The student, Bethany Laccone, 17, was asked to cover up a logo on her shirt depicting two women in a sexual embrace. She did as asked, but complained to her parents (likely friends of Michael Newdow) that this had happened, and thus, the ACLU was brought into this.

The ACLU claimed that this was an attempt to censor the expression of a “political view”. How clever. Is this the best they can muster?

Concerning the “censorship”, I’ll be frank. Kids really don’t have all the rights adults have, and hopefully never will.

Regarding the reference to political views, first off, this is not a political view. Secondly, if in fact we wanted kids to have complete freedom to “politically” express their views, we would give them the power to vote.

Now, the school’s dress code (much like nearly every school in the Union) expresses a prohibition of “bawdy, salacious, or sexually suggestive messages.” If this does not fit that bill, I don’t know what does. In fact, in most schools, open shows of public affection are often not even tolerated between heterosexual folks. But this is NOT about what “sexuality” you are, but rather, whether or not you have a right to express that graphically, on a shirt, or in actions with others, in a public school, as a minor.

Most schools have instituted in policy (which is the grassroots “law” for Administrators to follow) standards of dress, and action, among other things. The underlying premise of these policies is that students are NOT allowed to act however they wish when those actions might interfere with the maintenance of basic order.

And, concerning these policies, the schools have great latitude. The most amazing example recently is the “Bong Hits for Jesus” case. Google it if you are not aware of it. This case even gave power to the school over the student OFF CAMPUS.

At the crux of the issue at hand now is the teacher who asked the shirt be covered. She stated it “interfered with her ability to teach.”

In spite of the ACLU’s ‘threats’, many landmark cases have been decided in the last 20 years that set the precedence in these types of cases that concern schools. In addition, many other victories have been won concerning other Constitutional related issues, such as the use of “Christmas” next to the word “Program” or “Break”. I know, because I was on a School Board who has challenged the ACLU on such an issue. We won (the ACLU completely folded after many months, after they saw we would not yield), and the District where I live now has, again, “Christmas Break” on their calendar, and school marquis, after more than a 20 year hiatus.

The ACLU knows they have NO standing to win these cases. They simply threaten, like a rattlesnake, in the hopes people or institutions will back down. And guess what? MOST of the ACLU’s ‘victories’ have been the result of these weak kneed politicians or officials figuring the fight was not worth the expense.

This current case is another ACLU “cornered rattlesnake” act. Speaking again from some experience on School Boards, the Supreme Court has ruled in many cases that, under the broad umbrella of preserving order, broad restrictions such as restrictive dress codes can be demanded in policy. If you want a simple example, YOUR public school has the right, right NOW, to impose a school uniform, if they want.

Unfortunately, in the lesbian T-shirt case, up to this point in time, the School (Principal) is falling for the rattlesnake rattle. With any luck, a good Superintendent, or School Board member, will intervene and get the right “guns” into the fight, and allow the decision to find the support it deserves.

In this case, the ACLU gave the school until January 11th to respond. I certainly hope they have contacted the “anti” ACLU organizations that have emerged, and are doing a fine job of shutting the ACLU agenda both down, and up. Regarding the student, she stated that she just wants to wear her shirt. Well, there are some places you can wear that shirt. But not in public school, any more than another student can wear shirts showing two heterosexuals or homosexuals embracing sexually.

She went on to say, “I don’t feel like I should have to hide my sexuality.”

Well, you don’t have to “hide” it. You can show it where you want. You just also have to accept the consequences. If it were not a shirt, why don’t you try standing up in class every 3 minutes and say “I am a lesbian!”

See how far that flies.

In a High School setting full of kids swimming in their own hormone pools (I know, I was there), these kinds of shirts, without a doubt, pose an unquantifiable disturbance.

This school did the right thing, the first time. Let’s hope that they find the right path back to supporting the rights they have to make the decision they made in the first place.

Take the time to contact their Superintendent of Schools on this issue.David.Stuckwisch@pps.k12.va.us

“Those knuckle dragging Neanderthals.”

However, there is a part of this story that I have not heard ANYONE illustrate yet.

Two ads have Crosses, with two very different reactions from the press to the creators of those ads.What I would like to do is, present the ads here, first, for those of you who have not seen them. Then I will tell you what I think is the real story here.

The issue in question here, is, the Cross. In one ad, Huckabee’s, it is the forming of two white wood pieces of a bookshelf. In McCain’s, it is prominently drawn out, and definitively shown to be a Cross.

What is the issue that the secular media and liberal left is having with these ads?

Well, they are not having an issue with the “ads”. They are having an issue with Huckabee’s ad. They are stating that he subliminally highlighted the white wood cross sections of the- ‘b o o k s h e l f’ – and insist that he was trying to talk to people either as ‘the Christian who speaks for them’; or the ‘most Christian of the candidates’; or that ‘really, it is Christians that are worth his time and effort’.

First off, this represents the paranoia of the left so well, it is almost sad that it is a Christmas ad that brings this out of them. It is just too hard to knock the crap out of them when it is so close to Christmas. But, I will gladly do it, as my gift to you.

Secondly, in their rush to attack Huck while all the while leaving McCain alone, once again they are showing the weakness and hypocrisy of their logic.Huckabee’s ad is attacked for ‘possibly’ using the Cross (in the mind of the paranoid), McCain’s blatantly uses the Cross.

Third, the far left is truly at odds with the “majority” on this issue. 80-90% of Amercians say they are Christians. However, they (the secular left, and media) don’t seem to care. CNN stated, about all of the ads for candidates from both the Republican and Democrat parties, “Since when do Presidential Nominees treat us to Christmas Ads?”

My response would be, ALL puns intended, “For Christ’s sake, why in the HELL would they NOT be doing Christmas ads in a Country that is overwhelmingly Christian???”

WHY does all of this matter? For several reasons…Because it illustrates the differing ‘levels’ of Christianity in our Country. If 80-90% of this Country says they are Christians, then that means that most Democrats are Christians as well. However, the liberal wing of the Democratic party (which is now the vocal majority) supports abortion. They support leniency with criminals. They support the legalization of drugs. They support the Unionization of workforces, even to the detriment of the ability of the business to stay IN business.

They claim to support “freedom”, but want to restrict religious expression via the ACLU. And they don’t even apply that hateful restriction to all religions. No, they save that energy for one religion: Christianity.

The reason that the response to the two ads is so amazing is, the reactions are the opposite of what one would expect, if in fact the real issue was whether or not a Cross was used in them. McCain’s ad should have the heat, and most people should be shrugging about Huck’s, because his was not overt or even planned, most likely.

But the left (including the media) is grilling Huck, and not McCain, because of ONE reason…Huckabee is a threat to them. McCain is NOT.

1. Mike Huckabee is, in their minds eye, the evangelical Christian, is a “real” Christian, with values he adheres to daily, to be feared. John McCain, much like the left, is a “sometimes” Christian, willing to hear the pleas of the left and seculars, who picks and chooses “when” to be ‘Christian’, or, perhaps more fairly, when to adhere to Conservative Christian values.

2. Most conservatives AND liberals have recognized, accurately, that McCain is not always a reliable vote on Conservative social issues, and even some Governmental issues – McCain Feingold campaign finance reform, and more recently, the immigration bills that tried to fly through Congress this last summer. This makes McCain more popular with the seculars, as they win when he waffles on Conservative issues.

Don’t get me wrong here. I am not telling you what “I” think of McCain or Huckabee on the issue of how “Christian” they are. I am not saying McCain is not a Christian. I am telling you what the Sec-Progs think of them, and why there is outrage for one ad that is innocuous, and not for the ad that is more direct with the usage of the Cross.

I WILL say, however, that I am stating who I think is more Conservative socially. That is clearly Huckabee.

This is why the Sec-Progs are attacking Huckabee. He is a danger to what they believe.

Dems and liberals are not as concerned about fiscal conservatives, as they are about SOCIAL conservatives.

I will say for myself, and on the record, that the reason for this sentiment is due to the fact that McCain runs center often, and sticks his fingers in the eyes of Conservatives often, on key issues. McCain is akin to Specter at times, depending on the issue. He is sometimes the Conservative equivalent of the Democrat Zell Miller.

You have to pay attention, folks, to what is being said and what is not being said. Who is complaining about what, when, and when they fall silent, and why.

Concerning these ads, it is not my intent here to attack McCain, or support Hucakbee, but rather to point out the amazingly hypocritical difference in the response to two ads when it comes to the media, and the secular progressives of America.

Lastly, take a look at the picture I used for this post. Go up, look at it. It is a picture I took in my house.

I had no idea how many Crosses I had in my house until I looked. It is a good thing I am not running for President. Having my picture taken in front of that window pane, you see, I might have had to answer to the “A-SEE-EL-YOU!”, or some other form of “thought police” from the left…

Merry Christmas, and Happy Chanukkah!Oh- and if you are one of the secular folks… buy stock in COAL! I hope your stocking runneth over!

The details are rather impressive. Iraqi deaths are down and at lows that would have been unexpected last January. Same goes for U.S. deaths. In an area of Iraq that truly was run by the likes of Al Qaida, Sunni and Shiite insurgents, Petraeus and the U.S. military have imposed a calm and control that just might be enough to allow for the second part of the plan to take place: the political progress that Iraqi’s must provide now.

In August of this year, US deaths were reported at 84. In September, 65, and in October, 36. Well over 20,000 Shiites and Sunni’s have signed up to join the fight in the last four months. Iraqi deaths have declined sharply as well. August was at 1,956 Iraqi deaths; September 1,023, and October was on a pace for under 900.

This creates one heck of a problem for Democrats that have voted against war funding, or those that have openly criticized not only the policy set forth by the President (such as the surge), but even perpetuated the overall sentiment that the war was lost.

What a terrible place to be in, going into 2008. If the war continues to progress with success, and political progress is more clear, what will the electorate do with Democrats who vociferously stated that we had lost, or that they would de-fund us into surrender?

Even more terrible is to be in the unpatriotic position that you voted against funding troops, while trying to pass it off as “support” because you were saving them from losing a war that they could not win in the middle of a “Civil War” in Iraq.

I sure hope the success continues. I am not sure that most liberals can say the same. They know that will mean they will be handed their hats next election if it does. Amazingly, I imagine most of them secretly hope things will worsen and that we will lose…

What a shame… Thank God we had those two Bolts (Bush and Petraeus) to hold us together.

But right now our hat is off for the General.

It’s also not time for North Korea, taxes, CNN, Nancy Pelosi, Daily KOS, Harry Reid, Cindy Sheehan, John Murtha, Iran or Ahmadinejad…

Not time for Kim Jong Il, Billary Clinton, Barack Hussein Obama, or Osama bin Laden.

For one day, I am going to try to give myself the gift of not having to think about or deal with those sorry folks or issues.

I hope you can and will do the same…

Merry Christmas…

With that in mind, I have to try to avoid writing an article on the “nine second” Senate farce of today. Apparently the Dems felt they needed to be the mouse that roared as they gaveled in and gaveled out a meaningless expression of “power”, in order to make sure that Bush did not have the opportunity to make a recess appointment for the Assistant AG. Yahoo for them. Wow. Big move on their part.

What I would rather focus on is the failures of the left, most notably on National Energy Policy, over the decades, as driven by the left of the Democrat party- and illustrate how they are responsible for the deaths of American soldiers in the Middle East.

Let’s start with one basic premise of the left.”The war in Iraq is over oil.”

OK. Let’s say, for the sake of argument, “You’re right.” I mean, we can make the argument, pretty easily, that the US is not gaining any OIL benefits at this time for attacking Iraq. That would normally be enough to dispel the idiotic logic of the left that the war was about securing some kind of oil windfall for the west or the United States.

On the other hand, there might be a reason to concede ONE thing when those on the left say “The war is over oil.” We could concede that, were there NO oil in Iraq, there would have been no reason to go into Iraq after September 11th, right?

WRONG.

Afghanistan is not exactly oil rich. Yet we went in there because their was a perception of threat from there, after September 11th. It had nothing to do with oil. (Some will argue it has to do with a proposed pipeline… whatever.)

Similarly, were there no oil in Iraq, the perception of a huge threat was there, in the form of WMD.

My point is, “we did not invade either country purely due to oil interests.” No matter how many times we repeat that, we still come back and find the left saying we invaded Iraq for OIL.

So, I have a bitter pill for the left to swallow.

For decades now, the green movement has killed Nuclear Power plants; has attacked Coal Power plants; has fought the expansion of US refineries; has fought to breech Hydroelectric Dams. At every turn, where energy can be obtained, the far left is there, to tell you, wagging their finger “Nuh-UH UHahhhhh!”

For a Country that won the race to the moon- we have been crippled from producing our OWN energy by the green left.

Nuclear energy is (especially now) incredibly reliable. Even INCLUDING the Chernobyl accident, the amount of accidental deaths worldwide per year eclipse that “disaster” by incredible numbers.

France obtains a majority of their energy (electric) from Nuclear plants. And they have done so for DECADES, without incident. Do most of us really think that with all of the environmental regulations on everything in this country that we are as lax and apt to have the accidents that the USSR had? Yet, the left will not budge on any proposal to move into true “energy independence”, as they cannot stomach the “costs”.

What is the cost? US lives, or a few Caribou? War in the world, or storing Nuclear Waste in Yucca Mountain?

The reality is, in this Country, we are so preoccupied with being “perfect” and submissive to the littlest squeak of the left that we are selling our energy future down the tube.

And while the left pushes that future farther and farther out, the more likely it is that US forces will have to DIE fighting to maintain order in a part of the world that has OIL that is ready to be pumped out of the ground.That is, if you believe the left when they say the war(s) are about oil in the first place.

Sounds like a bit of a logical conundrum to me. I mean, IF you are on the left and believe the war (or any war in the Middle East) is a product of U.S. interest in OIL, then you have to come to the conclusion that barring the U.S. from utilizing energy sources that we have available to us, NOW, which might make us more independent of foreign oil, is also a “vote for war”, so to speak. Can you really have it both ways???

How many lives are lost in the next “War over Oil” when Ted Kennedy and friends prohibit clean wind turbine energy off the coast of Natucket?

How many lives will be on the minds of greenies the next time a war over oil erupts in the Middle East, and they spent their time fighting offshore drilling near Florida or California?

When the next Nuclear plant is not opened or developed due to the left, will there be signs showing the faces of the next generation of youth to die in the next “war over oil in the Middle East”?

How many soldiers lives does one Nuclear Power Plant represent? How many Caribou might have to be slightly inconvenienced in ANWAR to avoid the next war?

The far left, especially on energy, has to start realizing that there are consequences to their obstruction of U.S. Energy Policy expansion. If they want to support the idea that the wars are about oil, they DO have some control over how important oil IS.

I think one could make the argument that the blood of our soldiers is on the hands of the Greenies…

Another example? “Guns don’t kill people, PEOPLE kill people.” It is a very simple concept to put your mind around, if you have a mind. But we have never been able to get those on the left to understand it.

When you deal with a problem, you have to understand it with your mind, first, before you try to address it with your “heart”. If you do the heart thing first, well, good luck. If you do the heart thing only, you are lost.

We have seen, over and over again that the approach of the left, when dealing with problems as serious as illegal immigration or terrorism, is to be soft hearted, and offer olive branches, or licenses to illegals so they will “come out of the shadows”.

Clearly, clearly, those on the left don’t understand the minds of those people they are trying to administer “justice” to.

First off, illegals do not come out of the “shadows” to sign up for Drivers Licenses. Why? Because they are ILLEGAL, and afraid of being identified.

How utterly stupid does one have to be to not recognize that the action of signing up for a form of “identification” is something that someone who is “illegally” here does not want?Anyone who thinks this will bring out nearly 12 million illegal people so we can “track and identify them” clearly has an intellectual deficiency that cannot be understood.

Secondly, when you think that “bringing terrorists to justice” means “arresting, detaining, and prosecuting” them, you clearly don’t understand your enemy.

Anyone who is willing to blow themselves up to kill 140 people and “maybe” get their target does not care about prisons, trials, or execution.

Anyone who is willing to use children as suicide bombers does NOT care about lawyers, due process, or being confined to a cell.

Not one of the approaches that people on the left would propose would work for serious issues like illegal immigration and terrorism.

I don’t equate the illegals with terrorists, or as being equal acts.

But I do equate them as being equally difficult to solve and address, and nearly equal when it comes to our national securityClearly, those on the left are not equipped for such decisions.

And at the heart of every Conservative is the understanding that freedom is the core of spirit, hope, and control over ones future. As you give up control, you give up freedom, and with it, hope. And it is for that reason that conservatives, at heart, wish to see government limited in our lives.

At the Oasis, you can find your own sustenance, and stand for yourself. You have the tools, and can make your own way, carving your own future.

We all know how the saying goes… “Give a man a fish, and he will eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he will eat for a lifetime.”

Of course, we are aware there are likely few fish in an oasis!!!

*************************************************************************

And I think, surrounded by the riches of the Oasis, “Well, where do I start?”

*************************************************************************

I guess at the beginning.

It is November, 2007. In one year we will have a new President.

In one year this Country can have hope, security, and a global presence that will affect generations of free people by perpetuating the ideals of freedom; or it can surrender to the world court of public opinion, bowing to the pressures of the UN, and at home we as Americans can begin seeing our checkbooks, savings, and borders depleted by the liberal agenda.

The battle for the heart and control of this country politically has gotten to the point where far left sugar daddys buy whole congresses, and  far right ideologues are willing to look the other way while supporting someone who is shaky on abortion because they see the bigger threat as coming from abroad.

…and they are right.

At this point in time, politically speaking, I can forgive those who put moral social issues at home aside, if that means we are better able to keep our eyes on the ball abroad. I am not “endorsing” Giuliani here. I am just making a point. Besides, I have often thought Pat Robertson a pretty sharp man, only to have him dispel that belief just about once a month or so with some crazy statement.

So I hope you will join me here when I do have something to say. I have personally found that to be often enough for me to justify having a blog, so this is where we are, where we start(ed), and it should be a fun ride.

So welcome!

(And if you are a far left liberal, it might be best to just put on your thinking cap and take a seat in the back of the class…)

One would think that either killing or incarcerating a terrorist is the best way to deal with them. I mean, after all, fanatics are not prone to reason, last I checked.

However, Saudi Arabia has a different approach. They simply obtain a promise… a promise to be “good”, so to speak.

In the kingdom, according to the New York Sun and the Saudi paper Al Watan, “The committee has met around 5,000 times to offer counseling to 3,200 people, who were accused of embracing the takfir ideology. The committee has successfully completed reforming 1500 people.”

How novel.

Us slope headed Neanderthal conservatives might learn a thing or three from these good Samaritans.

Perhaps the liberals are right. A little love, drop the guns, close Gitmo, raise your left hand and put your hand on the Bible… wait, something is wrong this scenario.

According to the Sun, they were required “only to promise to refrain from jihad within the Arabian peninsula”. How nice. Way to play as a ‘team’ with the world in the fight against terrorists. “It is ok if you practice terror elsewhere, just don’t do it HERE…”

Sounds to me like someone has their turban too tight. Part of the reason we have this problem with radical Islam in the world is due to countries like Saudi Arabia playing both sides of the fence.

Oh well. I hope, for the sake of the Saudi’s, they are right, that these yahoos are reformed.

Heck, for the sake of all of us.

After the most recent Republican debate, it has come to the fore that many of the questioners are actually Democrat supporters (not to be confused with athletic supporters). But worse than that, one of them is a member of Hillary Clintons gay and lesbian  ”steering committee”, whatever that means.

So, apparently, Clinton’s campaign not only plants questions in her own appearances, but also into CNN’s pool of questioners. And in true political form for Democrats, NOOoooooobody seems to understand not only how this could happen, who was responsible, or even whether or not they should have known.

Phil Singer, a spokesman for the Clinton campaign, said they had no knowledge that Kerr was going to participate in the debate. After the debate, CNN’s Anderson Cooper said that Kerr’s political ties were unknown to the network.

Now, I have to ask, how is it that a debate sponsored by a supposed journalism based entity does not think to ask if any of the questioners have any current ties to ANY candidate?

Imagine to yourselves if in fact any of the questioners were found to have a connection to any one of the Republican candidates campaigns. Now, we conservatives know that kind of connection gives us an immediate uneasy feeling in the ethical stomach. In fact, even planting such people at your campaign stops stinks of manipulation, let alone planting such people at debates.

Although minor, this is just another example of the lengths to which unethical people will go in an effort to subvert the assumed ‘gentleman’s rules’ we normally expect at such functions.

CNN conveniently not having at least one person in their whole organization astute enough to put out there the standard “Make SURE that nobody associated with any campaigns is involved in the question generation” is just more evidence that they are on a long slow boat to ’sub mediocrity’ in the news world, along with NBC and CBS…

…which of course, makes them a perfect addition to the Democrat party toolbox.

And, theeeeeerrrrre OFF and coming out of the gate is “You’re not a real Christian” followed closely by “You supported illegal immigration” and “This is your third wife you cheating bastard” and coming up on their heels is “You sold out the party for campaign finance reform” chased by “How did you like my position on comprehensive immigration reform?” and round the first bend we have  ”You allowed for homosexual marriages” closely pursued by “Look at your liberal judge appointments”…

One thing is clear- ‘Houston, we have a problem.’ Well, maybe not a problem after all. Perhaps there is a fix surfacing.

“Is there an Elephant in this room? Anyone? Anyone? Beuller?”

What we Conservatives are seeing played out on the national stage is what we felt in our heart to be true from the beginning. Even if you could not quite put your finger on it, that uneasy feeling has been there for all of us: There IS no truly excellent Conservative candidate that does not have some kind of (real or perceived) weakness in their “armor”, so to speak.

When it comes to being the ‘complete package’… which is something that most of us Conservatives like, we clearly have a problem.

And how do we know this?

Well, quite honestly, one indication of this is that the candidates are spending too much time attacking each other, instead of the ideology of the other side. Us Conservatives have known for a long time that if our pool of candidates are weak enough that they can tear each other apart, well, of course even town fools like liberals could find the same weaknesses.

We might be at a point where this kind of “quiet weakness” would cause even Evangelicals to put aside some of their feelings about abortion, or Mormons, or Gay marriage.  And then again, we might not be at that point.

(Editors note: We are not saying that Mormons are not Christians. We are suggesting that some Evangelicals have problems with accepting them as Christians.)

In some ways, how successful “weak” conservative opponents can be against the top two current liberals really depends on how ugly and dangerous our eventual ‘opponent’ seems to appear. But on the other hand, do we really want to risk losing to the Democrats because we have people either voting or not voting dependent on apathy towards candidates positions on core issues?

Clearly, Hillary will bring out the conservatives in droves even if they had to vote for Romney or Giuliani. But I am not convinced that we do not have a serious weakness imposed upon us by our “less than solid” conservative candidates. We might in fact lose the election due to a kind of “cut off your nose” spite, due to apathy of the truly socially conservative.

And, what about if ‘Obama Bin Unpatriotic’ becomes their front runner? I feel we lose in a landslide if we put up “compromised” conservative candidates against someone like Obama.

My point, however, is that the issue that few seem to be speaking of is the fact we actually have a larger pool of  ”incomplete conservative” candidates that fit the traditional mold than we ever have before.

Speaking only of the top tier – McCain has betrayed us on issues before (Campaign Finance Reform and the recent Immigration bills, to name just two); Romney, while a very decent man, is just flat out not going to get all of the far right out, due to being Mormon; and Giuliani is flat out nothing more than a face down card that the dealer holds in blackjack… when it comes to abortion, immigration, and homosexual marriage issues, what stances he ultimately takes is unknown. What kind of judges he might appoint is really unknown.

“Does he have the face card to go with the Ace? Or is he bust? Can we risk it?”

You CLEARLY have to win both the moderate conservatives, and the more traditional conservatives, if you want to win in the next election. Otherwise the vote will be divided enough, and turnout poor enough, for the likes of George Soros liberals to win the White House.

So, again, I must concede that we have no truly solid Conservative in this race that can win not only the hearts and minds of our party, but also of the moderate Conservatives in this Country.

Excepting one. Mike Huckabee.

Why?

Mainstream Christian, conservative values and principles, likable, capable of humor (even at his own expense), direct, capable… and I think he is actually still on his first wife.

I personally felt one thing when I first saw Huckabee in a debate: Genuine.

Being genuine speaks to the hearts of Conservatives. Being humble goes a long way as well. I personally don’t feel McCain, Giuliani, or Romney are both genuine and humble to a high enough degree to satisfy that inner barometer that Conservatives possess.

I would suggest to people that they take a very good, long look at Huckabee.

It is clear that many in this Country are slowly seeing this as well. This is evidenced by his polling numbers. So take a good look.