Have you ever noticed the fine dust that clings to the sides of an hour glass, never moving like the grains of sand do?

It was poignant to see old men at the Republican and Democrat conventions taking tired trips down the memory lanes of revolution.

One relived his love for Castro, Lenin, Marx and all his other heros. His captive audience of teenagers lived vicariously through the passion of conflict and the comfort of discourse.

But none of them saw what I saw. I saw a man blessed to be born in a free country that allows his verbal destruction of it. A country with so much abundance that after these anarchists leave the rally, they jump in their air conditioned cars, drink their cold beers, take their hot showers, eat their warm food, and reflect upon the day they began the revolution in America.

But the revolution they are looking for is not found on the streets in locked combat with the police . . .it will be a revolution of the heart, inspired by the most revolutionary person in history . . . Jesus Christ.

So as the political sands shift, we should remember King Solomon’s words in Ecclesiastes, “There is nothing new under the sun.” And these Marxists revolutionaries, with their tired message, are no exception.

The image of the homosexuals outside the Boy Scout headquarters, demanding to be let in . . . demanding to have “access” to these young boys can’t be coincidental to being a modern day depiction of what happened in Genesis 19:4 thousands of years ago.

This is when the men, young and old, were outside Lot’s house demanding that he send the two angles out so they could have sex with them. Lot begged them not to do this “wicked thing” and offered his two virgin daughters to them instead. (I can’t help but wonder what “virgins” our politicians will offer this out-of-control group today.)

Looking at this from another perspective, the homosexual community is telling us, by demonstrating outside the Boy Scout headquarters, threatening, demanding, intimidating . . . that the law of the land means nothing to them. They can’t be concerned about the laws of nature, nature’s God, or the Supreme Court interpreting the laws of man.

Should this be the standard? Does this rebellious behavior then open the doors for any other group or individual to disregard and try and overturn the rulings of the Supreme Court?

Is this finally an open door for the populous to unilaterally overturn Roe v. Wade? Should there now be mass demonstrations outside of abortion clinics in spite of the Bubble Zone rule that says you can’t be within a certain distance of an abortuarium if you are pro-life?

Should they disregard the rules of murder and begin killing the doctors performing these abortions? Should they disregard another ruling and start praying in school, having Bible classes and basically ignoring the Supreme Court when it says kids can’t pray before a football game?

Just which rules are we suppose to ignore and which are we supposed to obey?

Is it really subjective or are there absolutes?  Because if the homosexual community is successful in intimidating this organization through political and public pressure, while openly defying the Supreme Court’s ruling that they be left alone . . . then anarchy will have surpassed civility and the rules of engagement will have changed across the board.

I would encourage every former scout, family of scouts, relatives of scouts to ban together to protect these young boys from the onslaught against their virtue.

If the homosexuals want to start a Gay Scout group, there is nothing preventing them from doing this… but to use the good name, legacy and purpose of a PRIVATE organization and try and remake it in your image is an affront to ever citizen, every private organization, and the constitution.

What are the implications of this?

Will the Congressional Black Caucus be forced to accept white congressmen? Will the Girl Scouts be forced to accept boys? Will fraternities and sororities be forced to accept people of the opposite sex? Will Wiccan groups be forced to accept born again Christians, and Mosques be forced to allow Jews to pray in them?

Why should the Boy Scouts be treated any differently than any other private group in America?

One reason — It is the happy hunting grounds for men who have determined by their lifestyle that they can’t have children, so they want yours.

They have demonstrated this by their support of laws that reduce the age of consent to allow children to have sex. They support and defend the National Association of Man Boy Love which promotes sex between adults and children. So the agenda is as transparent as their attempt to disregard a ruling by the Supreme Court.

Their success, if they can intimidate these precious young boys, will be determined by the parents, friends, neighbors, religious and political leaders.  If they are silent . . . and the homosexuals prevail . . . God help each of us . . . and God help these innocent kids who we would have determined are not worthy to receive the full protection of the law and the full weight and authority of the constitution.

Just when I was getting excited about Joe Lieberman as Gore’s running mate, he goes and capitulates.

Gore knew before Lieberman accepted the position, that he was for school vouchers, and personal investment of Social Security payments. So why not let him continue his support of these issues and just recognize that being different and believing in different things does not make someone bad.

I mean, isn’t that the point in him selecting the first Jewish person? To bring the country together, to end divisiveness and allow us to appreciate and accept the differences in all of us?

So why would Gore insist that he change? Why can’t he celebrate his positions on these issues like America is supposed to accept his position on religion?

The way George W. Bush was NOT accepted when he identified Jesus Christ as his hero. He was excoriated for bringing religion into the debates and now Gore is praised.

Wouldn’t it be great if these politicians just did and said what they believed and not worried about the consequences?

That person . . .is the one who should lead the country and they would no longer be a politician, they would be a statesman.

If the Republican Convention Lacked Substance — Will the Presence of Stars Give the Democrats the Seriousness They are Looking For?

The Democrats claim that the Republican convention was all show and no substance. Yet they offer actor Jimmy Smits to talk about health care at their convention.

That poor issue that keeps making the rounds from one amateur to another. Barbara Streisand I suppose will discuss the issue of poverty, and Barney will talk about education.

That’s what happens when a party becomes bankrupt of new ideas, they hire it out, add some glitter, throw in a few big names and make us all think they have new policies.

The Republicans should have followed suit.

Instead of having all those politicians speaking on issues they deal with daily, they should have given speeches on film making, acting and script writing. That makes as much sense as featuring a bunch of actors at a political convention.

Just what makes Jimmy Smits such an expert on health care to warrant a billing at the Democrat National Convention? Even though he has the same non-credentials as Hillary Clinton, they must think his dashing good looks will convince America that Gore means business on this very serious issue. Gee . .. it works for me. How about you?

We received a note from a listener who is offended by the lyrics to Eminem’s rap music.

While reading his concern I reflected on the incredible effort that Tipper Gore and Susan Baker began fifteen years ago to warn parents of offensive language.

They were subsequently silenced and ridiculed.

Even Al Gore said nothing in defense of his wife when a rapster targeted Gore’s own daughters in its assaulting lyrics.

My first response to the listener was to wonder if he had been in a time warp for fifteen years …or perhaps he was a young person who was just now learning of these offensive lyrics.

But it turns out his offense is taken because the rap music targets gays now. Not just cops, women, children, churches, Jerry Falwell and other religious leaders.

So this 40 year-old man is suddenly offended because gays are the subject of hostility. Where was he when women were being described as dogs used only for the purpose of copulation?

Where was he when the lyrics discussed blowing away cops, mutilating and raping Al Gore’s kids . . . blowing up churches?

It is wonderful to be concerned by hostile lyrics . . .but taking offense for only one insult is a little hypocritical and rings a little hallow.

Elitism is a separation from others through power, influence and money.

The President and VP, who are surrounded by armed guards can afford to suggest that Americans disarm themselves.

Clinton is so afraid of the American citizen he even had barricades erected around the White House.

Bill and Hillary are “given” a house worth $1.7 million yet they call Americans greedy for wanting tax cuts, school vouchers, and a cut in the capital gains tax.

Al Gore is a millionaire who will never need a dime of his Social Security, yet he opposes a plan to allow middle America . . .the non-millionaire sect, to take their hard earned money and invest it themselves for their future.

He keeps saying that is risky and reckless . . . like every other plan middle America has suggested just to get by.

But the real reason that Al Gore opposes investing in the private sector is that it will wean people from the government and expose them to the benefits of capitalism.

When this happens, the mystique of the royal couple and elitist party will disappear and people will realize they can do it themselves without being beholden to the government for everything they have and are.

The curtain will be pulled back and the wizards will be exposed in the land of Oz.

It is so cute how Al Gore describes anything he doesn’t have an alternative solution for as a risky or reckless scheme.

It reminds me of Elmer Fudd always calling Bugs Bunny that Waskaly Wabbit.

But what is odd are how many risky and reckless things he does embrace.

Things like condom distribution which has been proven not to prevent the AIDS virus from infecting someone. Or not supporting the idea of Internet blockers to protect children so that they can’t download hardcore pornography, violent websites, or sexual predator’s who can lure them into deadly liaisons.

So the newest risky scheme that he is hunting with his cute little musket is George W. Bush’s idea of finally treating wage earners like adults.

Giving them options in investing their own hard earned money for their own future.

What is the risk in this? . . . That they might invest in the wrong thing? That is no more risky than giving up to 30% of your income into a system that you might not see a dime of when you are ready to receive it.

Now that is a BIG risk. This is Nina May . . .rooting for the rabbit.

While in a store I heard a familiar voice utter my very unique name . . . “Mom?”

Every woman in the store looked in the direction of what I was certain was my child, only to realize the voice was as universal . . .as the name.

There is a great deal of responsibility that goes with that moniker . . .it should not be worn or carried lightly.

So when I see a group of women gathering under the banner of Moms on the Mall . . . I am a little curious about their purpose, because if they intend to speak for me and millions of other moms, they better get the words right.

In the name of caring for kids safety they better mention abstinence over the lie of safe sex. They better mention drugs and alcohol as causing more harm to young people than firearms. They better mention the dangers of unfiltered Internet access and the destructive nature of pornography. They better talk about the necessity of virtue and respect over self-indulgence and irresponsibility. Because if they don’t, and they only mention guns as being harmful to kids, then I will know they are only women masquerading behind a values laden moniker.

And these women don’t speak for me or the vast majority of moms in America . . .and I will call their bluff if they claim to do so.

This is Nina May . . . also a mom.

Thirty Percent Will Always Be Patriots. . . but what are the other two thirds loyal to today?

I have never been one to trust or rely on polls. But I could not ignore the polls showing that almost 60% of the American people believed that the midnight raid to retrieve a little boy, from people who had saved his life, was justified.

Actually that is good, maybe they will finally agree that guns aren’t that bad and the rest of society can keep theirs.

But what is interesting in this figure is how consistent it is with American history.

During the entire American revolution only one third of the citizens were for breaking ties with England and starting their own country. These were called Patriots.

One third was for remaining loyal to England, thus the name Loyalists, and one third had no opinion one way or the other. They were basically ambivalent . . .or the middle of road as they would be referred to today.

If you look at the last presidential election, where 150 million people are registered to vote only two thirds bothered to go to the polls. And this number was split almost in half for those for one political philosophy over another.

So it should not surprise us that the same revolutionary spirit that burned in the souls of only 30% of the nation 200 years ago, is the same percentage today. We are at ninamay.com.

It must be difficult for communist sympathizers in the US to justify Castro’s decision to allow Elian Gonzalez’ dad to finally come here.

Before, the argument was, “He shouldn’t have to come here . . . just send the boy back.”

They couldn’t bring themselves to admit that the father wasn’t allowed to come get his son. And if the father was free to travel, but chose not to . .. what does that say about his level of love for the child?

So no matter how you look at it . . . the lifestyle that this little boy and his mother were trying to flee from does not reflect the romantic ideal liberal elitists have created in their minds.

Communism is a system that subordinates the individual to the will of the dictator, the government . . .or euphemistically, the “people.”

If Cuba had the freedoms we are led to believe they have, this little boy would be begging to go home to his father.

The real test of the legitimacy of this latest gesture is to see if Elian’s dad and other members of the family can choose to stay here instead of taking Elian back to Cuba.

If he can . . . the boy should be released to his custody. If he doesn’t . . . it means they are all being held hostage so the father can retrieve this little pawn of the state that has embarrassed an aging dictator who has nothing to show for his tenure other than pain, suffering, death and imprisonment.