Once that legislation passed, anyone who signs up can make the irritatingly persistent calls a thing of the past, with a couple of exceptions. Any for-profit violators who do call can be turned in to the federal do-not-call folks and/or the state level, if one’s state has such, as Mississippi does, and face stiff fines. Any, that is, except for the "exceptions," such as newspapers.

So why did newspapers get exempted from this legislation? Sounds like someone did some powerful lobbying. We can just hear it now: oh, newspapers can’t be prevented from bothering the public with unwanted and unrelenting phone calls, "it’s a matter of free speech." Really? The "free speech" of any other for-profit venture doesn’t merit the same consideration? And, it’s ok for liberal Democrats to try and revive the [un]Fairness Doctrine, which would squelch conservative free speech as a result, but newspapers can call anyone they want to, multiple times, trying to sell subscriptions, in the name of the First Amendment?

The other exception to the "do not call" list are non-profits. Apparently, this extends not only to charitable organizations but also to political entities. Those include the four or more different Republican organizations that have called this author in the past few weeks, all asking for money via a scripted pitch that the caller persists in reciting even when told "no"– a word that no doubt is universally not recognized by telemarketers of every description.

Just who decided it was a great idea to pelt would-be supporters with numerous phone calls, all pining for still another contribution? Who in the GOP thought this one up? What an incredibly bad idea.

Here’s a memo to all those GOP organizations: you got your tail kicked in the last election, remember? People are tired of the "same old, same old" from the Republican Party. How about trying to learn from a thorough thumping all across the board–White House, Senate and House, and doing things differently? Virtually no one enjoys getting calls from telemarketers...that’s why we have a "do not call" list. That ain’t the way to get it done...

So to all those Republican entities of various descriptions, and you know who you are, enough already. Try listening to "the folks" instead of assaulting and insulting them with endless pitches for more money. What a crummy way to try and make a "comeback."

This author was part of an effort that produced two "parody" songs that also spoof the "bailouts" and today’s runaway federal power-grab, a/k/a socialism. The two songs, "Back in the USSA" and "Eight Billion A Week" can be heard in their entirety on youtube.com. A copy of the parodies was submitted to a certain party’s national committee, as well as to various other political groups [hint: postage wasn’t wasted sending them to left-leaning groups]. The author thought most people would rather listen to comedy parodies that have a point than to long sales-pitches via the telephone that do nothing to attract people to the Republican Party, but plenty to drive them away.

What response was received from that committee? After months of time passed, a form-letter email was finally received that nicely said thanks for the effort, but please move along. Ok, no one was compelling anyone to listen or utilize the creative effort, and we know just by mentioning this we could be accused of having "sour grapes." But it is preferable to pelt would-be supporters with irritating and repeated telemarketing calls? Yeah, that’s really building the Grand Ole Party.

Y’all keep this up and the tail-kicking may become an election tradition. Not what we were hoping to see or what this country needs. But what does that have to do with anything, when you can dial numbers ad nauseam and endlessly beg for money?

Ms. Helen Thomas, a seasoned veteran of the White House press corp, had quite an exchange on July 1 with Robert Gibbs, White House Press Secretary. Chip Reid of CBS (yes, CBS) had asked why the administration was picking the questions beforehand for the "town hall" meeting on health care. When Mr. Gibbs responded with "the old soft shoe" dance-around-the-question routine, Ms. Thomas spoke up and let it fly. We don’t know if Mr. Gibbs realized he had been "schooled" or not, but it sure looked that way to us. (We also mean absolutely no disrespect to Ms. Thomas with our parody above, and we substituted "ole’" as a term of endearment, rather than the original "old" in the Jan and Dean song of the 60s. As her questioning of presidents dates back to JFK, she is timeless).

Ms. Thomas was later quoted, in referring to the present administration, "What the hell do they think we are, puppets?....They ought to be hanging their heads in shame." Previously, the only reason we would have found to watch a White House press briefing would be to see if questions from Fox News’ reporters were dodged. We may have now found other reasons to watch as well.

Bravo, Ms. Thomas. Kudos to Mr. Reid, as well. We make no secret of our distaste for the groveling and admiration society played out by too many in Big Media. Therefore, when we see some of them stand up–like they are supposed to–after the shock wears off, we want to give them credit where it is due.

Obviously, not everyone in the White House press corps is prepared to follow a script, be used to "plant" an expected question, or engage in hero-worship. Now, if they will just keep that up. Too much to hope for? We’ll see, we’ll see.

With all due respect to the President, and we sincerely mean that whether leftists believe us or not, we are thankful that at least one television network hasn’t adopted an Orwellian 1984 approach to news. There has been and will continue to be many things written about the liberal bias of the so-called "mainstream" media, or "Big Media." At least, those things will continue to be published and aired so long as "Big Brother" doesn’t do away with the First Amendment and shut these venues down.

Certain liberals like to claim that they are champions of "freedom of expression" and "freedom of the press," and with wagging fingers warn of oppressive governments that silence opposition. Unless, of course, those leftists are in charge of that oppressive government. Then, all of a sudden it becomes a great idea, and things like the [un]Fairness Doctrine and "localism" get revived by liberal Democrats intent on silencing any critics. Then, conservative talk radio gets equated with "pornography" by that bastion of fairness, Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.).

Witness also ABC’s broadcasts from the White House. No, this was not a satirical skit from those parody shows broadcast on Saturday nights on other networks. They were totally serious and did this PR-job with a completely straight face. We suggest that this network change its abbreviation from ABC to IFO, as in Infomercials For Obama.

Here’s another novel suggestion: the next time ABC wants to do a puff-piece, uh, "news" program, from the White House, instead get John Stossel to do the interviewing of the President, give Mr. Stossel no restrictions, and guarantee him he will still have his job after the program is over. Given Stossel’s journalistic integrity, independent mind and libertarian thinking–all of which seem to otherwise be in short supply at ABC–we imagine that program would much less resemble a campaign infomercial, and the President might find someone else to get steamed at, other than Sean Hannity and company.

Sadly, by his inaccurate comments about Fox News, the President is aligning himself with those leftists who would silence all who do not agree with them. This is the United States of America. We have a Bill of Rights and a constitution of no equal which, for now anyway, includes a First Amendment. When the Left grabs control and can claim the White House and both houses of Congress, not to mention most of the media, that rush of power begins to embody the old adage of "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

That corruption has now been played out by ABC’s White House Telethon. There is no way on God’s green earth that this display of power-grabbing will ultimately prove beneficial to our country. Those in power apparently want to quash voices that, at a minimum, do not take part in the "cheerleading" public relations routine engaged in by Big Media. Maybe next they’ll be saying "if you can’t find anything good to say about us, don’t say anything at all," to turn another old adage on its head. Somehow, we don’t think bowing down to an earthly supreme commander is what Mom had in mind at all.

###

A thousand suicide bomb "missions" on a single day. Another one thousand deadly bombings accompany those. Where does this happen? Some far-away nation? No, right here in the good ole’ USA.

The arrogance of refusing to acknowledge the dangers that face us, and the audacity of power-grabbing at the expense of properly leading, could ultimately lead to this nightmare.

Though the total of devastated areas reaches 2,000 on a single day, that may be a terrific underestimate. Getting a few thousand terrorists [oops, we used that word] across our largely open borders is no hill for a climber. Given the number of illegal immigrants crossing our borders on a daily, monthly and yearly basis, it is really no stretch to imagine many more than a couple thousand of such explosions going off on a single day.

No, we are not directing those concerns toward hard-working citizens of Mexico who illegally cross our borders in search of work and a better life. That is another issue. But be aware that the terrorist-sponsoring group Hezbollah, based in Lebanon, is presently using those same border crossings to smuggle drugs, people and unknown quantities of the unknown into our country. If an average of ten such people illegally enter our country each day, then some 3,600 enter in just one year. The numbers could be much higher, and those borders have been quite accessible for years. Therefore, it is no stretch of the imagination to say that 20,000 or more terrorists and their would-be accompanists, assisters and sympathizers could be in our country right now, plotting incredible devastation.

Those twenty thousand terrorist operatives, out of the more than ten million illegal immigrants in our country, would not even be considered "statistically significant," if we were just talking numbers, as it would be only two-thousandths of the total. But, we aren’t talking "just" numbers, we are talking terrorists. If 19 of them could do what they did on 9/11, imagine what one thousand times that number could do. There is no "margin of error" in those figures.

Oh, by the way, our government, via the U.N., recently gave the terrorist-sponsoring group Hamas nine hundred million dollars–to be used for "humanitarian" purposes, of course. We not only invite terrorist-sponsoring groups into our country over our porous borders, we finance our own destruction while we are at it. Common sense is so far gone in this country that it can’t even be seen in the rear-view mirror.

On 9/11, the media, our government, and the public went into "overdrive" when four separate attacks occurred in our country, killing almost 3,000 people. Can you imagine the reaction to 2,000 separate bombing attacks on the same day throughout our country, with volumes of more casualties? The two thousand bombings are just the first day of the new world. More will follow, as the authorities are overwhelmed with the destruction and casualties, and the attackers set off still more explosions.

In the panic that results after the first bombings, other terrorist operatives immediately attack America’s "power grid," leaving much of the country in darkness, and possibly extreme heat or cold, depending on the time of year. Hospitals strain to treat the many maimed by such attacks, having to operate on generators that may not be up to the task. Utility systems, including those which furnish fresh water and run our sewer systems, are also disabled or slowed by the power grid attack. Diseases from overflowing and/or untreated sewage and the use of impure water begin to overcome many people.

Computer systems are rendered useless or temporarily unusable due to the same attacks. Communications are at a standstill, as email, cell phones, text messaging, television, radio and even land-line phone systems are all either knocked out or severely hamstrung due to the power grid attacks and related problems. Since TV has since gone digital, most people do not have "battery powered" TVs that will even pick up whatever stations that may be able to broadcast. People cannot communicate from one area to the next, and mountainous levels of panic abound.

Unfortunately, there’s much, much more. The perpetrators of these "man-made disasters" also release poisons into the water systems of cities all across the country. A few hundred of Those-Formerly-Known-as-Terrorists could do an incredible amount of damage with a suitcase each full of biological and chemical weapons. Water systems are rendered inoperable or unsafe in cities and towns all across the USA. Gas supplies run low quickly, since there is little power to pump or move such, and no prospect of changing that shortage.

Germ warfare becomes a horrendous reality. Those who thought we had seen recent pandemics realize that the worst was yet to come, as horrible disease spreads quickly and geometrically. The food chain is targeted as well. Of those who have food, many don’t know if it is safe to eat.

The resulting suffering is overwhelming and unimaginable. Millions disabled by the various attacks, many dead or dying terribly painful deaths, with sickness and disease everywhere.

The U.S. economy, already largely in ruins, suffers more blows when China announces it will no longer finance our national debt, and calls in its many cards. The collapse of the Western world’s economy is imminent.

Panic rules the day. People start running out of food, fresh water, and medical supplies. Unsanitary conditions multiply, as do outbreaks of disease, including deadly sicknesses. The relief organizations that are still left cannot keep pace with the great need of so many. Lines of people stretching over a football-field long are common, seeking food, water and medicine, and reminiscent of the many awaiting help in the days following the devastation of Hurricane Katrina. That "three to five days" of food and supplies the government had urged all to have on hand runs out quickly.

Martial law is instituted by the federal government. Life as we know it in the United States of America, home of the free and the brave, is over. Anyone who does not have their own independent means of survival, and protection, is doomed to either the elements, starvation, disease, or the whims of heartless thugs.

Horrendous conduct expands exponentially. People steal from others, maim others without regret, and murder rules the day. Scores of innocent people suffer from the unmerciful treatment of thousands of roving gangs of every description, who rob, rape and kill any desired target in their path.

Those who still have the time and capacity to think upon these things cannot believe what they are witnessing. How could things go into the toilet so quickly and decisively? What in the name of freedom and fairness happened to our world? Anyone thinking too long and hard on these things gets hit over the head by the aforementioned thugs or has a treacherous disease claim them, if starvation does not take them first.

So, what will the Left be doing while all this comes down? Blaming "right-wing extremists"? Expressing surprise that Those-Formerly-Known-as-Terrorists were as bad, or even worse, than "the right" said they were? Somehow rationalizing that, if it weren’t for those "intolerant" evangelical Christians and other conservatives, none of this would have happened? Barking that "it’s all Bush’s fault!"? Who knows what kind of mental gymnastics those on the Left might employ in such trying times. Just be sure that if and when this nightmare takes place, the Left will be looking for scapegoats, and guess who will fit that description? Not members of the ACLU, liberal Democrats, purveyors of leftist websites, or other far-left organizations. No, instead they may be looking for people just like you.

There’s still more. While panic abounds and anarchy rules, and the Left plays the blame game, our enemies become even more emboldened. Since apologetic appeasement has ruled the day in our foreign policy, a terrorist-sponsoring nation somewhere was able to get its dirty hands on a nuclear bomb, or nuclear bombs, plural. That could be terrorist-sponsoring nations, plural. And that is in addition to North Korea’s arsenal. Those nations’ leaders decide it is the opportune time to detonate a nuclear bomb or two or four on or over the United States. While they are at it, they drop a couple on Israel as well, and on London, Paris, Rome, Frankfurt, Tokyo and Madrid for good measure.

The resulting devastation becomes even more unimaginable. Millions more are killed by the blasts or will be from the radiation’s deadly effects. The emergency personnel that are still left intact are now totally overwhelmed, and hospitals cannot handle the increasingly high volumes of the injured, sick and dying, at least of those who are able to reach an open hospital.

In the areas of the United States not devastated by nuclear damage, thousands and thousands of enthused armed terrorists and foreign soldiers begin entering, this time not bothering to use isolated border crossings. They unload tons of additional weaponry and begin attacking whoever and whatever there is left to attack.

At this point, the freedoms of yesterday are indeed gone, tomorrow is something to dread rather than look forward to, and the present is a nightmare of unmerciful suffering and destruction. How did this happen? What happened to our way of life?

But no, you say, the above could never happen, you are being way too extreme, and, besides, Americans always find a way. We truly hope you are right and we are wrong. Yet, we must ask: how sure are you that you are right? Just what do you base that confidence on? Don’t tell us that "God would never let this happen." The Good Lord did not take down the Twin Towers. Godless terrorists did.

May this nightmare never begin. But, as the days pass and the present trends continue, we find more reasons to fear that it will.

###

–Just days ago, John Ziegler, who has the website howobamagotelected.com and a new documentary, "Media Malpractice," was strong-armed and handcuffed outside the site of an award ceremony honoring Katie Couric. She was getting an award for her Sarah Palin interview–which many, including Ziegler, would label a farce and an advocacy-piece, rather than objective journalism. Ziegler’s "crime"? He was giving away copies of his "Media Malpractice" movie to people going into the awards ceremony, and not attempting to enter the site himself. Oh, by the way, only "invited" journalists were allowed to enter the awards site, i.e., media-types invited by the recipients of the awards! Just imagine how liberal media would howl if a politician receiving an "award" restricted room access to media "invited" by him or her. Yes, arrogance is audacious.

–no longer using terms like "war on terror" or "terrorist acts"–instead, calling terrorist attacks "man-made disasters"! Can you believe that higher ups in our federal government are actually doing that? What is this, Brave New World and Orwellian "newspeak" personified?

–so dare not utter the "T" word–unless, of course, you are referring to the dangerous "right-wing extremists" identified by our new Homeland Security department, including members of the VFW, opponents of abortion, and fans of the "Tea Party" events [see our most recent column, Guess Who the Real Enemy is Now?].

–please make sure the absurdity of the above fully registers, and hopefully spurs you to action: our US government has no problem labeling patriotic Americans as possible "terrorists" but no longer wants to call Osama Bin Laden, Al Qaeda, Hamas and Hezbollah "terrorists"!?! Does anyone have trouble seeing there is something very wrong with this picture?

–an American president "firing" the CEO of one of America’s largest private companies, and also replacing a number of those on the board of directors.

–billions and billions, soon amounting to trillions and trillions, in "bailout" funds, even to banks that did not want such [and, yes, that began prior to the present administration].

–more audacity: as reported yesterday by Fox News, the "top ten" recipients of bailout money [i.e., our tax dollars] have spent over nine million bucks on lobbying costs in just the first quarter of 2009. Gee, we can’t wait to see what the yearly figure will total.

–billions and billions, which will also amount to trillions, in so-called "stimulus package" funds, loaded down with pork-barrel projects and with several items that have little or nothing to do with economic stability and development (a measure largely opposed by Republicans and a few brave "blue dog" Democrats).

–billions of those funds earmarked to go to groups like ACORN, with ACORN being that "non-partisan" group that openly favors liberal Democrats and is under investigation and indictment in several places for allegedly fraudulent voter registrations [e.g., did you know the entire starting lineup of the Dallas Cowboys was registered to vote in not only nearby Nevada but also Minnesota? If the Cowboys ever have a Monday Night game on the road versus the Vikings, day before Election Day, they can just stay overnight and vote in Minneapolis the next day–how convenient...somebody pass the word to team owner Jerry Jones].

–that same group, ACORN, being designated by the present administration to "assist" the U. S. Census Bureau in the taking of the next census.

–by the way, the U.S. Census Bureau will now be "housed" within the Obama administration, under the authority of the White House, unlike years past.

–and did we mention that the next [2010] census will be crucial in determining whether certain areas [i.e., "red" states] add congressional seats at the expense of certain other areas [i.e., "blue" states], since population shifts would tend to indicate that such should happen, but given the new developments just referenced, who knows what might happen?

–an American president bowing to a Saudi king, and the audacity of both America’s Big Media in largely not reporting that, and the Obama administration in denying that it happened, despite video showing that it did.

–our President getting much more "chummy" with Chavez and Castro than we think is appropriate, given their respective histories of oppression, dictatorship, and tyranny. What’s next, photo ops with the leaders of Syria, Iran and North Korea?

–a "new day" for advancing and increasing the number of abortions in this country, and throughout the world, so that the supporters of such can have even greater celebrations of the unjust ending of human life, while a number of those supporters categorically oppose the death penalty for heartless, vicious murderers.

–continued opposition to authorizing "drill here, drill now" by those now in control of our government, even though allowing such, with appropriate safeguards, will drive down the cost of oil and reduce our dependence on nations unkind to us to sell us that product [and don’t look now, but gas prices continue to go up, and expect them to continue rising].

–the arrogance of the left, largely comprising those who determine who receives the Nobel Peace Prize, in not awarding same to the Polish nurse, Irene Sendler, who saved 2500 Jewish children from certain death by the Nazis in WWII. This Catholic nurse’s story went unnoticed for years, and she was belatedly nominated for this honor in 2007, but was not selected. Who was? Al Gore. Go figure.

–largely ignoring the constant and growing problems with our porous borders, while drug dealers and Hezbollah run people and more drugs (and Heaven knows what else) across those borders and into our cities and towns.

–an American president "apologizing" to the rest of the world for America’s "arrogance," yet our country happens to be the nation that has freed more people, fed more people, cared for more people, and otherwise assisted more people than any nation in the history of the world, all at a tremendous cost of the loss of life of countless numbers of Americans, and many more who were terribly injured and/or separated from their loved ones for months or years on end, all of whom willingly served (and, in many cases, died) for those they didn’t even know [see also our first column on this site, Who Are the Real Heroes?].

–an expansion of the never-ending national debt to heights never before seen, while the present administration simultaneously claims that the last administration was the irresponsible one, and that the present one will "reduce" that ever-growing debt.

–the audacity of a liberal Big Media that gives the present administration a "free pass" regarding those outlandish claims regarding the national debt, and, come to think of it, gives this administration a "free pass" on most any issue, all with a straight face and no shame, which is the epitome of arrogance.

–the arrogance of the New York Times in killing a story prior to the election, which would have explored the ties between ACORN and candidate Obama and his campaign, and then claiming afterwards [when this came to light], again with a straight face, that the decision had "nothing" to do with "politics."

–the arrogance of liberal Big Media which, alternatively, either ignored, downplayed or ridiculed the many "Tea Party" events which took place on April 15 all across the country, and the dirty "double meaning" (sexual) language used by one of those networks in referring to the Tea Parties and those attending them.

–on that last point, just imagine the outrage of Big Media had Fox News used such language to refer to liberal protesters, or Republican office holders had done so...we would still be hearing about it, with apologies demanded. Yet, arrogant Big Media makes no apologies for its language and conduct, and has no shame whatsoever.

–the audacity of liberal Democrats in Congress who want to reinstate the [un]Fairness Doctrine and/or "localism" as defined by them, either of which will abridge free speech and help silence those opposing their grandiose plans [addressed in an earlier column, "Liberals Killed the Radio Star..."].

–while perhaps not on the scale of many of the above issues, arrogance reared its head even in the Miss USA pageant, as Miss California has been drug through the coals and shunned after honestly stating her personal opposition to gay marriage. Though she should have never been asked that question, since when has favoring gay marriage been a "qualification" for being named Miss USA? Is this the same country we grew up in?

It is truly our hope that all of the above will not morph into national disaster. That our country and our economy will remain free and strong. That the citizens will rise up, peacefully but unmistakably, and say "enough," and in 2010, and 2012, vote the purveyors of the above out of office. While they are at it, the people can continue the decline of the liberal Big Media’s circulation, viewership, and influence, by watching, buying and reading other resources that do not carry the taint of arrogant liberal bias.

We sincerely hope for good things for our country, its people, and our world. We do not harbor ill will toward our political opponents. We believe in the American way, and our system which is the best in the world.

All of that being said, we cannot wear blinders and be eternal optimists, and act as if what is occurring will simply go away by itself, and that the present actions will not have consequences to our health, safety and well-being. Our fear is that things will go so far that the unthinkable occurs, and that a nightmare of instability, terror, and suffering will be unleashed upon our country and this world. If it does, audacious arrogance will be of no help whatsoever.

Oh, so if you are against the unfettered ending of life of the unborn, you are a "right-wing extremist"? If you left your family and bravely served the cause of freedom in a faraway land, protecting people you don’t even know, you are now put on the "we’re not so sure about you" list at Homeland Security? This report makes us wonder whether Big Brother DHS is still focusing on those who attacked us on 9/11, and all those now freely crossing our borders, including members or sympathizers of Hezbollah.

Just by uttering the above, we may have put ourselves on DHS’ "watch list,"since we are expressing our right of free speech to speak out against governmental absurdity. Yeah, put all those "conservatives" on your "danger list," while terrorists and drug dealers have free reign coming over our borders. Sounds like you’ve got your priorities in order. Readers, see also Judge Andrew Napolitano’s recent column on foxnews.com, "Six Things You Should Know About the Homeland Security Report on ‘Right-Wing Extremism’" and Bill O’Reilly’s recent "talking points memo" entitled "President Obama, Spain and the Radical Left" and Michelle Malkin’s column of April 15, "You Might Be a ‘Radicalized Right-Wing Extremist’ If..." (We changed the original title of this column after seeing hers, though the substance of this column, including the original title, was written before we saw hers).

Don’t get us wrong. If there really are extremist militia groups ready to bomb the Capitol, Congress, or Main Street USA for that matter, those groups should be stopped, and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. However, to mix those groups with our veterans and "single issue" groups such as those opposed to runaway government spending, illegal immigration or abortion is patently absurd.

Do you think those organizing and/or attending the "Tea Party" protests around the country might also be put on Big Brother’s "watch list"? Don’t bet against it. We doubt that the timing of the release of this "report" just before the countrywide Tea Parties was merely coincidental. The report’s focus reminds us of our earlier satirical "prediction" that William Ayers would be named the new director of Homeland Security, which doesn’t seem to be as much of an exaggeration as we figured.

We may not have many occasions to agree with Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), but we give him credit and kudos for questioning the release of such a report. It appears that Rep. Thompson, Chair of the House Committee on Homeland Security, recognizes the impropriety of our federal government trying to chill free speech and grouping reliable citizens into "suspect" designations on the basis of mere politics.

Again, with apologies to Jeff Foxworthy:

...You might be a "right-wing extremist"...

...You might be a "right-wing extremist"...

...You might be a "right-wing extremist"...

...You might be a "right-wing extremist"...

...You might be a "right-wing extremist"...

...You are a "right-wing extremist"...

...You might be a "right-wing extremist"...

...You might be a "right-wing extremist"...

...You might be a "right-wing extremist"...

...You might be a "right-wing extremist"...

...You might be a "right-wing extremist"...

...You might be a "right-wing extremist"...

...You might be a "right-wing extremist"...

...You might be a "right-wing extremist"...

...You might be a "right-wing extremist"...

...You might be a "right-wing extremist"...

...You might be a "right-wing extremist"...and, you are "intolerant"!

...You might not be a "right-wing extremist"...but, you are being watched, and they know where you live!

...You might be a "right-wing extremist"...

...You might be a "right-wing extremist"...

...You might be a "right-wing extremist"...

...You might be a "right-wing extremist"...

...You might be a "right-wing extremist"...

We know the above is not an exhaustive list. Many of us will think of items to add to the "right-wing extremist" list. This DHS report makes the so-called "conspiracy" theorists’ belief that "Big Brother is watching you" sound quite plausible, rather than the rantings of someone who is out to lunch.

We did OK in math in school, but probably not well enough to figure out just how many "billions a week" is accurate–we doubt that eight billion is, as the bailouts and "stimulus" package are no doubt costing us a lot more than that, but the point is made. We now have a spend-happy federal government that threatens to bury our grandchildren in debt and drag down our free-market system in an avalanche of nationalized control–a "socialist" America on the way.

How long will it be before Uncle Sam owns the banks, certain auto makers, insurance companies, and, yes, perhaps even the local mall? The latest story has the CEO of an auto maker resigning at the behest of the President. Guess who has "controlling interest" at General Motors now?

Federal-controlled "health care" [quote marks intentional] won’t be far behind. Throw in some government-mandated control of radio stations’ programming content, to limit free speech in opposition to this budding takeover [a/k/a the [un]Fairness Doctrine], and the rolling stone will continue to grow in size and reach. So, the 1960s "flower children" thought we had "Big Brother" government then? Who were they kidding?

We are being told over and over, that this is just "how it is," that the government must "do something" to salvage our economy and way of life. Yet, those telling us such either didn’t read the legislation they passed, which contained the bonus allowances those same legislators are now crowing about, or, perhaps, we think they protest too much–maybe they knew exactly what they were passing, and are yelling righteous indignation now that the cat is out of the bag. Those same legislators, led by a president touting "change we can believe in," then passed a record number of pork-barrel earmarks and expenditure items that have little or nothing to do with economic development and stability.

As they say, that is water under the bridge now. However, we are concerned that our country may drown in that water before enough people realize the consequences of the poor decisions being made, and stand up and say "enough." We won’t have much of a chance to express our feelings on that at the ballot box until 2010, and time will tell if a real "awakening" has taken place by then. But we do not have to and should not sit idly by, watching our freedoms rolled up and stuffed into a near-impregnable container of government control.

Please do not misunderstand us. We are not attacking "all" Democrats, and we do not wish ill toward those on the other side of the political spectrum. But, just because we do not want their misguided policies to be put in place and "succeed," does not mean that we wish bad things for our country, Congress, or our President.

Say that again: Hezbollah, a terrorist organization (oops, we aren’t supposed to use that word anymore, are we?), is taking advantage of our "walk right in" southern border, to move Heaven knows what into our country. Hezbollah, one of those extremist groups that we’ve seen on TV, in far-away areas most of us don’t frequent, coming to your neighborhood and ours. Don’t expect to see much said about that by Big Media.

While the present administration talks about increasing security on the borders, that presumably will not include National Guard troops, despite requests from border governors to do so, such as Gov. Rick Perry of Texas. Given that the "open borders" crowd were and are enthusiastic supporters of the present administration, we won’t hold our breath waiting for actual border security to be increased and made more effective. We’ll instead hold our breath hoping that no one crossing our border (or, more accurately, who has already crossed our border) sets off a series of suicide bombs or otherwise attempts to murder American citizens.

Another issue? Have you noticed gas prices continue to "inch" back up? Heard anyone in the majority in Congress talk about the need to "drill here, drill now"? Neither have we.

In addition to the tea bags, how about we all acquire photos of gas pump prices when they were at or approaching four bucks a gallon, and mail the picture to our congressional representatives. Just include a brief note telling them, "if this happens again, we’re holding you responsible at the ballot box next time around–drill here, already!"

The list of mishandled or ignored issues could go on, but we think the prospects of nightmarish terrorist attacks on American soil, while federal spending spins out of sight and federal control grows geometrically, leave a mounting number of concerns.

The songs mentioned above are an effort, albeit small, to do something about our problems, a "musical" tea party, if you will. Maybe playing a little rock ‘n roll and engaging in parody and humor won’t make us any safer or our country more sound, but sitting on our hands certainly won’t. Wringing those hands in worry won’t, either. Neither will ignoring what is going on around us.

But, let’s stay focused. Instead of trying to start the 2012 campaign years too early, let’s do other things instead. If you are a Christian, how about making a difference for others? If you aren’t a Christian, but care about others, the same deal. As they say, talk is so very cheap. What are we doing–actually doing, not just talking about–to make the world a better place? Do we reach out to those in need? Do we have a clue of how horrible those in places like the Congo, or the Sudan, or other parts of Africa have it on a daily basis? Or those right across town from where we live? Does our Sunday School class give regularly to help those poor souls? Do we support efforts to make a difference for the good in those parts of the world? Are we volunteering enough of our time and effort for others in our own community and elsewhere?

Now it is time to move forward. It is premature to speculate as to who will lead the "opposition party"–the Republicans–which that party truly now is, as it no longer will have the White House or either house of Congress.

Like we said–if you are a "Christian," how about getting your Sunday School class to commit $100 a quarter to relief efforts overseas, and the same amount to relief efforts in your own hometown? If you have the means, why not do the same yourself? Regardless of what you believe–Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, or otherwise, why not do the same? We challenge you (and ourselves)–wherever you are, whoever you are, whatever you believe or do not believe, to do that. Two hundred dollars a quarter, four times a year, to help those in your own hometown and across the world. Is that too much to ask for? Some of us throw away that much money in no time, on things that really don’t matter. And, we are talking about doing this as a community, as a small group. Can ten of you give $20 a quarter to help others? Almost all of us can, or can give even more.

It isn’t all about politics. It is about being the people we are supposed to be. So, while we "wait" for 2012, rather than worrying about who the next nominee will be, or is "supposed" to be, why don’t we get busy making a difference in our world? That might have more positive effect than anything we might do in the world of "politics." Of course, it isn’t just about giving money. Giving time and effort to others, in a variety of ways, can be an even bigger gift.

As for politics, instead of jumping on the "bandwagon" of any one candidate, why don’t we just all step back and take a few deep breaths. We don’t need to push one candidate for 2012 at this point–for goodness sake, that is four years away. Remember how the "conventional wisdom" had Rudy Guliani as the "presumptive nominee" of the Republican Party, prior to the first caucus in Iowa, and he didn’t even survive to make it to Super Tuesday? Also, at this point in 2004, all signs pointed to Hillary Clinton being the Democrats’ nominee in 2008, and we just saw how that worked out.

So, enough of the prognosticators. Let’s just see how all this plays out, and pay very close attention to the coming administration. We’re more concerned about whether terrorists will be able to walk "suitcase" nuclear bombs and duffel bags full of chemical and biological weapons across our "open" borders, than who the next nominee might be of the Republican Party. Or, having the [un]Fairness Doctrine brought back by liberal Democrats, which will destroy free speech on the radio. Or, seeing that "drill, baby, drill" becomes reality–and fast.

But, while we are on the subject, instead of jumping on the bandwagon of any one candidate, why don’t we all just watch, listen, and digest.

We really liked what Mike Huckabee, the former governor of Arkansas, had to say during the last campaign. He had down-to-earth wisdom, a good-natured humor not often found in the confines of bare-knuckled Washington politics, and common sense solutions to our problems. Now, after the election of 2008, we urge you to listen to him. He has a weekly show on Fox News, and he has a new book out, Do the Right Thing, that we look forward to reading, and hope you will, also.

This was a guy who took his own laundry down to the hotel desk while he was campaigning–he didn’t have a "valet" to do that for him. He spoke of what he believed, and he had common-sense solutions to the problems facing America. For some reason, he got labeled an "economic liberal" by some of his opponents, which made absolutely no sense.

Some thought he was "suspect" because he used to be a Southern Baptist minister. Imagine that: instead of trusting someone even more, because he has been the pastor of a church in a conservative denomination, some thought he was untrustworthy, because he had been a minister. Hey, hey, hey, are you listening out there??? Not to be dramatic, but we are astounded that some would be worried that Mike Huckabee used to be a minister, until he heard a different calling, and then became the Lt. Gov. and then served ten years as Governor of Arkansas. Perhaps it says something about the world we live in, in 2008, that we would not have more trust in someone who had been a minister, and then moved into the world of government public service.

We like Mike. The author of these columns happens to also be a bass guitarist. Mike Huckabee is a bass guitarist, and he plays rock ‘n roll. For those who might not know, the bass guitarist is often the "glue" that holds a band together. The drummer is crucial, and his/her efforts are so important in defining the "rhythm" of a band. But, the bass player can make a band "go," at least if he/she is a solid one. He or she might not get "noticed" by the crowd, who may focus on the flashy lead guitarist or keyboardist as they take their soaring solos, or on the lead vocalist who delivers the "voice" of the band. But make no mistake. If the bass player is a "dud," then the band just isn’t the same.

Mike Huckabee is a bass player. We imagine he understands the importance of keeping a band "in the pocket"–that is his job, along with the drummer. If they don’t do "their thing," and do it well, it really won’t matter what the rest of the band is doing, because the band, as a whole, won’t sound as good.

We don’t think it is an accident or coincidence that Mike Huckabee plays bass. Not the flashiest instrument, usually not the lead singer [Paul McCartney and Sting being a couple of exceptions], but, as we said, the "glue" that holds the band together. Gov. Huckabee comes across to us as someone who has a steady head and hand, can think on his feet, and is an effective communicator. Just because he plays bass doesn’t mean he should be President, but having creative talent can be a good thing.

We have a feeling that after the next four years transpire, our country may be in need of some effective "glue" that will hold this country together.

We don’t mean to speak ill of our new President in saying that. As we said, we wish good things for our country, its people, and our world. But, we are also realists. We think our country may be in dire need of some "good glue" in four years, since we think it is already in need of that now.

So, don’t forget about Mike–Huckabee, that is. Tune in to his weekly show. Get his book and read it. And, pay attention to what is happening around you in this country. Regardless of who the next nominee of the Republican Party is, all of us need to pay attention and stay focused on the world as it is, right now. We can focus on who may lead this country in four years when the time comes. There’s much more we need to be concerned about now, in the present.

Sleepers, awake!

Now that the White House and both houses of Congress are in the hands of liberal Democrats, they will push even harder to make this suppression of free speech a reality. As with so many other issues, whether they get their way is largely up to you–if we sit on our hands and do nothing, then the Left may get its way, with an Orwellian control of the information that reaches us through the airwaves [see also our earlier column, "2008 is 1984" ].

For example, that stalwart of "fairness," Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), has compared conservative talk radio to pornography. Our reference to his sense of "fairness" is discussed more at length in our earlier column, What It Was, Was Slander. He and his colleagues didn’t seem too bothered by the lack of fairness they showed U. S. District Judge Charles Pickering when he was nominated to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals by President Bush. But you can expect Sen. Schumer and colleagues to be leaders of the effort to bring back the [un]Fairness Doctrine and/or make other efforts to curtail free speech.

[go on w/ "Fairness Doctrine" and "localism" issue...the latter being the "backdoor" way of accomplishing what libs might have trouble doing through the "front door" of the Fairness Doctrine...so watch out for the "sleight of hand" routine...both of those are a tremendous danger to free speech...since either could kill conservative talk radio, if libs get their way].

So the first "attack" will be against conservative talk radio–limited to radio. But, if we are going to be consistent–and "fair"– then why have the "Fairness Doctrine" and the concept of "localism" restricted to just radio?

How about television? Since the national networks, save Fox News, are all "in the tank" for the Left, then how about some "fairness" there, huh? Just hand over ABC and CBS to the Republican Party, and let them control what gets broadcast on those networks, since they and the others, except Fox, are basically the PR mouthpiece for liberal Democrats. Sorry, Charlie (Gibson). And, you, too, Katie. Move it on over, the conservatives are taking over your anchor chairs. Don’t let the door hit you on your way out.

Newspapers? Gee, most of them lean left, too. A whole bunch of them, in fact. That means just loads of them will now relinquish control to the GOP, and conservative columnists will finally get the opportunity to be read in previously-unreachable avenues. No more Obama "puff pieces" in those papers. Magazines? Same deal.

We’re not sure what will happen to all of those out-of-work liberal "journalists," but, hey, "fairness" can have a heavy price, right? At least a few of them will be able to find jobs in liberal radio, since that market will have to increase as part of this "fairness" plan.

The internet? Hey, we can’t leave out the fastest-growing media communications method of all, can we? But, how do we do that? Make all the conservative sites list a bunch of liberal sites that the reader can go to for an "opposing view"? And make the liberals do vice versa? Who decides which are which? Which ones make the "lists"? Who decides that?

Gosh, we guess that means we’ll have to have–you guessed it, more federal regulation and a brand-spanking new federal agency to "oversee" all this, since the FCC won’t be big enough to handle all this new responsibility. How many billions a year will that cost? Doesn’t matter, not when we are talking about preserving "fairness." Besides, we are confident that our liberal friends in Congress will come up with a myriad of new taxing proposals to finance this huge new undertaking.

Then, of course, there will be the "bail-out." What bail-out, you say? C’mon, think it through. Since all those radio stations will have to drop much of their conservative talk lineup, to even it up with liberal talk shows, their ratings will take an absolute nosedive, which means their ad revenues will go flat. That’s ok, since Uncle Sam is bailing out so many others, we can just add WKRP in Cincy to the list, along with numerous other radio stations all across the country. Then, our government will own radio stations, along with the insurance companies, brokerage firms, banks and other entities it now owns.

Imagine that conservatives controlled the White House, both houses of Congress, and most of the "mainstream" media, but liberals predominated on talk radio. Those conservatives then decide it would be a good thing to institute the "Fairness Doctrine" and via "localism" require all those radio stations to give equal time to conservative sources.

Liberals would be screaming bloody murder, shouting protests from the rooftops, and rightfully so. "Censorship!" "An attack on free speech!" "Ruthlessly oppressive Big Brother government!" Yes, we would be hearing it–so long as the liberals had media outlets that would actually cover their protests, instead of ignoring them, or bashing them for speaking up.

So, why is it any different now? Its "OK" to suppress "conservative" free speech, but not "liberal" free speech? The U. S. Government is supposed to be allowed to dictate to privately-owned radio stations what they can and cannot broadcast–on partisan, political lines? Yet, National Public Radio, largely funded by our tax dollars, is free to roam as far to the left as they like, totally unfettered?

We have a feeling that will be one of a number of issues that "blue dog" Democrats (i.e., moderates and conservatives) will need to "break rank" with the powers that be in their party, in order to see that common sense–and what is best for our country–actually prevails. If the non-liberal Democrats, independents, and conservatives stand together on this issue, then Pelosi, Reid, Schumer and company will have to back off. Free speech will then reign, instead of government-dictated censorship.

That coalition of common sense will have to be active on other issues as well, if things like "drill, baby, drill" are to become reality.

Otherwise, let’s face it. There are a bunch of people out there that would rather have their impressionable children mindlessly singing "songs of praise" to Obama than listening to Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, or Glenn Beck. They actually think that listening to Glenn, Sean and Rush is harmful, while chanting those mantras is beneficial. If we don’t wake up and stay focused, they may get their way.

"Free speech" isn’t free if one side of an issue is successful in suppressing the views of the other side–that is called oppression, censorship, tyranny, and other such words, but "free" is not among them.

We congratulate Senators Obama and Biden on their historic win. We are deeply disappointed that Senator McCain and Governor Palin were not elected, but that is what happened. We would not have gloated had our side won, and will not wish ill will to the side that did. We hope that President-elect Obama and his staff will do the right things and keep America’s, and Americans’, best interests at heart. We want our country to be safe and prosperous, and to always be a leader for the cause of freedom, liberty and justice.

We are saddened that a true American hero, John McCain, will not have the opportunity to serve this nation as president. In our estimation, he deserved that trust. We are also disappointed that Sarah Palin will not be serving as vice-president. She is refreshingly "one of us" and has been unmercifully and unfairly attacked by both Big Media and her political opponents.

We are even more disappointed to see that the media in this country apparently holds such sway over the average person. If our country is moving further into an "entitlement mentality," as echoed by the lady in Florida’s comment (to paraphrase, she said "I’ll never have to worry about filling my gas tank or paying my mortgage again, if I help [Obama], he’ll help me"), then our country is moving downward, not upward. If most people in this country do not think for themselves, and noddingly accept what they are spoon-fed by Big Media, that downward turn is even deeper and more sharp.

In our opinion, too many of the media in this country have been dishonest and without an ounce of shame in blatantly favoring Senator Obama and making its "Big Push" for him to reach the White House. We do hope that more and more of you will be more discerning in your viewing habits, and will not reward Big Media with more viewership or readership.

We also hope you will stay alert, though we are probably all a bit tired of politics at this point. With the advantage that Democrats have in both houses of Congress and now the White House, we expect a number of issues to come to the forefront, and we ask that you pay attention. For example, liberal Democrats will no doubt try to bring back the [un]Fairness Doctrine, which would require radio stations to air an equal amount of differing viewpoints–if they carry four hours of "conservative talk," they will have to match that with four hours of "liberal talk." We think such a doctrine is unconstitutional and is a direct attack on free speech, which the media and liberals are supposed to be so concerned with protecting. Stay tuned.

Another area is "drill, baby, drill." Don’t be lulled to sleep by falling prices at the gas pump. We know those can go back up in a matter of days and weeks. With the same majority for Democrats just referenced, we are concerned that they will say "forget it, baby, forget it," regarding drilling, as we said in our most recent column. It will be up to the American people to not let Congress get away with that kind of [in]action.

We will also watch what happens in terms of national security, our fight against terrorism, and the stability of our military.

We plan to continue posting columns on our site, www.BoycottBigMedia.com and on this blog, though not as frequently. We said what we said without malice toward anyone, and we wish the best to both political friends and foes alike. Also, it’s not all about politics. If we ever get into publication the book from which several of these columns came, we will let you know. A lot of that book is not about politics. Thanks to all of those who have visited the site and this blog. We hope you will continue to do so, and will continue to forward links on our columns to your friends and contacts. We were heartened to see two of our columns selected as "Conservative Must Reads" by the editor of townhall.com, though both were credited to regularfolksunited.com rather than our site; those were "Who Are the Real Heroes?" and "...You Might Be a Leftist."

This election season also leaves us with questions, the answers to which we’ll never see. We would love to be proved wrong about that. Just off the cuff, here are a few:

1. How many fraudulent votes got cast, nationwide? How many people voted more than once, or voted in the name of a dead person or someone else?

2. Was the outcome in any particular state decided on the basis of fraudulent votes? If all those fraudulent votes were tossed out, what would the result of the political contests be, including ultimate outcome, electoral college numbers, and popular vote? For example, at last report, Obama won Ohio by about 200,000 votes. Some days ago we saw reports that claimed that of the some 600,000 new voter registrations in Ohio, over 200,000 or so of those were problematic, and/or fraudulent. Just a coincidence? We’d love to know.

3. What effect did Big Media’s biased polls have on the race; did that dim the turnout for McCain/Palin? A number of these polls had Obama/Biden with a double-digit percentage lead, or at least nine points, and the actual margin was about six to seven. Did these inaccurate polls, in Obama’s favor, "dull" some voters who would have voted for McCain into not showing up at all? We addressed that concern a number of times in our columns, but there still are too many people in this country that believe whatever they get told by TV and newspapers. We note that some 121 million votes were cast for Bush and Kerry in 2004 (Bush with 62 million, Kerry with 59 million), and even less votes–so far–have been counted for this race (about 120 million, 63.6 million for Obama, 56.2 million for McCain).

4. How much money, if any, did the Obama campaign receive from foreign sources, which is illegal? Who gave such, if such was given?

5. Who were the sources of donations to the Obama campaign of less than $200 apiece? The Obama campaign has thus far not identified those donors, though the McCain campaign identified all of their donors, regardless of amount. Did certain donors give much more than is legally allowed by doing so in a series of donations under $200, with those names either never being released, or the donations being made in fictitious names?

6. How many donations, if any, including total amounts, did the Obama campaign receive that violated the limits that one can give to a campaign? What happened to this money?

7. What would the tape that the LA Times refused to release, of the Rashid Khalidi gathering attended by Obama, have yielded, if anything?

8. Will the Obama campaign ever release the actual birth certificate of Senator Obama? If he was born in Hawaii, as previously reported, then what is the problem with releasing the actual certificate?

9. Will ACORN continue to be allowed to take your tax dollars and conduct partisan activities that favor one party, i.e., Democrats?

10. Will anything be done about ACORN’s practices of allegedly fraudulent voter registration, including registering people multiple times and under incorrect and/or fictitious names?

11. Will people such as Joe the Plumber who ask questions, and/or disagree with the new administration, get "investigated" by Big Media or the government in the Democrats’ new administration?

AND, to us, the biggest question of all:

Will the media bother to really investigate and genuinely attempt to answer these questions, and, if so, make as big a fuss over those as they do over the barrage of negatives they routinely hurl at Republicans?

We won’t be holding our breath.

Who is Charles Pickering? The Honorable Charles W. Pickering, Sr., from Laurel, Mississippi, was unanimously confirmed by the U. S. Senate as a federal district judge in 1990, after his appointment by President George H. W. Bush. Eleven years later, Judge Pickering was nominated by President George W. Bush to serve on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, the next level above his district court position, and one level below the United States Supreme Court.

Judge Pickering had a variety of people who either testified or went "on the record" stating that he should be confirmed to the Fifth Circuit. Those included past Mississippi governors William Winter and Bill Allain, both Democrats, as well as then-Gov. Ronnie Musgrove, also a Democrat, and then-Mississippi Attorney General Mike Moore, also a Democrat. Charles Evers, brother of slain civil rights activist Medgar Evers, also enthusiastically supported Pickering’s nomination. Attorney General Mike Moore was quoted as saying:

"Charles Evers’s brother was slain in the civil rights movement and Charles Evers would not be here supporting Judge Pickering’s nomination if there was anything wrong with Judge Pickering. Who knows more about the Judge, the people of Mississippi or the people in Washington who live in a logic-free zone?"

As for himself, Charles Evers was "saddened and appalled" to learn of the false allegations put forth by Senate Democrats on the Judiciary Committee about Judge Pickering. "As someone who has spent all my adult life fighting for equal treatment of African Americans, I can tell you with certainty that Charles Pickering has an admirable record on civil rights issues. He has taken tough stands at tough times in the past, and the treatment he and his record are receiving at the hands of certain interest groups is shameful." One of those "interest groups" was the mis-named "People for the American Way."

Former Mississippi Governor William Winter even visited with Senate Democrats in an effort to help Judge Pickering win confirmation. He stated, "You are not going to get a better nominee from this administration than Judge Pickering." Governor Winter is an honorable man and a Democrat. He pointed out that opposition to this nomination would hurt Democratic candidates in the south. Then-Governor Ronnie Musgrove, a fellow moderate Democrat who cannot fairly be described as a "Washington liberal," lost his re-election bid the very next year to Haley Barbour, former chair of the Republican National Committee.

A great number of Mississippians, both African-American and white, Democrats and Republicans, supported Judge Pickering’s nomination, and a number of them testified on his behalf. Those included Judge Johnny Williams, the first African-American elected as a Chancery Judge in the district which includes Hattiesburg, Mississippi, where Judge Pickering’s federal court was located. Melvin Mack of Judge Pickering’s hometown of nearby Laurel, who was later elected the first African-American mayor of that city, and who is a Democrat, also spoke in support of the Judge.

There were some members of the NAACP who opposed Judge Pickering’s confirmation. That made what the African-Americans from Mississippi did in speaking in his favor that much more courageous. Charles Evers later stated: "the NAACP and the Ku Klux Klan are the only two organizations that are against him."

On a later program of 60 Minutes after the confirmation process, Evers gave an NAACP official an earful:

Evers: "You know that Charles Pickering is the man who helped us to break the Ku Klux Klan. Did you know that?

McGee: I have heard that.

Evers: Well, I know that. Do you know that?

McGee: I don’t know that.

Evers: Do you know about the young black man that was accused of robbing the young white woman?

McGee: No.

Evers: So Charles Pickering took the case [defending him]. Came to trial and won the case and the young man became free.

McGee: I didn’t know about that.

Evers: Do you know that Charles Pickering is the man who helped integrate his churches?

McGee: I don’t know about that.

Evers: Well, you don’t know a thing about Charles Pickering."

Members of the plaintiffs bar, who usually represent injured persons in lawsuits against companies and insurance carriers, supported his appointment. Plaintiffs’ lawyers often fear being "stuck" in federal court, with more stringent rules and judges who are possibly more conservative. That group did not have that concern with Judge Pickering, as they knew he was fair to both sides, and allowed lawyers to "try their case," if it did not settle first. More than a few defense attorneys in civil cases could tell of facing Judge Pickering in a "settlement conference" and being told, in private but point-blank, of the weaknesses in their defense, and being asked to seriously consider offering an appropriate amount to resolve the dispute, rather than take their chances before a jury. Many of those cases would be resolved.

Judge Pickering enjoyed an outstanding reputation for fairness and faithful service in his native state of Mississippi. A no-brainer, right? We need more people like him on the bench, so his approval by the Senate was just a mere formality, correct? Surely the U. S. Senate had better things to do than waste time pondering whether Charles Pickering was fit for the federal appeals court–that was beyond question to the vast majority who knew him and had practiced before his court. Plus, again, the Senate had unanimously confirmed him to his present position just over a decade earlier.

Well, maybe in a fair world, that is what would have happened. Perhaps in a U. S. Senate in which service to the public was the never-ending standard of behavior, even when reasonable people disagree with one another. But, no, not in the real world. Not when there were liberal Democrats who could extract pounds and pounds of flesh from George W. Bush, using their attack on Charles Pickering as the battering ram.

So, who was the "they" referred to above in the first paragraph? That would be certain liberal Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee, in particular, Senators Charles Schumer (D-NY), Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Dick Durbin (D-IL), John Edwards (D-NC) and Ted Kennedy (D-MA), and their remaining Democratic colleagues on the committee which was charged with holding hearings on the confirmation process of Judge Pickering. Those Democrats used Judge Pickering’s nomination as an opportunity to berate the Bush administration and practice partisan politics of the most sordid kind. Judge Pickering was ultimately denied his appointment. Our nation’s citizens were ultimately denied his outstanding continued public service by the selfish actions of these liberal Democrats in the U. S. Senate, most of whom are still there.

The same ones: So why mention this now, on the eve of a national election in 2008, some six years after? Because most of those partisans are still in the United States Senate, and all of them are actively and energetically campaigning for "change" via their chosen candidate and fellow member of the Senate, Barack Obama. Given the way they treated Charles Pickering, all this stuff about "change we can believe in" is absolutely nothing more than a cheap, political slogan that has no foundation.

If you asked Senator Obama about his Senate colleagues named above and the others who were on that committee, without giving him the "setup" information on what they did to Judge Pickering, we have no doubt that he would sing their collective praises. They are his allies–more on that in a moment--and he is their designated leader. However, those named senators no more practice a "different" kind of politics than the man in the moon does. We invite you to read Judge Pickering’s excellent book on his ordeal with this confirmation process, A Price Too High (The Judiciary in Jeopardy) [Stroud & Hall, 2007].

Not only did these liberal Democrats in the U. S. Senate unjustly attack Judge Pickering, he also was the target of the usual bashing by Big Media. There were no shortage of such stories, though, perhaps surprisingly, there were several that were fair to the Judge. Those seemed to be outnumbered by the negative stories, in our observation. We watched a local television station manager in his weekly editorial lament the unfair treatment Judge Pickering was receiving in the Senate and in the national media, and then two days later watched his very own station run one of those "bash Pickering" stories on its Saturday evening newscast, imported from a national network that leans left. We doubt that was intentional, and surmise that someone was just filling up thirty minutes of air time with the available stories of the day.

So what was the issue with Judge Pickering? Why was his confirmation not the "slam dunk" it should have been? Of all the cases the Judge had handled, certain Democrats on the Judiciary Committee focused on one, a "cross-burning" case in south Mississippi which occurred during the Clinton administration. We recommend you read Judge Pickering’s book to get the breadth of the details, but here is a brief summary: three defendants were charged with burning a cross in the lawn of an interracial couple. The Janet Reno-led Justice Department offered two of the defendants no jail time whatsoever in a plea deal, and they took the deal. The third defendant, who was not the ring-leader of the atrocious act, was offered a plea deal which included 18 months of jail time, and he decided to go to trial instead. He was convicted, and the length of his sentencing was the responsibility of Judge Pickering.

Judge Pickering sentenced this defendant to 27 months of jail time, which was 50% more time than had been offered in the plea deal by the Janet Reno-led Justice Department, though it was not the "maximum" time allowed by law. Judge Pickering did not think it was just or fair to give this one defendant the maximum prison time when the ringleader and the other defendant both received no jail time at all–under the plea deals offered to them by Reno’s Justice Department. The defendant he sentenced also had no previous criminal history, while the ringleader–who, again, got no jail time with his plea deal--had even fired a shot into the couple’s home on a previous occasion.

The Janet Reno Justice Department wanted the remaining defendant, whom Judge Pickering sentenced, to get seven and a half years of jail time, while the other two, including the ringleader, got none at all under that department’s plea deals. Without getting into a discourse on federal sentencing law, suffice it to say that federal judges are required by law to consider "proportionality in sentencing," and if different defendants charged in the same case with the same crime get "disparities" in sentencing, the appeals court will likely reverse that judge’s decision. Judge Pickering told the attorneys involved in this case that it was the worst case of "disproportionate sentencing" that had ever been recommended to him. Therefore, he gave the remaining defendant a stiff 27 months, rather than the zero jail time Reno’s department had offered the other two defendants, and even more than the 18 months that Reno’s department had offered to the remaining defendant in the plea deal.

Incidentally, when Judge Pickering sentenced the third defendant, the Judge told him that he had committed a "despicable act," a "dastardly deed," a "heinous crime," and that the defendant had "to pay a debt to society for a reprehensible crime." The Judge added, "the type of conduct that you exhibited cannot and will not be tolerated."

So what did the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee do? They used this case to try and paint Judge Pickering as a racist, as someone insensitive to horrible conduct like cross-burning, as someone who "went light" on the defendant he sentenced, and who did not handle the case as he should have. These Senate Democrats attacked Judge Pickering in a contentious hearing, and did all they could to sully his fine career and outstanding reputation.

But, as the Judge discusses in his book, their real agenda was two-fold: (1) attack judicial nominees who are pro-life, and (2) show the Bush administration "we mean business" as to the judicial nominees he sent over for confirmation. Therefore, the Democrats on that committee used the cross-burning case to totally misrepresent Judge Pickering’s impeccable record and sterling reputation, and a life of work in doing what is right and trying to stamp out racial injustice.

If the above is not enough to raise the ire of the reader, here are a few more tidbits: in the 1960s, Charles Pickering was the county prosecuting attorney in Laurel, Mississippi. He and the district attorney took on the Ku Klux Klan, despite repeated threats, and Pickering was trusted by the FBI and worked closely with that agency in derailing the KKK. In nearby Forrest County, Pickering was called on to testify against the KKK in a horrible case, and he did so.

When schools were integrated in Mississippi, Judge Pickering and his wife chose to send their children to the local public schools across town, which were about 70% black after integration, even though there was a long-established private school one block from their house. He also organized and chaired a bipartisan, biracial committee in his home county to work on better race relations. In September, 2005, some three years after the liberal Senate Democrats attacked him, Judge Pickering was given the Civil Rights Award by the International Black Broadcasters Association.

When Judge Pickering got attacked by these Senate Democrats, incidentally, all of whom happened to be white, veteran political columnist Bill Minor–who will never be confused with a conservative–said they were "barking up the wrong tree" in trying to paint Judge Pickering as having a "segregationist" past. The Washington Post, not exactly a "conservative" newspaper, ran an editorial that said, "Opposing a nominee should not mean destroying him....The need on the part of liberal groups and Democratic senators to portray [Pickering] as a Neanderthal–all the while denying they are doing so–in order to justify voting him down is the latest example of the degradation of the [judicial] confirmation process."

The New York Times even spoke out against how Judge Pickering was treated. As the Judge wrote, "When the liberal press is appalled at how liberal Democrats treat a conservative nominee of a Republican president, Democrats must have crossed a line."

So, who were the attackers? Judge Pickering has described John Edwards’ "inquisition" at the hearing as "the most vicious of all." Ted Kennedy, who also opposed Judge Pickering, later said, "John Edwards’ questioning of...Mr. Pickering, destroyed Mr. Pickering, as he should have been destroyed." Sounds pretty "non-partisan," don’t you think?

Senator Chuck Schumer said that Judge Pickering showed "glaring racial insensitivity" and that his nomination showed "Richard Nixon’s Southern strategy is still alive and well in the White House," which Judge Pickering took as an effort to connect him with "race-baiting." Schumer also stated that Judge Pickering had no African-American support in Mississippi, which was blatantly false. We’ve already named three prominent persons above who spoke in his favor, and they were by no means the only ones.

Senator Dick Durbin later bragged to supporters about opposing Judge Pickering, writing in a fundraising letter: "Back in Illinois one of Pickering’s critics in Chicago said to me: ‘He can change the sheets but he can’t change who he is.’" [emphasis added by us]. Unbelievably, with his letter Durbin tried to equate Judge Pickering with being a racist KKK member–this a man who had stood against, prosecuted, and testified against that horrendous organization, despite threats made against he and his family and regardless of the political consequences.

At the time of the vote by the Senate Judiciary Committee, as to whether Judge Pickering’s nomination would be allowed to be considered by the full Senate, there were ten Democrats on that committee, and nine Republicans. All the Republicans supported Judge Pickering. He only needed one Democrat to step up and at least vote to allow his nomination to go to the Senate floor–that one Democrat could then vote against him on the Senate floor if he or she so chose. Conventional wisdom said that if his nomination made it to the Senate floor, Judge Pickering would have easily won confirmation from the full Senate.

So, just one vote. One vote. Who else on that committee could have done the right thing and voted in favor of Judge Pickering’s nomination going to the full Senate for consideration? Who could have put an end to this slanderous charade with just one vote? A name very familiar to today’s political scene:

Senator Joe Biden. Yes, the running mate of the one constantly preaching "change we can believe in." No, Senator Obama, the more accurate way to put it would be "change we can be run over by," because that is just what your colleagues did to an honorable man and outstanding jurist, all in the name of partisan politics, which you have spent months saying you will depart from. Joe Biden had previously stated during the Clinton administration that he thought every judicial nominee was entitled to an "up or down" vote (by the full Senate). So, that should have meant Senator Biden voted for Judge Pickering, to receive just that, right?

Maybe in the make-believe world of nonpartisan politics, that is what Senator Biden would have done. But, he didn’t. He opposed Judge Pickering’s nomination, and voted with his fellow nine Democrats on that committee, and the nomination never reached the floor of the Senate.

All he had to do was vote "yes" on sending Judge Pickering’s nomination to the Senate floor, for an "up or down" vote by the full Senate --he even could have voted against the confirmation later. But no, Joe, we have to say "it is so": with a chance to do what was right, what you said you believed in, what the vast majority of those from Judge Pickering’s home state had urged, Joe Biden instead played partisan politics, and allowed the slander "hit job" of his Democrat committee colleagues to rule the day. In our opinion, we don’t need that kind of "leadership" in the White House, or a heartbeat away. We really don’t.

Please note the additional significance: those very same Senate colleagues of Senator Obama and Senator Biden are now, six years after, enthusiastically promoting their candidacy, and lambasting Senator McCain and Governor Palin at every opportunity. Do you really want those senators’ candidates in control of the White House? Do you really want those senators to remain in the Senate? Or their party to remain in control of either house of Congress? No, Republicans are not immune to partisanship. But if you want more judges deciding policy questions and legislating their own views from the bench, then that is what you will get with Obama in the White House and his friends in the U. S. Senate. Plus, John McCain and Sarah Palin both have solid histories of working with the other side, and even taking on their own party. When Joe Biden had the chance to do that with Judge Pickering’s nomination, he punted, and played politics as usual.

What happened to Judge Pickering at the hands of the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee was slander. They slandered a man of impeccable character and integrity who had spent his life doing the right thing, standing up to and showing courage against narrow-minded bigots, and doing whatever he could to bring people together and bridge the gap between the races. For all of his efforts, he got slandered by Charles Schumer, Patrick Leahy, Dick Durbin, and John Edwards, and their party colleagues on that committee, including Joe Biden, did nothing to stop that, and did not do the right thing.

We do direct our columns to non-Republicans and non-conservatives, and not just to conservatives. We respect the "PUMAs" out there who have chosen to vote principle over party, and support McCain/Palin. We realize a number of you in those categories may not appreciate what we have written about those liberal Democrats. We don’t know how we could view what happened to Judge Pickering any other way. When there are an overwhelming number of people from his own state, both black and white, Democrats and Republicans, plaintiffs lawyers and defense lawyers, all saying that the man should be confirmed, and he is even told behind the scenes that "this isn’t about you" as he is railroaded by Schumer, Leahy, Durbin, Edwards and company, then something is very wrong with the process.

Those senators do not deserve our trust. Their candidates for president and vice-president do not deserve our support. They will not bring "change" of any sort that will be good for our country, but will be ready to engage in further examples of character assassination and dirty politics, particularly if their party has clear majorities in both houses of Congress, and their candidate in the White House. To all you "moderates" and independents out there, and even to liberals disappointed with the outcome of the Democrats’ primary race, do you really want to see our country in the hands of these?

"Change we can believe in"? No, bad partisan politics as usual. That is what you will get if that group has the power. They are counting on you to give it to them, by either voting for them, or falling for Big Media’s "pronouncement" that it is "over" and that Obama has the election "in the bag." It is their fervent hope that this dishonest sales job by the liberal media will convince enough of you that there is no point in showing up at the real polls on November 4, when, in fact, you can put them in their place and put the candidates who stand for real change, John McCain and Sarah Palin, in office, and in a position to deal with partisans like those who attacked Judge Pickering.

Our country does need "change." So does our Congress. What those above did to Judge Charles Pickering illustrates that all too well.

Let’s not ignore this recent history, or we may be doomed to repeat it. If that happens, that won’t be good for America. That’s putting it mildly.

Big Media has tried its best to create the impression that Obama is not really the extreme liberal–or leftist–that he really is, and that he’s really just a "moderate" candidate calling for needed "change."

That would be Big Media’s "Big Lie"–that Obama is a "moderate." We don’t think that 45%, or 47%, or 49% of the people in this country are "leftists" or even liberals. For some reason, according to Big Media’s polls, that percentage of Americans supposedly favor the candidate of the Far Left.

Therefore, we decided to offer the "test" below...if you support Obama, or are seriously entertaining the notion of voting for him, but claim that you aren’t really that "liberal," or that he isn’t, then you need to be honest with yourself–yes, he is "that liberal," and he is the candidate of the Far Left. Are you? If you are not, then how can you possibly justify voting for him? Don’t be mistaken, we know you have the right to vote for whom you please, and we are thankful for that right. But, use the right wisely, and consider the issues in the campaign, and not just the "aura" created by Big Media and it’s candidate’s campaign.

If you were a Hillary Clinton supporter, we imagine you recognize that Big Media was as much "in the tank" for Obama when he faced Clinton as it is for Obama now as he faces McCain. We think many of you would find more common ground with McCain/Palin than Obama/Biden, especially given the following.

With apologies to Jeff Foxworthy, we offer the following:

If you’ve ever passed out and/or cried at an Obama rally...

You might be a leftist.

If you’ve ever registered the same people to vote over and over and over, or don’t think that is such a big deal...

You might be a leftist.

If you think the majority of the media is "just fine" and "objective" in its "reporting" of this election season...

You might be a leftist.

If you think ACORN is a "non-partisan" group that is just sincerely trying to "help" people, and rightfully receives boatloads of your tax dollars to assist them in those fine efforts...

You might be a leftist.

If you think the media should "investigate" Joe the Plumber, while remaining "ho-hum" [yawn] regarding ACORN, the many allegations of fraud associated with it, and Obama’s long history with that group...

You might be a leftist.

If you find nothing suspicious about having more registered voters in a county than there were people counted in the last census...

You might be a leftist.

If you think seeing little kids singing "songs of praise" to Obama is "cute" and a good thing for their health and development...

You might be a leftist.

If you are the parent of any of those children singing "songs of praise" to Obama, and think it is great that they are doing so...

You are a leftist.

If you are more concerned about a suspected terrorist having his privacy invaded by the U.S. government intercepting his overseas phone calls without a warrant, than having your own privacy invaded by a suicide bomb...

You are not only a leftist, but a dumb leftist at that [no offense].

If you think the entire starting lineup of the Dallas Cowboys registered to vote in the nearby states of Nevada and Minnesota...

Then ditto as to what we just said.

If you think Barack Obama sat in the Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s church for 20 years, and never heard Rev. Wright’s rantings, including blaming the AIDS virus on the U.S. government trying to kill black people, saying that America’s chickens had "come home to roost" after 9/11 [i.e., it was our fault], saying "God d— America" numerous times, and so on and so on...

You might be a leftist.

If you really believe Barack Obama didn’t have much of a relationship with Bill Ayers, or that it is OK to join political forces with an unrepentant terrorist while you attempt to win the White House, or that Bill Ayers is really just a misunderstood "professor"...

You might be a leftist.

If you don’t see a problem with the fact that the Obama campaign refuses to identify donors giving under $200, yet has reportedly raised millions and millions of dollars from those contributors, leading some to question whether those donations are valid, or could have come from foreigners, which is illegal...

You might be a leftist.

If you pay taxes now, and truly believe that under an Obama presidency, you will pay less taxes, even if you make less than the magic number of 250k [wait, wait, Sens. Obama and Biden keep dropping that number...first to 200k...now to 150k...do we hear 100k? Going once...going twice...]

You might be a leftist.

If you don’t have a problem with the Los Angeles Times withholding its tape of Barack Obama attending the party for former PLO official Rashid Khalidi–possibly in an effort to protect "it’s" candidate...

You might be a leftist.

If you think it’s a grand idea to have Barack Obama in the White House, Nancy Pelosi and friends in charge of the U. S. House, and Harry Reid and friends in charge in the U. S. Senate...

You might be a leftist.

If you don’t see the problem of having all those leftists in charge of the White House and both houses of Congress, with the appointments likely to be made to the U. S. Supreme Court, with that group in total control...

You might be a leftist.

If you think Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Barney Frank, Franklin Raines, Chris Dodd, Jack Murtha, and Dick Durbin are "the people we’ve been waiting for"...

You might be a leftist.

If you think it was fitting that Obama’s church, while he was still a member there, gave Louis Farrakhan a "lifetime achievement" award...

You might be a leftist.

If you think it was a good thing that another long-time Obama supporter, Rev. Michael Pleger, said that Louis Farrakhan was "a gift from God to a sick, sick world"...

You might be a leftist.

If you think Barack Obama’s past and present associations [e.g., Bill Ayers, Rev. Wright, Rev. Pleger, Rashid Khalidi, Tony Rezko, to name a few] are "irrelevant," but have a real problem with the clothes being furnished to Sarah Palin...

You might be a leftist.

If you think the attacks on Sarah Palin have been "objective" and "fair," and aren’t in the least bit sexist...

You might be a leftist.

If you think the number of abortions in this country will decrease under an Obama presidency...

You might be a leftist.

If you don’t recognize that the number of partial-birth abortions will increase under an Obama presidency...

You might be a leftist.

If you think the current economic crisis is "all Bush’s fault," and tend to think that about most any problem facing humanity...

You might be a leftist.

If you think a McCain presidency would be "just another four years of Bush"...

You might be a leftist.

If you are as confused as Barack Obama and Joe Biden appear to be, regarding who they are running against in this election–John McCain, not George W. Bush...

You might be a leftist.

If you think many of those who live in small cities and towns across America are "bitter" people who "cling" to their "guns and religion"...

You might be a leftist.

If you don’t have a problem with Obama speaking out against CEO’s "golden parachutes" while taking advice from a supporter, Franklin Raines, who made ninety million dollars as head of Freddie Mac...

You might be a leftist.

If you don’t see any inconsistency in Obama railing about "lobbyists" while at the same time accepting millions of dollars in donations from members of lobbying firms and their employees...

You might be a leftist.

If you think we need to adopt the "European" model of health care in this country, as Obama would have us do, and that such a move would be an "improvement" to our health care system...

You might be a leftist.

If you think Michael Moore was on to something when he did his little documentary down in Cuba, attacking the U. S. health care system while lauding the Cuban health care system...

You’re gonna be in a lot of trouble come your next trip to the hospital, if you insist on being taken to Havana...and, to add insult to your injury...you might be a leftist.

If you can read Bernard Goldberg’s 100 People Who Are Screwing Up America (and Al Franken is #37)** and not get scared for the future of both your country and your children...

You might be a leftist.

**[by our count, 80 of the 100 lean decidedly to the left, by the way...]

While we are on the subject: if you live in Minnesota and are seriously considering voting for Al Franken for the U. S. Senate...

You might be a leftist.

If you think Barack Obama will be a better friend to Israel and its security than John McCain...

You might be a leftist.

If it doesn’t bother you that terrorist groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah will celebrate if Barack Obama is elected...

You might be a leftist.

If you think shooting three-pointers on a basketball court has more relevance to serving as President than enduring five years of torture and mistreatment in an oppressive North Vietnamese prison...

You might be a leftist.

If you plan to vote for Obama, mainly because you think he’s going to win [after all, that’s what "TV" says], and you want to be on the "winning side"...

You might not be a leftist, but you are pretty darn shallow [no offense, but this is the future of our country we are deciding upon]...

If you have read all of this, and still have any remaining impression that Barack Obama is a "mainstream" person who is not a far-left radical leftist...

You most definitely are a leftist, whether you want to admit it or not.

If, on the other hand, you find that a number of the above are troubling to you, and cast considerable doubt on your thoughts of voting for Obama...

You are not a leftist...so why in the world would you entertain thoughts of voting for him?!

Especially with two maverick reformers as the other choice?