys, then I am sure he won’t mind training them to take seriously their motto… Be Prepared.

During the tax debate, Senator William Roth asked a question of the President when explaining why he supported a tax refund to the American people.

He said, “Mr President, is it right for Washington to take from the taxpayers more money than is necessary to run the government? Individuals and families are due a refund, and that, Mr. President is exactly what we do with this legislation.”

But the president has already told the American people they don’t deserve it and he will veto the tax cut measure. The question is… how much of the refund that the citizens deserve will go to pay Al Gore’s $7 million dollar ride down the Connecticut River in New Hampshire? How much will go to rebuild cities in Yugoslavia that we spent millions bombing? How much will pay for Hillary’s repeated trips to New York? How much will pay for lost technology given to the Chinese?

Obviously, this administration thinks that these are worthy expenditures that the American people should gladly shoulder.

What do you think? Do you want your hard earned money returned and your tax rate lowered, or are you content to be taken advantage of, lied to, and stolen from?

The historical revisionists have been tinkering again. This time its with Robin Hood.

According to people who have absolutely no proof, but offer opinions anyway, Robin Hood was gay, and Maid Marion never existed. No letters or correspondence, eye-witnesses, or proof, yet we are supposed to accept it as fact.

With that as the standard, why then is it so difficult for these same historians to accept the fact that all of our Founding Fathers had a deep and abiding faith in God?  There are reams of documents, letters, speeches and notes to prove it, yet their faith is either denied, dismissed, or mentioned as an afterthought as though they remembered they might have had a library card.

Even Thomas Jefferson, who is referred to as an atheist by many historians, and who wrote a book called the “The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth,” said in reference to the Bible, “It is a document in proof that I am a real Christian… a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus.”

So here’s the deal: if Robin Hood was gay, then Thomas Jefferson was a Christian.  There is certainly more proof to substantiate that.

I am sure that the literacy rate in congress must be pretty high. I am sure they have to read a lot of bills and laws and letters, well at least what is being written about them in the paper. But to see the way members of both parties continue to pretend the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution doesn’t exist can only mean they have never really read it.

“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,” doesn’t mean we have the right to wear sleeveless dresses. But what is the advice of someone who was around during the drafting of the constitution?

Thomas Jefferson said in 1823, to Justice William Johnson, “On every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in the which it was passed.”

That is excellent advice that should be applied today. Even if you are illiterate, common sense will tell you that when the words say “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” . . . it probably means just that.

When the Soviet Union rejected communism, freedom of religion became an accepted part of life.

In one area, where Bibles had been confiscated and stored in warehouses for decades, the churches asked if they could have them. These Bibles belonged to people who loved the Lord and had been persecuted and killed for their faith.

When one church was given permission to have the Bibles, they recruited students from the local university to load them from the warehouse into trucks. One young man, an avowed atheist, agreed to help because the pay was attractive. He ridiculed the church leaders for wanting to distribute mythology again and laughed at their devotion to a simple book.

After a few hours of hard work, they noticed the young man was missing. One of the church members found him sitting in a corner of the warehouse, holding one of the Bibles, weeping quietly. He lifted the book to reveal that the one Bible, he happened to pick up, to continue his ridicule of the Christian faith . . . was his grandmother’s

. Her persecution and death had hardened his heart to God . . . and now . . . the miracle of her living faith had melted it.

Everyone has witnessed the incredible power and influence of the homosexual lobby. This is not a group selling a product, or an industry that is being over-regulated by the government. It is a lobbying group that is representing personal behavior that is very self-serving and does nothing to enhance the value of life for all Americans. And anyone with sincerely held religious beliefs are forced to abandon them, accept this lifestyle, teach their children that it is normal behaviour, or be branded as bigots, homophobes, or intolerant.

But what if another very influential lobby, such as the meat producers of America, representing ranchers and butchers, insisted that all Americans eat beef… including those devoted Hindus who see the cow as sacred, and anything harming the cow as an abomination to their faith.

Everyone would rally to their aid and tell the meat industry to get out of their face… to give them the freedom to practice their religion, and raise their children in their faith without the meat industry calling them intolerant, bigots or meatophobes.

This is Nina May asking, should Christians be treated with any less respect?