I can’t describe the national love-hate relationship with Donald Trump, in any other way than it reminds me of the emotional rollercoaster that a teenage girl is on during her first serious crush or romance.

So, work we me and channel your teenage girl as we analyze the Trump phenomenon as it relates to the average voter, and how it so parallels the dating experience.

So, the country is sitting in the stands of the political campaign and a group of young girls sees a new guy come in the gym and he is heading their way. They are giddy with excitement and wonder who he is, where he came from, does he go to their school now, or is he just visiting?

They watch as the 16 man team of their peers also size him up and immediately dismiss him as what . . . a dandy? An outsider? A flash in the pan who couldn’t possibly qualify to be on their team, or any other team for that matter? Yes, the guys dismiss him as irrelevant, a non player, not a factor in their goal to win that game they are about to play.

The girls on the other hand see potential. They smile sweetly as he glances up at them and, as if hit by lightening, a few get instant crushes. “Oh my gosh” . . . do the fluttery hands thing in front of the face . . . “he looked at me,” “He’s so cute, OMG, OMG, girl talk, girl talk, girl talk, yadda, yadda.”

All it took for the guys to be interested in this interloper was to see the mooney looks on the faces of their girls. “Wait, those are our girls.” Well, they didn’t mean in the existential way of domination or control, only that they have always been in the stands, cheering on the team that consisted of the same guys they have known all their lives. But still, they expect loyalty from their fans and these girls are their base after all.

But the new guy sees it differently as he flashes his dazzling smile and the girls swoon, practically falling out of the stands to meet him. And of course the new boy eats it up, loves the attention and even sees a couple of really cute ones he would like to date.

So, fast forward, he starts dating one of the popular girls who had always been the girlfriend of the BMOC, so, she was quite a catch for the new guy. The team members vicariously share the anger of the ditched BMOC and decide to jump him after class and beat him up.

But no one warned them that he was not only a street fighter but was a national champion in the Golden Gloves competition, had practiced mixed martial arts his whole life and ate guys like them for breakfast. So one by one, they would take a shot, and get smacked down by the pro of smack down. The field was dwindling as the onlookers marveled at the speed, the dexterity, and even the dirty underhanded tactics of this new boy. He was a street fighter after all. What did they expect . . . tiddlywinks?

How dare he call them names, point out their weaknesses and think that he could be on the same stage with them. Who did he think he was anyway? Well, the girls, and now the gathering crowd knew. He was a breath of fresh air from the status quo of doing what the team captains and players always said they should do. He was fearless in his attack of the establishment and brought in a new era of change to the stale air in the gym that was so desperately needed.

And, he gave the team and the school the hope they needed to see a victory over the competing schools for the National Championship.

But one of the girls who had the crush on him for his strength, and the fearless way he dealt with all the opposition, became very angry when he refused to face the tough questioning by a girl on one of the team panels. How could this be? How could their hero, who rode in on the white horse to save them all, now be caving in fear to a girl who might ask tough questions? It was especially shocking since all the other players were willing to subject themselves to her heartless, cruel, bare knuckled questioning.

So, the game against Iowa did not go well for the new kid. The team actually won without him playing in the field, and the girl with the crush, was crushed. Where was her champion? Her hero? To her, he looked like a spoiled brat who was used to getting his way. She lost respect for him and decided she was not going to date him any more, she was going back to the BMOC who was predictable, safe and would never rock her boat like this new guy did.

He gets angry and lashes out at the other team members who are left standing on the stage and an all out brawl occurs, further disgusting her with the team, the system, and the circumstances. She is heartbroken, her first crush has disappointed her and she doesn’t want to have anything to do with any of them, ever again. Period. End of story.  But, she looks out the window and sees the killler team amassing win after win and realizes, they need to hang together or they will be destroyed in the national championship playoffs. They need to choose a team captain and all work together.

And just when she was ready to wash that man right out of her hair, her brother comes in, tells her what a great guy he is and that he is throwing his support behind this new guy. She is in shock. She feels betrayed on so many levels, but then realizes she loves her brother, she trusts him and maybe he is seeing something in the new guy she never saw before.

Then before long, in the next few months, she would come home and see her brother, the new guy, lots of the other team members sitting calmly in the living room watching some sport or another. She would walk through, marvel at the transformation, and think, “Hm, he is kind of cute.”

Wow, was that tedious. But it makes a point that the nation has been dating the new guy, Donald Trump, and experiencing all the teenage angsts that go with that adventure. There is the initial crush, the validation of said crush, the over extension of expectation, the reassessing of first and second impressions and then the settling of the dust.

With Ben Carson, throwing his support behind Trump, it is the same as the protective brother, the angry team member or BMOC changing his mind about the interloping new kid. This changes the dynamics of all the relationships and forces the girls, who had the crushes and lost them, to now see the new guy through new eyes.

Ben Carson’s support of Trump is a game changer if for no other reason, he was the one who stressed continually that he felt God had called him to run and was committed to hearing that still small voice. When I suggested a while back that they all get in a room, draw straws like the apostles in their replacement of Judas, there were no lights going on that gee, maybe we should see what God thinks since we all claim we love him and have a relationship with him through Jesus.

So, the most spiritual of the whole group, the one who never stopped saying he wanted God’s Will in the whole process, is the one who is backing the new kid, the bad boy, the street fighter, the heart breaker, the newly redeemed member of the team.

Now, we just have to watch for the rest of the story to see if he and his first crush get back together, giving him enough votes to win the general election (the National Championship) against the nasty girl from the other school. Stay tuned for another exciting adventure of . . . “America’s Love Affair with Donald Trump.”

As I watched Sarah Palin give her speech endorsing Donald Trump, knowing she is going to get push back from conservative leaders, I couldn’t help but think of an experience in college.

The Dean of Women declared it mandatory for all female students to attend a speech by Betty Friedan. I was never interested in being any place without guys, and the last thing I needed was to hear from a woman who blamed all men for her problems.

Having been raised with three brothers, I knew guys were actually a lot of fun, were far more daring than the girls and their clothes were more comfortable. So, when  Betty began to trash all men as the enemy of all women, I couldn’t help but think of my brothers. They had always loved and supported me, allowed me to play soccer and basketball with them, and were thrilled that I was a better shot than all of them. They would actually brag on my groupings at the gun range.

But the line that propelled me to stand up in opposition, in the middle of her speech was, “Men have always told women what to do, now, if you listen to us . . . the feminists will move you into the right direction since we know what’s best for you … you stupid little women.” I added that last part, but that was the gist of what she was saying.

I stood, interrupted her and said, “You just told us not to let men tell us what to do, to think for ourselves, and then followed with the suggestion that we should listen to you and your movement. That is a bit of a contradiction, don’t you agree?”

The entire time I was standing and speaking in protest against this new fascism rising, the dean of women was behind me telling me to sit down and be quiet. Instead, I asked who agreed with me and left with about a third of the audience in tow. Can’t believe they still let me graduate.

It also reminded me of the time I was protesting a pro-abortion march at the Capitol in the late 70’s and these women, who were claiming to be pro-choice and for equal rights, were trying to take away my right to speak, by telling the police to arrest me. They claimed I didn’t have a permit to speak. I said I thought the Constitution was the only permit I needed. I remember a very angry woman, yelling at me that she had to raise four kids alone. I reminded her that I didn’t get her pregnant. She kept yelling.

Again, open minded, tolerant, feminists trying to tell me to sit down and shut up.  And something tells me Sarah will not be intimidated by the left or right concerning her decision to support Trump and she will not sit down and shut up either.

As a response to the feminist’s attempt at indoctrination, I formed a group called the Renaissance Women. That was In 1982 when the assumption was that all working women were feminists and all moms who stayed home were pathetic losers. I was trying to become a pathetic loser but couldn’t get pregnant so I had to continue running my very successful publishing company, while attending law school.

I hated being lumped with “them,” just because I was a professional, working outside the house so I defined women like me as “Renaissance Women,” and the name has held through the years. I discovered that there were millions like me who rejected the monolithic stereotyping of all women as though just because we have the same genitalia, we think alike, vote alike, act alike or support the same candidates.

I was invited to debate Gloria Steinem on the Phil Donahue Show . . . yes, I am that old . . . and I was shocked by the ease it took to tee the ball up for her to hit into an angry crowd. She was saying that all women should support the Mondale/Ferraro ticket and I asked her if she would be so compelled to support a ticket with Phyllis Schlafly on it. I then proceeded to ask her why she, and all feminists vilify any woman who disagrees with them when they claim they are about free choice, equality, women’s rights, freedom, blah blah blah.

Turns out, that only applies to liberal women, liberal blacks, liberal anything. We have watched for years as they have moved to silence, intimidate, marginalize and ridicule any black who dares to embrace the party of Lincoln and refuse to stay on the state sponsored plantation. If they try and escape to the reality of conservative ideals and philosophies, they are hunted by the hounds of derision and undergo what Clarence Thomas referred to, as a high tech lynching.

So, back to the reason for writing this, before I took a little trip down feminist memory lane. As a conservative women I have seen the vilification and contempt for other women who share my beliefs and saw the full scale, public flaying of a competent, successful woman who was governor of the largest state in the union. The only thing she needed to change to become the darling of the left, was her belief system.

If Sarah Palin had been a liberal Democrat, there is no doubt she would probably be president or running for president today instead of another woman. Unlike Sarah, this other woman who is the darling of the left, is a hackneyed, pathetically desperate person who is bereft of original ideas and will do anything to try and prove she did it on her own with no one’s help. Ok Hillary, we’ll agree … Benghazi is all yours.

When Sarah announced she was supporting Trump, she was full of the same fire and passion that has always driven and compelled her to action. There was also a justified anger in her demeanor and words. She, like millions of conservatives feel betrayed not only by the political establishment, but all the special interest groups that have successfully marginalized conservatives in all corners of society whether the media, entertainment, education, or politics.

In the old cowboy shows you had the marshall and his deputies in charge and they were the arbiter of all conflicts. But then, somewhere in the plot, they would start abusing their power, claiming it was what was best for the town until creeping authoritarianism was strangling free thought. It would take an outside person, who hated bullies and wanted justice, to come in and save the day. There would be a stand off either in the saloon or on the street and the whole town was rooting for the new guy because they knew status quo had to go.

And that is why Sarah Palin, and millions of other conservatives are voting for the new gunslinger in town because he shares their anger at the abuse of power, at the flaunting of the law that is applied one way to one group and another way to another. At this point, it doesn’t matter if the battle is in the main street and windows are blown out, because there will be a time of cleanup after the  shoot out. The town is tired of being held hostage, first by an out-law administration, and second by an enabling Congress that hoodwinked the town into buying their musical instruments.

OK, I know I’ve jumped genres, but you get the drift. People are tired of being lied to, of being fleeced, of being ridiculed and marginalized and told they can’t say or think a certain way, and if they deny that global warming is a reality they could be fined or jailed. I threw that in to make a point of the radical nature of the battle we are in, but sadly, that is what the “Climateers” are wanting to do and there is no outcry from the right on this Draconian suggestion.

What is heard though is a voice of opposition against an over reaching government from a guy with a big gun and the will to use it. Yeah a gun analogy . . . get used to it. We are tired of talk and are looking for action.  And we are tired of being told who is more conservative and who we are “allowed” to support and aren’t.

Let’s blow some windows out and mix things up. The mirror behind the bar needs to be shot up every now and then and chairs need to be crashed on heads. We need a good old fashioned western bar fight in this country and may the strongest, the toughest, the most hard core dude in the room win.

That is why conservative women are flocking to Trump because they see that fight in him. They see a man with a pair who will face down the bullies in their town, and after winning the fight, will work to help replace the windows. He will help put a new mirror behind the bar in a saloon that will be run without fear, or intimidation or speech codes. And people who want to kill us all . . . conservative and liberal … will not be allowed to come in and destroy that peace.

Conservative women didn’t fall for the lies of the feminist movement and they don’t need self proclaimed leaders telling them who they should and shouldn’t support. I have always said a Renaissance Woman can think for herself, she doesn’t need a spokesman and she is not predictable. Because that leads to control. She is a leader not a follower, a winner not a whiner and a victor not a victim. This is the type of woman who is rising up and telling the fearful men to step aside. As Lee Iacocca once said . .. “Lead, follow, or get out of the way.”

The problem with Senator Harry Reid’s personal and embarrassingly unprofessional attack of Rush Limbaugh, on the Senate floor, accusing him of saying something he didn’t, is that it smacks of fresh hypocrisy. That New York Times fire sale ad, that Moveon.org bought, still lines America’s bird cage, and with a tilt of the head, the whole country can see those great big, obnoxious, military-hating words . . . GENERAL PETRAEUS or GENERAL BETRAY US. Oh how clever, and what exactly was the betrayal that would cause this outrageous character assassination? Why didn’t Harry condemn this? And who can forget the wannabe Commander in Chief, Hillary Clinton, basically calling this brave man a liar during a four-hour interrogation? Where Was Harry on that one?
Here is the transcript of what Rush really said. You decide if he was dishonoring the troops or singling out the actions of one man who lied about his military service in order to trash the service.

*“The morning update on Wednesday dealt with a soldier, a fake, phony soldier by the name of Jesse MacBeth who never served in Iraq; he was never an Army Ranger. He was drummed out of the military in 44 days. He had his day in court; he never got the Purple Heart as he claimed, and he described all these war atrocities. He became a hero to the anti-war left. They love phony soldiers, and they prop ’em up. When it is demonstrated that they have been lying about things, then they just forget about it. There’s no retraction; there’s no apology; there’s no, “Uh-oh, sorry.” After doing that morning update on Wednesday, I got a phone call yesterday from somebody, we were talking about the troops, and this gentleman said something which you’ll hear here in just a second, prompting me to reply ‘yeah, the phony soldiers.’”

“Howard Dean has released a statement demanding I apologize; Jim Webb; John Kerry issued a statement, three Congress people went out on the floor of the House last night and said some things, and it’s starting to blossom now in the Drive-By Media. So this is the anatomy of a smear, and this is how it starts.”

Harry continued his rant by saying, “Rush Limbaugh took it upon himself to attack those who are fighting and dying for him. He never served in a uniform, etc. Never served in combat. And worse, his show is being broadcast on Armed Services Radio. He owes them an apologize.”

Gee, Harry is going to have a hard time holding all those anti-military, General-grilling, Commander-in-Chief-bashing fellow senators accountable, the way he is “pretending” to with Rush. He needs to stand Hillary up in front of the class and tell her, and the country that she is not worthy to be President because she never wore the uniform and any vote to defund them can be interpreted as being anti-military. I mean, by the Rush standard that is.

Come to think of it, Barak and Edwards have not served in the military either. Does he make the same assessment about their ability to lead? They want to be president, not a radio talk show host. There is no accountability in a free country for talk show hosts to abide by political talking points or monitor their works to comply with a self-described thought police.

Does anyone, besides Dan Rather, remember that George Bush served in the National Guard and was trashed at every point because we did not have access to every single page of his entire record so Dan, et al, filled in the blanks and concluded that he was AWOL. Wow, now that’s real respect for someone who is willing to put their life on the line. Where is his apology? Oh, and where are John Kerry’s service records that never seemed to appear during the flap over a couple of missing Bush pages? And isn’t Kerry the one who threw his medals over a fence, only to magically have them reappear when he wanted to use his “military experience” to get votes? He is considered a patriot beyond reproach, while Reagan, Bush, Dole, McCain, Bush . . . were all fair game when dissecting their military records.

Remember when Bush flew in on that aircraft carrier, proving once again that he attended enough classes to be able to land a jet on a postage stamp? But what was the reaction? It is hard to describe the sound of the gnashing of teeth and grinding of bones, but the left was not happy at that amazing site where young boys all over the country sat in awe, watching a president who didn’t loath the military like their mom’s president had.

Speaking of loathing the military. Wow . . . what an amazing statement for a commander in Chief not to be held accountable for. It is too bad that Harry Reid was not in the Senate when Clinton was president, otherwise his unwavering outpouring of love and devotion for the military would certainly have been exhibited in the same type of excoriation on the floor of the senate he just treated Rush to. Oh wait . . . he was in the Senate during Clinton’s term and that never came up. Imagine that . . . a private citizen can point out that an imposter is going around, posing as a soldier, trashing the war and the troops, cheating the government out of $10,000, and he is trashed on the floor of the Senate, while a draft dodging Commander in Chief who loathes the military is heralded as a hero. Very odd.

So, Harry Reid insisted that Rush issue an apology . . . for something he didn’t do, and graciously he consented. It’s sort of like seeing a baby crying, smelling a change is needed, seeing the mom is busy, and you just go ahead and clean up a mess that you didn’t make.

Rush begins his apology to the troops by saying, “So they’re going to try to deflect the criticism away from their pet organization, MoveOn.org, whose “Betray Us” ad backfired totally on them. It was a Wellstone moment for them, as this will be. But since you will never get an apology from Jack Murtha for mischaracterizing you as murderers, since you’ll never get an apology from John Kerry, since you won’t get an apology from Media Matters for America or anybody that works there, to all of you in the US Military, I want to apologize to you for them for the, again, firestorm over something that did not happen regarding your valor and your commitment to freedom and democracy last week on this program. I really regret that it happened, and I apologize to you on their behalf since they won’t.”

Yes, class trumps cowardice and blatant hypocrisy, every time.

It is amazing that these same elected officials, who are paid to serve, not be petty dictators, fall all over themselves to make sure a fellow petty dictator, Iran’s Ahmadinejad is allowed a free and open forum even though his named goal is to destroy them, Rush, you, me . . . and gee . . . every single person in our military, phony or not.

This charade of selective outrage is a precursor to their strategy to dismantle talk radio and impose restrictions on speech by reintroducing the “(un)Fairness Doctrine.” Ironically, Rush invited all of the senatorial detractors to come on his show . . . offering them a public forum to share with the rest of us, the disgust they feel about a fabricated lie. We would all love to hear from them, and try and get an understanding of why they are so outraged by this but not the statements made by Democrats who REALLY do insult the troops.

I couldn’t decide on an opening for this piece. I was tempted to start by condemning McCain, Guiliani, Romney and Thompson for not appearing at the PBS debate in Baltimore, hosted by Tavis Smiley. They helped perpetuate the mythical stereotype that Republicans don’t care about blacks and issues that most specifically affect them. Then I thought, no, that only helps to pump life into that stereotype, and I think pandering is overrated. So I will focus my irritation on those who have created the now, four headed front-running machine, presuming that they are going to be the choice of an entire Party, when many others wait in the wings for a chance to show the nation who they are, and what they stand for. And thankfully, Tavis Smiley and PBS gave them a chance inspite of the no shows.

The very ones who are exorcised over the four candidates, who they and their supportive organs have identified as the only ones who can possibly win the election, are upset when they don’t fulfill their expectations of being all that an obedient, moderate, status quo candidate should be. Suddenly not only are they the enemy of all things good and wonderful, they become a negative reflection for an entire party. It is sort of like the reparations advocates blaming all whites for slavery when hundreds of thousands gave their lives and limbs to free the slaves.

What should have been reported was that six very competent, articulate, passionate candidates DID show up and engaged in a conversation that helped destroy myths, explain foundational beliefs, and bring a nation closer to a much needed healing that has been stymied for over a century by the very party that now claims to be the civil rights party.

As a result of whining and wringing hands, those complaining about the noticeable absence of the anointed four have basically said that they aren’t interested in any other candidates. They don’t think they have a chance, and they aren’t going to give them a chance. Then why invite them to speak? Why not just preemptively decide which four you could live with, if any one of them should win, and then ignore the others? You don’t invite 10 people to a dinner party, and then disrespect the ones who come just because four rejected your invitation. Who is being rude here?

The problem that the media, the RNC, the DNC, the political pundits and spin meisters have created is that they think that just because they have settled on four of ten or eleven or twelve candidates (it is still an evolving process), then the rest of us need to embrace those four and shut up.

Hasn’t any one of these rocket scientists noticed that none of these top four . . . McCain, Guiliani, Romney or Thompson . . . has ever gotten more than about 25% rating in a poll? And McCain has been in single digits in almost every poll, totally outflanked by Duncan Hunter and Mike Huckabee. Why haven’t they moved up to the top tier? Who decides when that happens, and why is there a top tier anyway? Could it be that in the nationally televised debates that the questioners only focus on the top four and throw an occasional bone to the others? They have created the top four and refuse to allow another, especially a true conservative, to break into that realm. The reason is, they have all determined, even the RNC, that they can live with, and expect mediocrity, therefore ignore the possibility that a true conservative could be a viable, possible candidate.

But with that attitude, they will never see any of their handpicked candidates getting more than 25%. Oh sure, Guiliani beats Hillary in a face off, but that is not hard when she can never get above 42% approval rating in any poll. So, instead of seeing that as an opportunity to put in a candidate that could rally the conservative base, they play it safe, ride the middle, and force a moderate down the throats of their conservative base in favor of pretending to be Democrat-lite.

Then of course there is the issue of money. The pundits and advisors have a vested interest in keeping these four as visible as possible because they are being paid the big bucks. That is why fundraising dollars are so important and that drumbeat has become annoyingly predictable. Of course they need to raise the millions and millions that somehow is deemed the only answer to a political race. Somehow millions and millions of dollars is supposed to translate into millions and millions of votes. No, it just translates into millions and millions of dollars for political advisors who have created a Chabul for themselves with the hope of keeping interlopers out.

The Republican Party still hasn’t quite figured out that the reason they lost in 2006 was because the conservatives rejected their left leaning tendencies. As a result . . . actually, as a habit, the party rejects these “right wing extremists radical nut jobs”, wishing they would just leave the party forgetting that, oh my gosh, they are the party. It is hard to imagine that they would want the “left wing extremists radical nut jobs” to take over the party or to even win elections.

Let’s do a side by side . . . right-wingers, want school vouchers for inner city kids to get an opportunity at the kind of education that say, Chelsea Clinton had, while left-wingers are more concerned about the teachers unions than the kids’ education. Right-wingers think that people should be able to keep more of their hard earned money, have less government interference in their lives and basically be left alone. Left-wingers believe that you work for the government, and everything you have belongs to everyone . . . sort of a collectivist idea as opposed to a libertarian, individualist thought process. Right-wingers believe that God is not the enemy and should be allowed in daily discourse and cultural expression. Left-wingers hate God unless he is the god of oppressive dictating bullies like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran.

Right-wingers think that free speech should apply to all individuals, including conservatives like Ann Coulter and Jim Gilchrist, while left-wingers believe that only people who believe the way they do, or are oppressive dictating bullies, should have the right to speak. And moderates sit as though they are watching the volley at a tennis match, waiting to see which side scores the most points before joining a team.

Moderates do play a very important role in politics though. They are so incredibly predictable that the manipulation levels are elevated to such a high degree during an election, that with just the right placed hint of scandal, suggestion of racism, whisper of infidelity, can bring even the most seasoned and secure candidate tumbling down. Oh, that is of course, if that candidate is a Republican. Those techniques not only do not work on Democrats, but the hint of any of the above brings their party roaring in a unified voice that their person has been vilified by the mean-spirited right-wing, thus no accountability for actions, thus success in the polls and at the polls. Interesting that nothing has been said about ALL the black candidates refusing to appear at a Congressional Black Caucus debate because Fox News was going to air it.

As blacks used to hunger for equal justice, so too Republicans hunger to be treated with the same kid gloves, righteous defiance, and incredulous anger as their Democrat counterparts. But the difference is, blacks didn’t cave into the stereotypes that were created of them and the plantations that were created for them. They fought back and rose above the abject racism and disparate treatment by petty little people. The Republican Party is so desperate to be loved, to be accepted, to be treated the same as the Democrats that they have abandoned their principles, rejected their own history, ignored their conservative candidates and squandered an amazing civil rights legacy that the Democrats would kill for.

So as the party wrings its hands and bemoans the fact that four of ten candidates did not show up at one of many, many debates that are being hosted on almost a weekly basis, they should show their anger, their disappointment by demoting their top four to the bottom tier and giving the others a chance to let America see who they are and what they stand for. The party could choose the candidates like they used to, if they had the members of the party behind them. But there is such a feeling of disgust and annoyance with the powers that be in the party, that when they look back to see who is following, they see the dust of those who left to follow their own vision for a conservative party, with principles, integrity, character and most of all . . . cajones.*

*That was thrown in to pander to the Hispanic voter. The RNC would be proud.

Senator Larry Craig has already been tried and convicted in the court of public opinion for allegedly trying to solicit an undercover cop in an airport bathroom. Welcome to the judicial system of America. The irony is, if anyone invaded anyone’s private potty time, it was the cop thrusting his badge under Craig’s stall. Is it a crime to have Restless Leg Syndrome or to touch the bottom of a stall divider? No, the crime today is being a Republican who champions family values.

The charge of hypocrisy is practically tripping off the tongues of those stalwart supporters of Bill Clinton. They criticized anyone who would look into the private lives of public officials yet now are condemning Senator Craig for keeping his alleged private life in the closet. At least he did not act out his alleged private life in a real public place, like the oval office. It will be interesting to see what Ted Kennedy’s response will be and if he calls for Craig to step down even though he never felt a similar compunction after leaving a young woman to drown in his car, dining on eggs benedict while the fish dined on her. It will be interesting to see if Hillary, who demands that President Bush come clean, stop hiding evidence and evading the truth when she herself has developed at least 500 new ways of saying “I don’t recall,” will respond to the case.

If the issue is that you cannot serve and support one position when your actions suggest something else, then we need to take a big weed whacker to congress and start thinning it out now. How was it that a man who loathed the military could end up being the Commander in Chief? How is it that people who have never served in the military can serve on the Armed Services Committee and pass bills concerning the lives of people they disapprove of? How can someone who doesn’t own a gun sit on a committee that discusses and passes laws for citizens who do own guns? How can women vote on bills that only affect men, and men vote on bills that only affect women? What is a man doing voting on the abortion issue when it is clear he will never be in a position to have one or understand the physical, psychological and emotional ramifications of one? Does a woman who has had an abortion have the right to champion a pro-life position? Is that considered hypocritical? Are only gays allowed to debate the issue of the marriage amendment, and are they required to vote in favor of it? Are black leaders always required to support Affirmative Action, and if they don’t are they deemed hypocrites and not qualified to serve?

So what if Larry Craig is gay and thinks that same sex marriage should not be allowed? You would be surprised at how many gay leaders are against gay marriage, although not for the same reasons many conservatives are. And ironically, the reason that many gays are for it is not so they can cuddle legally with their significant other, it is to demean and destroy the institution of marriage so that there are no longer social restrictions on any form of sexual behavior

Is there a rule that says that every legislator is required to vote based on their gender, their race, their sexual proclivity, and not to do so renders them a hypocrite? When Bill Clinton claims he is for women’s rights but mauls them, exposes himself, rapes and demeans them, is he not the king of hypocrites?

So the only conclusion that we can draw from the obvious outrage by the liberal Democrats demanding that Craig step down, is that they don’t think gays should serve in the Congress. At least they don’t they don’t think Republican gays should serve since they had no issue with Barney Franks running a prostitution ring out of his house, or Gerry Studs having sex with an under-aged page. And the argument that Democrat spokesmen give is that these guys got reelected. Great, then let Larry Craig stay in office and let the voters in his state decide if HE should be reelected or not. And if they reelect him, then the people of Idaho, like the people of Massachusetts have said that congress is a big tent, or that they forgive Larry for any alleged indiscretions.

But please, drop the hypocrisy line. It just doesn’t fit here. And if liberals insist that he resign, they better be knocking on Ted Kennedy’s door, suggesting that murder is a lot worse than tapping a foot in a bathroom stall. And tell Hillary that lying under oath is a lot worse than running your hand under a stall divider. But if the claims of hypocrisy continue, it will only serve to show that the Democrats are the biggest hypocrites when it comes to equal rights for all people. By calling for Craig to resign, they are saying that no matter what your sexual preference, regardless of whether you are open about it or not, gays are not allowed and not welcome in congress and will be run out on a rail from this elite body . . . oh, unless they are Democrats. Hmmmm did someone say hypocrisy?

To say the amnesty bill is an emotional issue is an understatement. The Capitol Hill phones have been ringing non-stop, causing some members to simply unplug them, and turn off their answering machines. They are hearing from their constituents that they don’t want this amnesty bill to pass and they are ignoring these pleas.

But to have a citizen arrested because they disagree is beyond the pale and begs the question, why do they care more about illegal aliens than they do their own constituents?

Homeless activist, Ted Hayes, was on Capitol Hill, like thousands of other citizens who make unscheduled visits to their congressional offices, and to other offices that don’t represent their congressional district. There is an open door policy on Capitol Hill, and anyone who has been there or worked there knows it.

Ted, who founded and ran the homeless shelter in South Central L.A., called Dome Village, was in Washington on June 19 to visit Hon. Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick on the issue of immigration. In the elevator going to her floor, he and his colleagues, Mr. James Spencer and Mr. Terrance Lang, began a conversation with some folks from Chicago who were going to see Maxine Waters in an unscheduled, meeting. Ted told them that James was from her district in Los Angeles, and they would tag along and see if they could see her as well.

When they all arrived at the office, both groups were warmly welcomed by the staff.  The Chicago group was ushered into Maxine’s personal office, and Ted, James and Terrance, waited patiently in the front room of the congressional office. They could hear laughter coming from her office and felt it was a sign that she was in a good mood and would receive their concerns about the amnesty bill.

Ted’s concern with the bill is that, as a black man who has worked with the homeless and disadvantaged for years, he sees an amnesty bill as one more obstacle for poor blacks to overcome. He sees the illegal aliens in his home area of Los Angeles putting an insurmountable burden on the social welfare and education system, and sees jobs that would ordinarily go to his people . . . going to the illegals. And when he speaks out about it, he is castigated as a racist, called names, slandered and threatened.

But this day, he was hopeful that since Maxine was seeing people half way across the nation, from a totally different district, that she would take the time to talk to one of her own constituents and their friends.

After the meeting ended though, and the Chicago group left, buoyed by the personal, engaging encounter, they waited hopefully for her to emerge from her private office and give them an audience. She did emerge, but not to talk to them. She walked right past them, which is hard to do in a ten by ten foot reception area, with two grown men standing, and one sitting. But she did, leaving the congressional office and heading for the hall. Ted got up to follow her asking why she was doing this . . . why wasn’t she going to talk to them? To this query she spun around and responded, “You are full of sh-t”, “You are full of sh-t, Ted Hayes.” I forgot to mention that she knows Ted, and has known him for 23 years. For those of you who don’t know Ted, he can be imposing in his appearance, standing 6’7”, dressed in long robs, dreadlocks, skullcap and sandals. It would be easy for the guards, who heard the ruckus, to assume that he was a foreign assailant and a threat to the congresswoman.

When he suggested that if she turns her back on her black constituents . . .the way she just did to them, and votes for the amnesty bill, that she would be through in congress. She would be finished. The female guard took this as a terrorist threat, and handcuffed him. Congresswoman Maxine Waters did nothing to prevent this, show a semblance of leadership and come to the aid of a good man that she has known for 23 years.

She could have said, “It’s ok officer, Ted is a constituent, and from the LA area, he and I disagree on a lot of issues, but believe me, he is not a terrorist. He is just passionate, as I am, about certain issues.” Did she do this? Did she care about this man she has known, being handcuffed in the halls of congress, escorted out the front doors of the Rayburn House Office Building, jailed, and charged with disorderly conduct? No, but what she did care about was whether or not he would talk to the press. Her office called and expressed her concern that this story of his arrest not be leaked to the press, and not get back to her district.

He said he would honor that request because he wanted to do the right thing, and did not want to hurt her in any way. He was just trying to have a conversation about illegal immigration and how it was hurting blacks and was confused as to why she was turning her back on her people, and was more sympathetic with people not only not from her district . . . but also not from her country.

The reason you are hearing about this now, is that he called me from the airport to apologize for not being able to call me on the 19th, to verify that we were going to get together. He sounded very embarrassed and ashamed that he had been arrested, and told me that was why he had not called. He asked me not to say anything to the press, but I told him his arrest was a matter of public record and anyone could get access to the details. And, people have right to know how out of control and arrogant this congress is on this, and many other issues.

Realizing that if this story got out, that she could look like a real elitist hypocrite in her district, Maxine offered to drop the charges if Ted would come in and apologize. Basically, denying that she was culpable of any wrong doing, even hitting him in the chest when he tried to come back into her office as she was slamming the door on him. So, she wants HIM to come and kiss her ring, and beg for mercy, and she will drop the charges.

That is a type of coercive blackmail that is in full operation on Capitol Hill, surrounding this amnesty bill, in the form of markups and pork-laden amendments. Even though almost 80% of Americans are against this bill, and have tried and tried to make their voices heard . . . they are also getting the Maxine Waters treatment, without the handcuffs and jail cell. They are being ignored, mocked, ridiculed and demonized by these people who are supposed to be “representing” them.

Congress is totally out of control, and out of touch. It is all about power and newfound votes, to keep that power. And it is both parties . . . not just Maxine’s democrat party. From Trent Lott to Lindsey Graham, who refer to those opposing the bill as bigots, and conservative talk radio as the fuel flaming those bigoted flames, the lines are clearly being drawn.

The two Americas that John Edward’s loves to talk about are his America of wealthy, elitist politicians who feel they are above the law, above the rest of us, and hold the purse strings to pay for their self-serving projects that ensure they will not be defeated. And just to sweeten the pot, if they let illegals move to the front of the line of citizenship, they hope to get rewarded with their votes. They are the new constituent de jour, and they aren’t even citizens. They slam doors in the faces of real citizens, while carrying the water for lawbreakers who have no vested interest in protecting our national interests or freedoms. The other America is the regular taxpayer who has to pay for their vanities, their well-crafted follies that ensure their survival in a job that we trusted them with.

Ted is symbolic of all of us who are classified as the disdainful necessities of absolute power. Their purring and posturing before an election ensures that once they are safely ensconced in their position of arrogant assumption, they can order the electorate to the back of the political bus and ignore their cries of protest and opposition. They can have us arrested and offer to drop charges only if we acknowledge before a tribunal that yes, they are all powerful, all knowing all seeing, and incapable of doing any wrong.

If they want to prove that the assumption I have made is wrong, then prove it by taking all rights for these illegal aliens, to ever vote, out of the amnesty bill. Make us believe that it is not about the votes and there is some higher, altruistic reason for this bill. They can’t, and they won’t. They will sell out our heritage for a handful of votes to keep them in the position of having the power to destroy each of us, and will demonstrate that absolute power by having us handcuffed and thrown in jail if we disagree with them.

And if we continue to let them do this, then shame on us.

How many public buildings have you passed with fences, security cameras, gates, guards and any measure necessary to keep us out of our own public property. And why does our government feel a need to erect a fortress around our White House? It is because they know that in a country this big, there are bound to be a few loose nuts who want to do harm to institutions they either don’t understand, don’t believe in, or feel are dangerous to their own existence. Gee, sort of like suicide bombers who slip over our open borders?

When you drive through any city in America, and down most highways, you will see cameras positioned strategically on poles to catch you breaking the law. And even if you don’t see them, there is proof that they saw you when you receive those blurry little photos in the mail with a blowup of your own license plate.

So our government is not only able to take pictures of us going about our daily lives, but they can find us and show us how incredibly smart they are.

So, why is it that people who enter our country illegally are exempt from this type of invasive treatment which reminds each and everyone of us, no matter how lawful we think we are, that the government is there watching at all times. This is the same government that refuses to protect the border, mount cameras connected to a massive data base with facial recognition software integrated with alarm systems that can deploy guards to apprehend these lawbreakers before they can do serious harm to our fellow citizens.

The same assumption that is applied to each American citizen, that we are all potentially a criminal, thus the need to enclose, lock and secure every federal or state institution or building . . . should be applied to people we don’t even know and can’t find. People who don’t have social security numbers, cell phones that are traceable, addresses that are required to open accounts and get loans, or tax forms that are expected, on time, every year. Why are there double standards in the minds of elected officials, from both parties, who insult not only our intelligence, but our freedoms, by saying WE are not honorable, but illegal aliens are. We are not worthy of open access to OUR buildings, but foreigners are worthy of access to our country, our property, our homes, our children, our jobs, our tax base, our educational system, our medical care . . . our “freedom.”

There was a time in our country when Plessey v. Ferguson (1896) ignored the 14th Amendment and suggested that determining a separate but equal society would satisfy the intent of the Amendment which was passed in order to insure that recently freed slaves had the same rights as every other US citizen.

This travesty of justice, was thankfully overturned in Brown vs. Board of Education (1954), much to the chagrin of many southern Democrat governors who chose to shut down public schools rather than integrate them. These were duly elected politicians who, like many today, continued in their arrogance and stupidity, to ignore the rule of law.

That same mentality of disparate laws being applied unequally for different classes of people is being pushed by elected officials who have turned a blind eye and a deaf ear to their constituents, nationwide, in the hopes of . . . what? Getting a whole new group of constituents who will see them as heroes and throw them their vote? That problem can easily be solved by just one courageous member of congress offering an amendment to the amnesty bill that says that any person coming into the country illegally, regardless of what legal status they obtain, including citizenship, can never vote. The only way they can get the right to vote, is by standing in line with the rest of law abiding would-be citizens.

It’s not only about fairness but it is an insult to the heritage of black Americans to allow people who receive citizenship to automatically get the right to vote, if they broke the law to get here. The 13th Amendment which passed in 1865, liberated the slaves who were brought here, against their will. It took three more years, and another constitutional amendment, to receive full citizenship. And even then, they didn’t get the right to vote for another two years when the 15th Amendment was passed. It took over 250 years for these “immigrants” to get the right to vote.

There are illegal aliens who are voting today. How do we know? In California during pro-illegal rallies, tables are blatantly set up for illegals to register to vote. There are no requirements to prove citizenship in order to vote in California. In Texas, illegals are complaining that they are being called to jury duty. Only citizens can serve on a jury. It turns out, they are not citizens, but their names were retrieved from the voter registration logs, and thus added to the list of qualified jurists.

So, who really is running the country? Who really put all these elected officials in office and why are they not responding to the vast majority of the American people who have made their collective voices heard that they oppose this amnesty bill? And why is any discussion to make the borders of America as safe against invasion, as say, the White House, met with accusations of being racist bigots by politicians from both parties?

Let’s be consistent . . . either trust all Americans and take down the fences and cameras that insinuate our guilt . . . or put a fence on the border to keep people who, by the fact that they ignore our laws have proven their guilt. Our elected officials can’t have it both ways, and if they continue to ignore our voices, like Mike Nifong, who ignored the rule of law and clear cut evidence, then we will have to be the ones to hold them accountable to the rule of law and curtail their power trip of blatant arrogance and vote them out of office. The choice is still ours . . . hopefully.