What do Paris Hilton and illegal immigrants have in common? They have both sparked a revolt by the American people who oppose disparate treatment for similar behavior, and who are tired of the double standards that are applied unequally to different classes of people.

In the case of both the “illegal foreigners” and Paris, it is the “haves” versus the “have nots.” The “haves” are Paris and illegals who possess both the means and the arrogance to think they are better than everyone else and “entitled” to special treatment. Paris and illegals have not only thumbed their noses at the system, but have pushed their way to the front of the line of law abiding people who have systematically followed the rule of law.

But the American people have pushed back, for the first time in a long time, and the collective push is not reflective of a specific political party. The phone calls tying up the switchboard on Capitol Hill were flooding both the Democrat and Republican offices telling them to vote against the amnesty bill, which would have strapped an insurmountable economic burden to their kids for generations. Anyone who pays taxes, follows the rule of law, and cares about the future of the country got it . . . no matter what party they are registered with.

And when Paris was selectively “pardoned” her full time in jail, the same public pushed back and said they either want that treatment for their child, or their child’s treatment for her. They didn’t have the lawyers, the name, the influence or the arrogance to believe that the law would be interpreted differently for them. But what they did have was a sense of justice that has been slowly receding in our culture.

In the San Diego school district a public school offers Muslim prayers and a teacher to lead those prayers, to a classroom of Muslims, yet Christian children are not allowed to mention Christmas or Easter in school. Oh, that’s fair. Al Gore wins superfluous awards for suggesting we, the unwashed masses, should ride around on bicycles, while he delivers that encyclical in private jets, spewing tons of toxic waste (literal and figurative) into our atmosphere. But we are evil . ..  he is smart. Not so smart they he didn’t realize that most of the clips of him in his pontificating, self-indulgent, factually inaccurate cartoon, in limos and jets might possibly make him look like a hypocrite.

But, that’s OK, according to another multi-millionaire who plays an actor in the movies, Leonardo De Caprio. So smart the Leo is that he honestly justifies the pontification of the Alster by saying . . . he is bringing truth and enlightenment to you idiots so therefore he deserves, and MUST fly around in jets to accomplish this laudable goal. Does that mean the smartest women in the world will get the space shuttle if she gets to the White House?

They apply that same logic to their cousin Paris by suggesting that she brings so much joy and glamour to our ordinarily drab days that we should not force her to stay in jail with the other plebeians, because she is special. She somehow elevated herself, with the help of a totally clueless media base, to the point that she should be worshiped, adored, pampered and rewarded for bad behavior.

No wonder illegal aliens risk it all to live that American dream. Think of it, a land where you can have unfettered access to money you didn’t even earn, gain success for doing nothing but partying and getting drunk all the time, and attaining celebrity status for thumbing your nose at the law . . . repeatedly, and getting the unified sympathy of your fellow class of irresponsible dilettantes. Is this a great country or what??

It is a great country, because the vast majority of hard working men and women are tired of being called “bigots” by the law breakers, “stupid” by their elected officials, “irrelevant” by people who memorize lines for a living, and “unpatriotic” because all they want to do is preserve our freedom, protect our borders and help provide, in their own way, for the common defense of their fellow man.

No wonder they spoke up and spoke out, because THEY are America . . . they are the heart and soul of who and what this country is. They deserve more than mealy mouthed, spineless politicians stomping on their rights and freedoms and telling them that they are the problem. They deserve more than illegal foreign nationals mocking them, burning their flag, demanding rights and promising to “take back” their country. These Americans who spoke out, who challenged status quo, questioned authority, and held their elected officials accountable provide a stark contrast to spoiled “starlets” and arrogant lawbreakers.

They are the “We” in the preamble to the Constitution.

A convergence of recent news articles, and a clash of cultures, has created confusion for many, including Don Imus and the Duke Lacrosse players, who were falsely accused of rape.

For the past few months we have seen, non stop, the national fascination of a woman whose fame revolved around her stripping, seducing a rich old man, and having sex with enough men to bring into question the paternity of her child. When they revealed the real father, the response was as though American Idol had been replaced by a new reality show . . . American Daddy.

Joe Francis, voyeur producer of a real time reality “strip” show called, Girls Gone Wild, is held responsible for the actions of kids who see the lifestyle of someone like Anna Nicole Smith as acceptable, mainstream and worthy of emulation. As stupid as it was, it can’t be a shock that hormone ravished teenage boys would think hiring a stripper for a party is now a mainstream occurrence. They could have saved themselves some money though, and invited one of the Girls Gone Wild chicks to take it off for free.

And then Don Imus, like Hillary, tries to sound black, and botches what he must think is a line in a rap song, and insults a group of talented, bright young girls, who have not gone wild, but have gone to college, and just want to compete athletically and academically.

Three young Duke students were a breath away from serving time in prison for an accusation by a person, who under different circumstances, could have been the celebrated stripper that has held the nation captive to the sorted details of her personal life. How can the discussion revert to the original cause of these fiascos without condemning the fact that these boys hired a stripper in the first place, which would contradict the public’s fascination with Anna Nicole Smith, and rap stars use of the word “ho”, which contradicts the outrage that a shock jock would say the same thing?

How is someone supposed to sift through the nuances of shocking humor and acceptable characterizations of a variety to issues barraging the culture? It is a mine field that seems to be littered with the bodies of those who drew the daily-double-standards card and are held accountable to a different standard than those who sit back smugly in their ability to not only trash talk, but be rewarded for it.

This is not the first time Don Imus has said racially insensitive things, and since he was never condemned or criticized before, the logical conclusion is that the culture has shifted to the point where this behaviour is now mainstream. Because the usually flappable feminists have remained silent over the dehumanization of black women in popular rap songs and lyrics, the assumption is that the black community does see their women as “hos” and to speak against this type of characterization of all innocent black women is considered judgmental, and culturally unenlightened. Anna Nicole Smith is elevated to the level of a rock star who has replaced the image of the Madonna as the most important mother in the history of the world and her accomplishment was being a porn star who slept with a lot of different guys to the points where they have to do a DNA test to see which of the many contenders is the “winner.” And the man who films young girls acting out their Nicole wannabe fantasies . . . sits in jail for filming their bizarre, public behaviour, which pretty much aligns itself with the lyrics of the rap songs.

Are you following this? So who are the victims and who are culprits? Is Imus a clueless bore or a victim of a schizophrenic culture that simultaneously applauds and condemns people behaving badly? Were the girls-gone-wild exploited by a rolling camera or were they seeking the same notoriety of a crotchless Britney, girl-kissing Madonna, or bed-hopping Anna Nicole? Who is the victim, who is the culprit? When rap musicians and record companies are rewarded with multi-million dollar contracts and record sales by calling black women whores, are women then victims or culprits for not denouncing the misogyny and rejecting this characterization?

Who are the victims, who are the culprits and what message is it we want to send as a cultured society, as a class of people, as a nation, as a gender? When will we draw the line, and how do we accept the names we are called when we do?

Perhaps the lesson in all this, as simple as Gold, should Rule, and a rewind with that as the standard would show all of this controversy totally mute. Anna Nicole would have been nurtured and protected and told her value is not in her body, but in her heart, and young impressionable women would have followed that positive roll model. Women-degrading rap music would have been rejected as offensive, oppressive and a modern-day reflection of what slaveholders thought of their chattel. Young girls would not be encouraged to strip for young men who have been raised on a culture where sex is a god and personal gratification the burnt offering.

If we teach our children to respect and honor one another, not exploit for selfish desires or allow themselves to be seen as sexual objects, then all of these headline events would possibly, never have occurred. And, in this imagined world of grace and empathy, the first time Don Imus strayed from a platform of civility and decorum, he would have been gently reminded that it is not polite to call people names he himself would find offensive.

The gyrating girls, college strippers, pornography, rap-infested songs, and commercially supported trash talk, are all symptoms of these things not happening. They are the byproduct of a country gone wild while innocent, hardworking, honorable young women like the Rutgers’ women’s basketball team . . . are the real victims in all of this, and a culture that allowed it to degrade to this level . . . is the collective culprit.


Hillary Clinton made conspiracy theories quite fashionable with her insistence that the evil “right-wing conspiracy” was responsible for her husband cheating on her with a girl young enough to be her daughter. The sycophant press set their liberal jaws and nodded in agreement, not even bothering to ask how all those people could have fit in the Oval office while Monica earned her presidential kneepads. But that seems to be the modus operandi with liberals . . . when they either make a mistake or don’t like the facts, they point fingers at the conspiratorial boogieman, blaming someone else for their shortcomings.

Take Tokyo Rosie, just one taco short of a full combination platter, who insists that 911 was an inside job in which George Bush is responsible. For someone as dumb as she continues to claim Bush is . . . she certainly is giving him credit for an amazing Tom Cruise type impossible mission to bring down the twin towers and create a situation where something was hot enough to melt steel. She of course thinks there is no fire hot enough to do that.

Tokyo Rosie needs to get out more. If she went to Shenyang, China, for example, she could step over open channels of fluid metal flowing dangerously under foot in one of the biggest steel foundries in China. Yes, Rosie, they have fire that is hot enough to melt steel. It is really hard to believe that not one woman at the table in The View doesn’t challenge her ridiculous assumption and ask her if she thinks her car just sort of came out of the ground shaped like that. Or the pots and pans she uses . . . on a stove . . . had to at some point be shaped by a fire, much hotter than the fire on her stove. It is presumptuous of me to think that she cooks, but by all objective standards I can safely assume she eats.

But what is more interesting about her wild theory, shared by other mentally challenged liberals, is that they don’t seem to have an answer to where all those people are who were in the nonexistent airplanes that didn’t fly into the buildings that really caused them to collapse. And if the planes did hit them when they did, are they saying that the detonators were in the basement timed to coincide with the impact of the planes at the exact same time, while the planes didn’t really exist? And what were the other two planes doing? Why would Bush want to fly a plane into the Pentagon when Rumsfeld was in it? If he wanted to get rid of him . . . which he didn’t for another 5 years, he could have just fired him.

So they are saying that the planes didn’t hit the building, and that Barbara Olson and hundreds of others, are in hiding on an island some place, waiting until the gig is up. “Wow Rosie, you are just too smart for us. George and I really thought we could pull one over on you, but boy, we should have known better. You and the other smartest woman in the world sure do know your conspiracies. No fooling you,” Barbara would say in humble resignation.

If Rosie wants to look at a conspiracy, go back to Waco and the Oklahoma City bombing. There is far more evidence of conspiracies with the added bonus of the king and queen of mysterious events and death tallies, Bill and Hillary, being in charge with Janet Reno driving the getaway car.

I absolutely hate giving the Roseter any ink, but realized today, after hearing the Brits cave to revisionist pressure not to teach the realities, horrors, and life altering facts of the holocaust, that it is never too late to speak out early and often against those who would try and distort history to suit their own personal or political agenda. It should be denounced and rebuked at the earliest sign of germination and absolutely nipped in the bud.

So the Brits are afraid of Islamic backlash if they dare speak the truth about a regime that forced the same type of fascist mind control over an entire region of the world, and we are scared of a loudmouthed bully who uses an embarrassing platform to spew her hate and venom. Everyone thinks ABC is responsible and should fire her, and that Barbara Walters has lost total control. If either of these points were true, Rosie would be doing stand up in some seedy hotel. But the fact is . . . she is mentioned daily on the nightly news, she is insulted by Donald Trump, analyzed by Bill O’Reilly and dissected by all the other pundits who marvel that she is still standing. DUH . . . she is standing because she has an audience standing slack-jawed at the train wreck that is happening before their eyes hoping to see more.

Sadly, she is symbolic of who we have become as a nation. Barbara Walters, sitting primly on the opposite side of the table, represents the old guard that created the Petri dish, mixed the concoction, and helped to transform a culture that allowed this growth to emerge. It is a growth that is a perfect reflection of the idiocy, the egotism, the lack of historic knowledge that has become our nation. A nation that is embarrassed to be a beacon of light and hope in a world that hides when cowards threaten to kill and maim in the name of religion. A nation that throws a tantrum when a war is not as quick as a movie and the consequences of failure are forgotten in a flood of self-absorption and fickle elections.

Have we forgotten who we are as a nation or have the revisionists succeeded in repainting us in the image of a failed experiment of liberty, bravery and resolve? Does a Rosie O’Donnell really reflect the heart of a country sitting with bold, obnoxious proclamations of fantasy designed specifically to derail us into utter oblivion? Her anger is that of someone who despises her own person to the point of not knowing its purpose or her own . . . much like America.

Who are we as a nation and what purpose do we serve in the world? There was a time when even the world knew our greatness, but with ex-presidents and ex-presidential candidates traveling the world, calling us names, bemoaning our greatness and undermining the sitting president, it is no wonder the world joins the chorus of anti-Americanism. When Grammy and Oscar awards have been reserved for the most creative of American bashers, destroying yet two more institutions that heretofore had been admired by all, you know the end of what we used to think was dear and sacred, is near.

And if Hillary, Rosie and the Dixie Chicks are the answer, it must have been a really stupid question. If all it takes in this country to win, to be promoted, to maintain an irrelevant job and win awards that lack credibility, is to trash America, mock its moral foundation and denounce leaders whose only goal is to protect us from annihilation . . . then it is a stupid question.

If there is any conspiracy of note, it is the one to destroy the line that separates good from evil and reconfigures the world in the image of those who would destroy others who reject their form of truth. It is a conspiracy to marginalize all rational thought and elevate the absurd. It is a conspiracy to destroy innocence and reward those who defile and reduce the sacred to the mundane. It is a conspiracy to undermine everything that will protect and defend us from people who would not only kill us, eradicate our way of life, but would actually become what these idiots claim Bush is doing now.

The conspiracy is here Rosie . . . and it is you.

My son’s Boy Scout troop is going to be so happy to hear that finally, Democrats agree that there is something very wrong with grown, homosexual men, like Congressman Mark Foley, having access to young, innocent, impressionable kids. We were all beginning to think they had totally abrogated their role in upholding moral values. We are all anxious to attend the press conference where Nancy Pelosi and Rudy Giuliani, join hands to denounce NAMBLA (National Man Boy Love Association) as an illegal organization that serves only the purpose of Foley-type men, preying on young boys for their sexual pleasure.

And wow . . . the dream of kids being able to go to the library and have filtered internet access without freenies downloading child porn in the booth next to them will finally be a reality, thanks to the moral leadership of the Democrats.

And finally, the nation can unite behind the idea that adults who prey on children should be shamed, their reputations ruined, and they should be prosecuted, and locked up for life. It is very fortunate that all of this came out just before an election; otherwise it would have gone totally unnoticed. There would have been no political currency passing through the hands of people who have the pursuit of power at any cost, as their soul agenda.

It is exciting to see that all those moral values that have been a part of the Republican platform for years are applied to their own, and are embraced by people who back slid a little during the Clinton years, but heh, they are finally in touch with reality.

Now, if these same moral giants, who are stepping up so boldly to rightly denounce Cong. Foley, and zealously clamor for Dennis Hastert’s resignation for leadership, would apply these same standards to say . . . abortion, that would be great. After all, kids are dying here, not just being propositioned by perverts.

They can then really prove they are serious about the moral breakdown of the country, by admitting that marriage is intended for one man and one woman, and medically, the gay lifestyle shortens life and endangers those involved. It will be refreshing to finally have an honest discussion about what really causes AIDS and how it can be prevented. We should expect this outraged Democratic leadership to condemn the sexualization of young children on porn sites that are making billions by exploiting their innocence. They will finally be the moral voice against sex trafficking that exploits women and children.

But what is most fortunate about this incident of discovering a Republican congressman using the Internet to attract young boys, is that he wasn’t a Democrat. Because then, we would be forced to sit and listen to the twisted logic and values clarification techniques we had to endure during Clinton’s tryst with a young girl who was in his charge. We would be told that what someone does in private is his own business. We would be reminded that Republicans are the ones who want to have access to people’s e-mail to see if there are terrorists but use it to out the perverts. We would be assaulted by the homosexual lobby that would whine about their oppressed state and how Martin Luther King marched so that they could mock the institution of marriage.

Oh thank you thank you thank you Mark Foley for being a Republican, for forcing the Democrats into a very uncomfortable Hobson’s choice of winning an election or losing face over issues they have built their entire existence on. Now . . . if only they could get Senator Ted Kennedy to finally apologize for drowning a young girl and leaving her there all night . . . I think there might be moral redemption for the Democrats in the near future. And that is something all Americans can support. . . no matter what party they belong to.

Can Athiests Destroy the REAL Cross?

Sometimes life can become stranger than fiction and God has the most amazing way of gently reminding us, all of us, killers and atheists too, that He is alive and real.

With the protracted controversy surrounding the removal of a cross at the Mount Soledad War Memorial in La Jolla, California, coinciding with a bone fide, living symbol of its meaning, it is hard to call it coincidence.

Ashley Smith, of Atlanta Georgia, became the cross that the atheists want to remove in La Jolla. She was bigger than the concrete monument that has stood sentry over the lives of fallen heroes for over 50 years. A symbol that makes those who don’t believe there is a God quake at the thought that there might be one and want to eradicate anything that would force them to accept that there are those who do believe.

So what are the atheists of America going to do about the millions of living crosses who they encounter daily? They can’t remove every cross or symbol of God’s love for mankind… unless they desire to kill all Christians who reflect that love to their fellow man.

What is it that atheists fear about two pieces of material forming right angles together that symbolically has only represented unconditional, sacrificial love? Do atheists reject love? Do they deny that sacrifice is a laudable characteristic that we should all strive to embody? Do they think that what Ashley Smith did, in her willingness to sacrifice her life so that her captor, Brian Nichols, might come to know the God of the Universe deserves silencing and dismantling?

What is the next step for tortured souls who agonize over the presence of a symbol that must torment them to the point of destruction? Will they say that Christians are not allowed to use public facilities, wear crosses on public campuses, mention the name of Jesus in a public forum, drive on public highways, use the US Postal service to post letters about what Christ has done in their lives? Will they strike to remove all religious icons and art from every national museum in America and burn all literature that provides a history of the Christian founding of the United States? Will they take a chisel to the walls of the Supreme Court and deface all statues and murals that depict a presence of God’s sovereignty in the founding of America?

They might be able to do this . . . only if the 95% of those in the country who believe in something bigger than their own selfish agendas of intolerance for divergent views remain silent. But even if they were successful in eradicating every symbol of Christ’s love and forgiveness of a fallen man, they will never eliminate Christ from the hearts of man, who even as they are murdered, will proclaim Him as their Lord and Savior.

The stones of the cross in California may be dismantled and used to stone the Ashley Smiths of the world who wear the cross emblazoned on their hearts and represent for all a clear and perfect manifestation of God’s love for man on earth . . . but they will never silence God. The rocks and trees will rise to sing His praise even if the breath of man is silenced from doing so.

So we, as a free nation have the choice of following the lead of those who would destroy our heritage, dismantle sacred monuments to those who gave the ultimate sacrifice so that we may not live under this form of tyranny . .. or follow the embodiment of Christ in a young single mom in Atlanta Georgia who brought life to that cross in her amazing ordeal of sacrificial love.

I wish I could have been fly on the wall during the producer’s conversation about the Super Bowl halftime porn show. The wardrobe artists were accused of not making a strong enough outfit for Janet Jackson, the producers claimed it wasn’t done like that in rehearsal, the NFL heads said they had promises from the MTV crowd that the show would be acceptable to all ages, and the audience was sucker-punched. That would be like saying you were shocked to discover that Hustler had a couple of raunchy photos in it. Hello, the halftime show was produced by MTV, not Nickelodeon.

Everyone is floundering in a giant stew of mea culpa but this still doesn’t answer the question on everyone’s mind. What was the point? Did Justin feel he had to do something to show his ex-girl friend, Britney Spears, who sucked face with Madonna on national TV, that he was just as hip? He wanted to make sure his 15 minutes of fame lasted 30 seconds longer than hers after that ridiculous display of in-your-face excess.

Was the point that the actions had to match the words to the song which said, I am going to have you naked by the end of this song? What in the world are they singing a song about having sex and getting naked at the Super Bowl which is supposed to be about football? Hello, this isn’t the SEX Bowl, or the Super Boob.

What message was this display of degradation and molestation supposed to send to the viewing public? What impact does a dance with girls dressed as whores, and a white boy insinuating S&M on an African-American girl have on young kids today? Are girls supposed to now fear that society sanctions such behaviour by young men who get paid big money to ravage women in public? Doesn’t that seem so ancient Rome and totally uncivilized, where the nubiles were brought in, chained to large wagons, then stripped to the waste to show the wares and sold to the highest bidder? Come to think of it, there has been a history of that in our not-to-distant past. To see young kids, under the direction of knowing adults, acting out this type of degradation for the amusement of millions gives one pause. Just what are we teaching kids? Are young men now to think that girls like that kind of treatment and could care less if the red lace underwear breaks away with the outer garment, as long as they get what they want, when they want it? Hello feminists, you have been pitched a soft ball here . . . I don’t see anyone taking a swing at it. You can’t still be sitting on the same apathetic, myopic bench of double standards where you sat out the Clinton years.

I am curious to know how cute little kids like Justin, Britney and Christina, go from singing M-I-C-K-E-Y-M-O-U-S-E to molesting women, performing lesbian acts and dancing with snakes unless they had been told that it would catapult their careers beyond the mouse ears. But catapult to what?

Christina has graduated to a highly paid porn star with a good voice, but even the guys are shocked by her performances and sleaziness. Not someone you want to take home to meet mom. And Britney was already on that sultry slide to skin and sex before she let Madonna perform a tonsillectomy on her with her tongue. Was there a sense of competition between the three that now Justin had to prove himself as a Class A pervert, or have all these performers just totally lost touch with reality?

Are there no adults in their lives who really do believe that they should nurture character qualities like integrity, virtue, humility and gentleness? Were they just surrounded by greedy adults who, having lost their own innocence, saw big bucks in selling the innocence of these kids and others like them, knowing their performing days were numbered? Did no one think to tell these kids that not everyone in the world lives by the same rules the entertainment industry does, and this does not make the rest of the world weird, or right wing, or intolerant, or judgmental. It just means the rest of the world is responsible, thoughtful and incensed when they are dissed the way they were Sunday night.

In the past, it used to be that the young kids would shock the adults to prove they were independent and capable of free expression. But that has been changed so drastically, and so fast, that now it is the adults moving the children into roles that defile their innocence, stunt their growth, destroy their lives. Child porn is a multi-billion dollar industry run by adults who exploit and abuse children. The entertainment industry is run by adults who sign children younger and younger and age them quicker and quicker so they have a longer shelf life before they become disposable commodities in their early twenties . . .used up before their time. Young girls are exploited and lied to by adults in the abortion industry that accomplishes the goal of destroying two lives with every abortion. The adults in education, the library associations, and academia all see our young boys and girls as pimps and prostitutes and desire only that they control their sexually transmitted diseases not their sexual appetites. They applaud and condone destructive consequences of these dangerous lifestyle choices, while jeering and condemning kids who choose abstinence as means of insuring safe sex.

The critics of the critics of this new immorality have become so jaded and encased in a cocoon of apathy and cynicism that they really don’t see what all the commotion is about. Heh, if you’ve seen one boob, you’ve seen them all, begs the question then why is pornography still, annually, after all these boob-filled years, a multi-billion dollar industry? Why does MTV keep selling sex if the market is saturated? But for a woman who is molested against her will, it is still a traumatic and devastating event that can scar her for a lifetime. To promote such molestation, abuse and dehumanization sends a subtle message to would-be victims, and would-be attackers. Brace yourself Kate, because he is somehow validated in his actions toward you, by MTV, the NFL, CBS, Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake, etc.

Out of curiosity, where are the compassionate liberals, the feminists, the human rights activists, the civil rights activists who love the rhetorical jabs but do nothing to stem this tide of debauchery that is aimed at our kids? And, sorry, but more money from the Federal Government will NOT solve this problem. It is one that can only be solved by instilling a new respect for human life back into our country. A respect for decency and integrity.

Instead of trashing groups like, the Boy Scouts, for example, for wanting to remain virtuous and decide who they want to be intimate with, and in what way, we should be honoring children who have decided, as their CHOICE, to live a certain lifestyle and protect their innocence.

There is an age when all little Mouseketeers grow up, become responsible for their actions and suffer the consequences. But in the case of little kids who never had a childhood, who have always been handled by adults and have never been taught right from wrong, then it is hard to hold them accountable for the incredibly stupid and self-destructive things adults have been telling them to do for their careers. But hopefully, we can ALL learn from their mistakes.

I missed the whole “Survival” series because, frankly, I am too busy living my own life.

But what has CBS shown us about ourselves, human nature and the raw nature of man? Nothing we didn’t already know.

They just manipulated it, put sixteen human faces on it, exploited them and got bragging rights for high ratings.

But I have a survival challenge for CBS . . . why not do something really creative, revolutionary, and provocative . . . rise above the mediocre standards you have allowed to dominate.

Put sixteen people on an island who want to leave that place better, more compassionate, loving, and humble.

Anyone can take a jerk and make him a bigger, richer jerk. There is no mystery or creativity in that transformation.

Have the cataways focus on their spiritual growth, not their physical comfort . . . their state of being instead of their devious tactics.

Anyone can revel in his decadence but it is far more difficult to survive the challenge of goodness, virtue, purity, honor, selflessness and self-sacrifice.

That is the survival that really counts, and makes everyone a winner.

The Supreme Court of New Jersey has determined that little girls who have been taught by the public school system how to have sex safely are old enough to arrange an abortion for herself, without her parent’s consent, when she fails the course.

Since they think she is mature enough to handle not only the debasing by the school system, the exploitation by a young man, and the subsequent life-threatening operation by someone she doesn’t even know, then they should go one step further.

They should wave the driving age to allow her to get to the abortion clinic.

I mean, if she is fourteen, pregnant, and can’t tell her parents, how is she supposed to transport herself there and back without anyone knowing.

Because, after all, the very brilliant and fair minds of the New Jersey Supreme Court said it will not permit the state to impose disparate and unjustifiable burdens on different classes of young women when fundamental constitutional rights hang in the balance.

So that means, unfair driving limitations impose disparate burdens on 14-year-olds. And if the young girl is old enough to make such a life-threatening decision, then what about the young boy who got her pregnant. He should not only be allowed to drive, but be registered for military duty, vote and be able to own a gun.

These are adults now after all, and should have every right available to them that adults do. There is just one thing the Court forgot to tell these girls . . . there is no constitutional guarantee that they won’t become infertile, suicidal, despondent, self-destructive or even die, as a result of this new right they have to practice adulthood. And if any of these things occur . . . who is responsible? Certainly not the parents, they didn’t have a clue she was pregnant. The Courts? No . . . they are always immune. The young boy who got her pregnant? Heavens no, that would be unfair. The school that lied about the rights of free sex without discussing the responsibilities? Not a chance.

So, it looks like the little girl is going to be learning at a very young age that only she is responsible for her actions, and the consequences of her actions, because the court has determined she can’t be discriminated against because of her age. Gee, that seems only fair, and I am sure that is what the authors of the constitution hoped would happen with young girls in America.

General Robert E. Lee’s picture has been taken down from many buildings in America, and even plaques in Texas have been removed where he praised the bravery of the Texans.

It is a slippery slope when we start eliminating parts of history we find offensive, and destroying pictures of someone we don’t like.

Ironically, the people insisting Lee’s picture be taken down, are the same ones who support full funding of art work in public museums, no matter how offensive and degrading.

My big question is can people complain about Bill Clinton’s picture being displayed in post offices and other public buildings?

For many, what he stands for is just as offensive and insulting as what they claim Lee stood for. He is a devisive leader who has pit one group of citizens against another and separated himself from the rule of law. What is the difference between Lee and Clinton other than one served with honors in the military and one dodged the draft?

To many, they are both despicable characters.

Should all these people be exposed to their portraits? Yes . . . as a reminder that we still live in a free country full of divergent views . . . lest we forget. This is Nina May . . .still searching for consistency.

I remember celebrating the fourth of July in England, when I was sixteen years old.

Well, I couldn’t exactly celebrate it because I couldn’t find anyone in England who understood the significance of it. I sort of forgot that they lost. And unfortunately, it seems that there are millions of Americans who forget that we won.

We won the right to have control over our destinies, to express ourselves, to worship as we choose, to keep and bear arms to protect ourselves from an oppressive government, to determine who lives in our homes, who our leaders are, who we choose to govern us.

And as we see six members of a nine member panel of appointed judges not having even a semi-working knowledge of the document that guaranteed these inalienable rights, then maybe it is time to remind ourselves again. Just who are we as a nation?

We stretch the constitution to justify killing unborn and partially born children while ignoring it to allow prayer in school.

We enlarge the first amendment to allow degrading and misogynist pornography, but insist that the right to keep and bear arms is not a right reserved to the individual . .. even though it is in the Bill of Rights . . .reserved to the individual. M

aybe this July Fourth, instead of cooking hotdogs and watching firecrackers, maybe we should all read the constitution together and remember why we are celebrating this holiday.