While we listen to the sappy nonsense of liberal politicians on Father's Day, let's not forget that todat there are 12 million, yes that is ten plus one two, good fathers in this land of the free who are denied the right to be participants in the lives of their own children. These men are not convicts, they are not the defaulters of the crushing tax known as 'child support' (which should be actually called  'new boyfriend support'), and they are not those who abandoned their children (as Barack Obama seems to think all absent fathers do). No, these are men whose only fault was to be married to women who one day decided that they needed new fathers for their children, used unilateral no-fault divorce, and got the radicalized family courts to kick out the men from their own homes and the lives of their own children.

We should be all thankful that most of us who participated in that debate live in the United States. Think about these two stories that have been, not surprisingly, not too widely reported by the mainstream media and the established denizens of ‘human rights’. In one case, a very prominent pastor was dragged before a ‘human rights tribunal’ for a letter he wrote to a newspaper editor in which he strongly opposed gay marriage. The sentence of the tribunal? Publicly apologize to the gay community, lose forever your rights to speak on the issue gay marriage in print, internet, radio or television, go through a ‘reeducation’ program, and pay a fine of 7000. Failure to comply will result in imprisonment. The other story involved another human rights tribunal in the same country that imposed a very similar sentence, with a slightly lesser fine, on a prominent journalist whose article used strong language against Middle Eastern terror groups whom the said journalist very clearly separated in his article from regular law abiding Muslims and Arabs.

The incidents mentioned above did not happen in some Taliban court in Afghanistan or a Nazi ‘peoples court’ in Germany. They are the very recent verdicts of the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal and the British Columbia Human Rights tribunal in that erstwhile beacon of freedom, Canada.

Any Canadian internet posters specially should take notice. If your viewpoints expressed here are in conflict with the bureaucrats who staff the ‘human rights tribunal’ in your province, you may be prosecuted and sent to reeducation camps. It is no longer a Orwellian nightmare..it’s a reality.

And by the…what happened in Canada is exactly what the liberal Democrats want in the United States. The so called ‘hate’ crimes law that the Democrat Congress has passed (but President Bush promise a veto) will be signed by Barack Obama in an instant and he has said so.

When Barack Obama and the liberal Democrats go after your pastor and bishop for the ‘wrong’ kind of sermons, don’t pretend that we didn’t warn you. When they pick up journalists in the middle of the night for writing against multiculturalism, don’t tell KsReaganite he didn’t tell you everything. For you and you alone will be responsible when, angered over the price of gas and the news from Iraq, you turn the ancient liberties of religious worship, free speech, and free press over to the fascists who come like Greeks bearing gifts of hope and change. And you would have deserved it richly.

You think it can’t happen here, don’t you? Well, that’s what the Germans thought..after all, they had democracy, a Constitution, a parliament, and a strong willed people. That’s what the Canadians thought.

In democratic societies, liberty is never lost in one stroke; but it is rather eroded slowly and incrementally while the people are lulled by a false sense of security, pride, enlightenment, and civility. When they finally wake up, it is too late.

One of the most loathsome and corrupting intellectual elements of latter day liberalism is the idea that everyone should go to college and taxpayers should pay for part of it. The entire thrust of the liberal Democrat legislative education agenda in Congress is to increase the share of the taxpayer’s burden to send everyone to college.

Everyone should not go to college because college isn’t for everyone, no matter how offended the liberal Dems feel about that truth. Nor does society benefit from such a silly and expensive idea. Truth be told, for large proportion of ‘students’ in college, it is five and six years of attending the easiest classes possible to get away with the most worthless degree imaginable, in between bouts of drinking, partying, and doing drugs. These ‘students’ want the parents and the government to pick up the tab for the entire experience while their own part time jobs are used to defray the payments on their sporty cars, fraternity fees, and beer runs. And if and when they do graduate, the search is on to linger on with a few classes here and a course there to defer payment on the already heavily subsidized school loans for the longest term possible. Rarely do you see these ‘students’ actually majoring in the hard sciences, criminal justice, economics, engineering, or business though many start of that way. No, often such individuals are found in art history, sociology, general studies, anthropology, women studies, philosophy and the like. We already pay for them to have the ‘college’ experience; now the Dems want us to pay even more.

Frankly, the truth be told, the federal government should not be subsidizing college education at all with the exception of education in areas that are deemed vital to national security, public safety, and macro-economic well being of society. That doesn’t mean that art history or women studies are not worthy majors; it only implies that those are not majors that the taxpayer need to fund from their pockets. I will be blunt: an art museum director is important to civic society, but not a tenth as much so as a police officer or computer engineer.

‘Recount’ portrays Ms. Harris as a vainglorious, self-centered, clueless politicians who is corrupt to the bone and who often talks about Biblical verses. I had met Ms. Harris once briefly and found her to be anything but. Except..yes, she is a woman of deep faith. And that should have made me immune to the initial surprise at seeing HBO’s nasty caricature of her.

You see, Katherine Harris is everything that the liberals hate about a woman. She is made her way in the tough world of Florida politics without the benefit of a politician husband and without becoming the concubine of extremist groups like NOW and NEA. She got an Ivy League education and yet remained faithful to the values that she learnt in Florida Panhandle’s small towns. She dresses well, speaks in complete sentences, and has no problem putting down prima donna men with big egos and small minds. And, to top it all, she confesses openly and boldly to being a Bible believing Christian woman who believes in the Ten Commandments personally and publicly (none of that silly ‘I am personally…but…’ nonsense from this woman).

Women like Katherine Harris scare the liberals and disgust them. The likes of her turn on its head the false idea that a 21^st century modern American woman can express her political philosophy only after clearance from the self proclaimed feminist radicals at NOW and WNLA.

While Veterans Day, November 11, is reserved fto pay respects for all those who have served the country in war, Memorial Day pays homage to a more select elite: those who made the ultimate sacrifice in the defense of their flag. Its origins lie in the War of the Rebellion (the so-called Civil War) which is, to this day, the costliest American war in terms of human lives. The first Memorial Day, in 1865, was designed to mark a solemn day of reflection and prayer (thankfully no ACLU was there to sue anyone praying then) in honor of those tens of thousands of American officers and enlisted men who paid the ultimate price in order to uphold the flag of their fathers when that flag, and the Republic for which it stood, was threatened by a well organized insurrection and widespread rebellion of the the slaveocracy.

1. Is the mistreatment of animals morally offensive?
2. While you personally perhaps will never be cruel to an animal, do you believe there should be laws preventing your neighbor from being cruel to his dog and cat?
3. Cruel pet owners often respond to animal rights activists who want to strengthen animal cruelty laws by saying 'Don?t like animal cruelty, don't get an animal but leave us alone to our beliefs.' Should a free society have laws to protect animals from cruelty?
4. Should we leave the treatment of pets up to the conscience of each pet owner and their families, clergyman, and veterinarian and keep government interference out?
5. Given the fact that in some cultures and religions things like rooster-fighting and dog-baiting are perfectly acceptable and legitimate, should we have still laws prohibiting them?

I have a set of questions in the Socratic format for my liberal and self-declared ‘moderate’ and ‘independent’ friends. Please answer with a yes or no. There will be a second set tomorrow. This is the first part of an exciting exercise.

Question 1: Is discrimination on the basis of race or sexual orientation wrong and immoral?

Question 2: Do you personally believe that prejudice against people of a different race or a differing sexual orientation is wrong?

Question 3: Would you, in your personal life, engage in discrimination against people of a different race or a differing sexual orientation?

Question 4: Would you support the enactment of laws that prohibit discrimination based on race and sexual orientation?

Question 5: Would you want judges to uphold these laws?

And today, in her hour of dire need, as she gasps for her political life-just like the 26 week old child gasping for life as the pincers of George Tiller puncture its tiny head-the abortion industry has pulled the plug on her. This morning the industry’s apex loudmouth NARAL endorsed Barack Obama without as much as a nod towards the lifelong obeisance that Mrs. Clinton had dutifully paid to the industry. Sisterhood be darned, there is a new hottie in town.

I am no supporter of Mrs. Clinton and have never found her anything but purely ambitious and driven by a lust for power. But even I have sympathy for her today. Forty years of dutifully selling her soul for blood money and to be treated like this in return. Must hurt. Wonder what she is gonna be drowning her sorrows in this weekend. Heck, I will drink a bourbon for her; after all, as her husband said so eloquently 'I feeel yaur paayne, girl'.