PINE BLUFFS -In May 2009, when Justice David Souter, 68, announced his intention to retire from the United States Supreme Court at the end of this term, Liberals and Conservatives immediately geared up for a brawl reminiscent of the scraps staged by the worst Chicago street gangs. This is the Court’s first vacancy since Barack Hussein Obama moved into the White House. Because it’s probably the most long-lasting and important domestic decision a president will make, interest ? and concern ? are running high to say the least.

Souter, appointed in 1990 by former President George H. W. Bush, turned out to be more liberal than anyone expected. With his disregard for precedent except when it suited him, and his tendency to legislate from the bench, he was sometimes a tie breaker, even more so than Justice Sandra O’Connor was during the 1990s, and Justice Anthony Kennedy has been since the turn of the century.

During his speech to Planned Parenthood in 2007, candidate Obama took a slap at the Justices on the Supreme Court and the judges on all the federal courts, as he set out his criteria for the men and women he would nominate to serve on the courts if he were elected: “We need somebody who’s got the heart - the empathy - to recognize what it’s like to be a young teenage mom, the empathy to understand what it’s like to be poor or African-American or gay or disabled or old. And that’s the criteria by which I’m going to be selecting judges.”

Apparently, Obama, back at that time, did not feel that the federal judiciary, although made up of many blacks, women, and other minorities, could possibly understand and/or empathize with those he mentioned above. Instead, he wants to see judges and Supreme Court justices giving special preferences to people whose cases are based upon their sex, age, income, ethnicity, disability, and sexual behavior. What’s wrong with that? Tony Perkins, President of the Family Research Council: “This is an attack on the bedrock American principle[s] that for more than 200 years have set America apart and that other enlightened nations have sought to emulate.” What’s Mr. Perkins talking about? The time-tested ideas that justice is blind; she does not favor some over others, and that America is based upon the Rule of Law; no person is above it.

After Justice Souter made his announcement, who did President Obama consider to fill the vacancy? Despite rampant speculation by the press, which cannot seem to wait for news to happen, only three names appeared on his “short list:” Solicitor General and former Harvard Law Dean Elane Kagan, Diane Pamela Wood, 58, a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7^th Judicial Circuit (which hears cases arising in Wisconsin, Illinois, and Indiana) ?-she’s also a lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School  ? and Sonia Sotomayer, a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2^nd Circuit (which hears cases arising in New York, Connecticut, and Vermont). Guess what? All his prospects were – surprise, surprise, women. Apparently he searched high and low for a qualified man, but could find none. Or he did not bother to consider any men at all.

Well, Ms. Kagan was jettisoned as too conservative by Obama’s standards. Judge Wood used the RICO statute (a racketeering law enacted by Congress specifically to combat organized crime) against a pro-life group in the case of NOW v. Schindler and watched horrified as her decision was overturned on appeal by a unanimous decision of the Supreme Court, which included liberal Justices Ginsberg and Breyer. That was deemed a fatal mistake. Last man, err . . . woman standing? Sonia Sotomayer, the absolutely perfect choice if you’re a liberal, woman and Hispanic, but care little about respect for our Constitution, knowledge of the law, and judicial temperament. Or, if you’re a president whose political party base is made up of liberals, women, and Hispanics.

On May 2, in his remarks about Justice Souter’s retirement, President Obama had expressed his intention to consult with Republican and Democrat congressional leaders in his search for a new justice. More than 50 conservative groups under the mantle of The Judicial Confirmation Network took him at his word and began gearing up for the first time since helping to defeat former President George W. Bush’s nomination of the obviously unqualified Harriet Miers and pushing the nomination of brilliant Judge Samuel Alito, instead. Groups like the well-respected American Center for Law and Justice, the Coalition for a Fair Judiciary, and the Committee for Justice all did background research on potential candidates, seeking to find the best and most qualified individual out there, only to see their efforts ignored by Mr. Obama, as he nominated – Sonia Sotomayer.

On June 24, 2009, Senator Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina) met with Judge Sotomayer, who is considered well to the left of Justice Souter. She’s been meeting with senators for weeks in preparation for her confirmation hearing scheduled to begin in the middle of July. Senator DeMint characterized their meeting as one that “covered a broad range of issues.” One of them is a shocker. “ When I asked if an unborn child has any rights whatsoever,” Senator DeMint continued, “I was surprised that she said she had never thought about it. This is not just a question about abortion, but about respect due to human life at all stages . . .”

Given Sotomayer’s admission, Senator DeMint questions whether she has what is required of all Supreme Court Justices – an unwavering commitment to the Constitution and equal justice for all Americans. He’s right. Her answer should concern us all – whether anti-abortion or not, but especially those who are pro-life. In this day and age, how can an intelligent, concerned person not have thought about whether an unborn child has rights? The Declaration of Independence, one of our nations’ founding documents, clearly states that “we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among them are the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Does Sotomayer’s admission indicate a lack of knowledge or understanding about our founding documents and what they contain? That would not be surprising, considering that many American schools, public and private, no longer teach anything about these documents that underpin America. It’s been settled for many years that without the right to life, a person cannot enjoy any rights at all. Therefore, unborn infants must be guaranteed safety in their mothers’ wombs.

Moving quickly, the Senate Judiciary Committee submitted a questionnaire to Judge Sotomayer.  An issue of lawyer’s ethics surfaced. In answer to one of the questions, Sotomayer, a former practicing lawyer, stated that while she was a prosecutor and later a member of a law firm, she “practiced alone” in a side legal business from 1983 to 1986 “as a consultant to family and friends.” She listed the name of this side business as Sotomayer and Associates.

But the American Bar Association’s Canon of Ethics says that advertising a solo practice as if it had more than one lawyer is unethical. “All state bar opinions are in agreement that a lawyer may not use the term ‘and Associates’ if there are in fact no associates in the firm,” the ABA says.

According to an editorial in The Washington Times on June 24, 2009, New York state Personal Injury Law blogger Eric Turkewitz was the first to discover this detail. “In New York,” he reported, “the conduct would fall under DR 2-102 of the Lawyer’s Code of Professional Responsibility, which bars misleading advertising on a letterhead. If in fact Sotomayer had no associates at her firm, it would appear she overstepped the bounds of self-promotion by making her firm seem bigger than it was.”

In this shading of the truth, Judge Sotomayer seems to have much in common with many of Mr. Obama’s governmental appointments who apparently believe they need not obey the same rules that apply to the rest of us. It’s an unfortunately popular saying that “Rules are made to be broken.” But if you or I failed to pay our taxes for years, we’d wind up in prison. When a lawyer violates one of the Canons of Ethics she will be censured or worse, disbarred. But no action has been taken against Judge Sotomayer.

Another troubling point. Sotomayer recently tried to argue that the Belizean Grove Club to which she belongs isn’t a woman’s club, even though membership in that ritzy organization is open to women only. That was too much even for liberal columnist, Michael Kinsley, who said this was a “preposterous argument.” He called her statement a “brazen whopper” and an “insult to the citizenry.”  I agree with him and with The Washington Times, which commented:  “This calls her veracity into question . . . her misleading advertising back in the 1980s [and these statements about her woman’s club] look less like oversights and more like a mark of questionable character.”

On the issue of her judicial temperament, the current Almanac of the Federal Judiciary, which publishes evaluations of all federal judges, is telling. The evaluations come from lawyers who have appeared and argued cases before the 2^nd Circuit Court of Appeals. These lawyers gave 18 of the 21 judges on that Court positive to glowing evaluations. Two judges received mixed reviews. Judge Sotomayer, however, was the only one to receive extremely negative comments. She was called “nasty,” “angry,” and “a terror on the bench.” “She really lacks judicial temperament. She behaves in an out-of-control manner. She makes inappropriate outbursts,” one lawyer told the almanac. Another said she “abuses lawyers.”

Whether or not a person possess judicial temperament – what his or her demeanor is on the bench – will be one of the issues the Senate Judiciary Committee will examine at her confirmation hearing. A lack of the proper temperament has been used successfully to attack nominees in the past. The Washington Times cites the example of Judge Robert Bork, whose Supreme Court nomination was defeated by liberals.

Further, when one considers the poor quality of her decisions  ?  60% of Sotomayer’s cases that have come before the Supreme Court have been reversed  ?  one must question her competence and knowledge of the law. A 60% reversal rate is extremely high. Three out of five decisions of the 2^nd Circuit Court of Appeals written by this 54-year old Hispanic woman have been reversed. “Her high reversal rate alone should be enough for us to pause and take a good look at her record . Frankly, it’s the Senate’s duty to do so,” said Wendy Wright, President of Concerned Women for America. 

And the case of Ricci v. DeStefano makes it six. A 5-4 decision handed down by the Supreme Court on “decision day,” Monday, June 29, 2009, may add to Sotomayer’s problems. In Ricci, the Court ruled that white New Haven, CT firefighters were discriminated against when the city threw out a promotion test because not enough minorities did well on it. In fact, no blacks passed it. Judge Sotomayer was one of three judges who ruled in favor of New Haven and part of a majority that rejected a full hearing before the 2^nd Circuit Court of Appeals. The plaintiff, Ricci, appealed.

“This court decision,” said Representative Tom Price (R-GA), who heads up the Republican Study Committee, “is enough to [cause us to] slow down her confirmation process and study her record.”

And that’s exactly what Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell wants to do. He said that the committee preparing for hearings on Sotomayer’s nomination needs time to review 300 boxes of records that recently turned up in connection with her work for a legal advocacy group; the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund. “The Committee needs to have access to that material and time to work through it so we don’t – so we know all the facts before we vote on a person who’s up for a lifetime job,” he said.

Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution deals with the Senate’s duty to give “advice and consent” to a president’s judicial nominations. But as Alan Drury’s best-selling novel by that name makes plain, the duty to advise and the duty to consent are two different matters. The Senate has a long history of simply sitting on nominations instead of bringing them to a vote. Former President George Bush advanced the argument that the Senate has a duty to vote a presidential nomination up or down. Many Senators have recently accepted Mr. Bush’s argument. But in this case, time is certainly not of the essence. The Senate has no duty to consent to the appointment of an unqualified individual simply because the president has placed that name in nomination. Its duty, as in the cases of Justice John Roberts, who was widely considered by his peers to be “the smartest lawyer in America,” and Justice Samuel Alito, who was known as “an exceptional, brilliant jurist” and “the best judge on the circuit, maybe in the country,” is clearly to reject mediocrity and consent only to the appointment of men and women of the highest quality. The effectiveness of the American juridical system is at stake.     

Finally, Judge Sotomayer has made some disturbing statements. She thinks that judges should decide cases based on “their experiences as women and people of color,” which should “affect our decisions.” In 2001, she said, “I would hope that a Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” Hmm. Aside from her obvious failure to consider life experiences like education or the lack thereof, knowledge and understanding of the law, and work ethic, isn’t that a sexist remark? What she and Obama are really talking about here is empathy and compassion. They are saying that we need more judges who are compassionate and who empathize. The process of voter’s electing judges is how we get compassionate people who empathize while applying the law, on the bench. Isn’t it stereotyping to say that white male judges lack those qualities? If a white male had said that, he’d still be defending himself from liberal media attacks.

The truth about judge Sotomayer is that she is unqualified, lacks the proper judicial temperament, does not respect our Constitution, and if appointed, would destroy the Constitutional concept of Equal Protection under the Law. She does, however, fit Obama’s criteria. That’s bad for America. Laws should be clear and predictable, not based upon the whims of judges. If the Senate confirms President Obama’s nominee, she will be the first of many federal judges who will be in a position to decide that:

1.    Some groups are more equal than others,

2.    Homosexual activists should be favored over those who believe in traditional morals regarding sexual behavior, and who want to protect children from that lifestyle,

3.    Abortionists should be favored over innocent unborn children,

4.    The government should be favored over individuals,

5.    The ACLU should be favored over those who publicly share their faith,

6.    Liberals and their causes should be favored over Conservatives.

In early May, Pelosi accused the CIA of lying to her in briefings back in 2002 and 2003 about techniques used to extract information from terrorists. She claimed she was told nothing about harsh techniques, although other representatives who attended the same briefings have stated that the CIA was up front about methods being used.

In an article written by Stephen Dinan of The Washington Times (5/25/2009), Representative Peter Hoekstra (R-MI) was quoted as saying “he can’t be sure Mrs. Pelosi was told specifically about waterboarding in 2002, but enhanced interrogation techniques were usually talked about as a unit.

“He also said it’s impossible to forget being briefed about harsh techniques. He said his first briefing on the subject was in the White House Situation Room, and the briefers actually demonstrated techniques such as a facial grasp.

“Mr. Hoekstra said Mrs. Pelosi as leader could easily have sought more information about the use of waterboarding, and he ridiculed her claim that there was nothing she could do to protest the techniques other than to win control of Congress back for the Democrats.”

Pelosi has disputed what she actually knew and has claimed she had few options to object. But the key phrase in her denials is “few options.” That means she acknowledges having known about waterboarding and that she understood she had some options available to register her objections. But, as the facts show, she did nothing.

What “options” were available? Here are just two: 1) a move to suspend or remove funding for offensive practices such as waterboarding from the CIA’s budget through the House Appropriations Committee or the House Select Oversight Committee; 2) a letter of protest to the White House announcing her disapproval of these practices.

Why did she do nothing? Her reasons center around the aftermath of September 11. At the time, most Americans, including Republican and Democrat leaders in Congress, sought to prevent another terrorist attack on American soil. Reliable Intelligence – HUMINT – was necessary. So they turned a blind eye to “harsh interrogation techniques,” accepting them as necessary in order to prevent a repeat performance by terrorists. And they were – necessary, I mean. On Sunday, May 10, 2009, former Vice-President Dick Cheney appeared on Face the Nation and defended controversial techniques such as waterboarding, saying that they were highly effective tools in extracting useful information from suspected terrorists. He cited Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, who is accused of helping carry out the September 11 attacks on Washington and New York. “He did not cooperate fully until after waterboarding,” Mr. Cheney said. “Once we went through that process, he produced vast quantities of invaluable information about al Qaida.”

In Dinan’s article, Hoekstra, top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, went on to say that in making her reckless accusations against the CIA, Speaker Pelosi has become “a wrecking ball to the morale of officers risking their lives in the field.”

The Speaker, criticized for having known about the harsh techniques but failing to do anything to stop them, is now attempting to shift public attention away from her own conduct by excoriating the Bush Administration for approving them. At first Pelosi announced that she knew absolutely nothing about the use of “enhanced interrogation techniques.” Top CIA personnel immediately disputed her claim. Later, she grudgingly admitted that she knew, but claimed the Agency told her it was only “considering” using waterboarding.

That subtle shift did not go unchallenged. Former CIA Director, Porter Goss, said that the Agency had informed Pelosi, in briefings, that it not only intended to use waterboarding, but that it had actually already done so. Goss further stated that the only objection raised by anyone during briefings was a concern as to whether the CIA was going far enough. Current CIA Director, Leon Panetta, an Obama appointee, agreed with Goss. “CIA officers briefed truthfully on the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah, describing the enhanced techniques that had been employed . . .” he said.

Pelosi’s response to all this came near the end of May. Backing away from her earlier shaky position, she turned her venom into an attack on the former Bush Administration. “My criticism of the manner in which the Bush Administration did not appropriately inform Congress is separate from my respect for those in the intelligence community who work to keep our country safe,” she said, after almost three weeks of accusing the intelligence community of lying, failing to identify those within that community she now “respects,” and failing to identify exactly how the Bush Administration had not “appropriately informed Congress.” She did, however, go on to say she no longer wants to stress the matter. That’s not surprising in view of the battering she has taken from members of both parties: a bi-partisan effort, you might say. Further, on Friday, May 22, Speaker Pelosi refused to answer questions on the controversy she herself created.” I have made [all] the statements that I’m going to make on the subject,” she said.

Ever the political animal, Pelosi did her about face after her own party leaders voted on May 20 to keep Guantanamo prison open for the foreseeable future, forbid the transfer of detainees at that camp to the United States, and blocked funds contained in a $96.7 billion Obama war spending bill for the closing of Guantanamo Bay prison where terrorist prisoners have been housed since the beginning of the War on Terror, and where 240 terrorists are still held.

In an abrupt shift of position, Democrat leaders in the Senate handed Mr. Obama a stunning defeat, voting overwhelmingly to strip the $80 million the half-black President had requested to shutter the Cuba detention facility. The vote was 90-6, another bi-partisan action.

Democrats read polls and tend to fashion their policy decisions based upon the results, whether or not those results are in the best interests of the country. On January 20, 2009, a Gallup poll revealed that Americans were leaning against closing Guantanamo. 45% said it should not be closed, 35% said it should be closed, and 20% had no opinion on the matter. On April 27, 55% of Americans said they favored the use of harsh interrogative techniques. Pelosi received poor marks: only 31% approved of the way she had been handling the matter while 47% disagree with her handling of it. 

These polls have led to increased pressure from members of both parties expressing concern for their constituents and wondering where the detainees would be moved. Recall that Mr. Obama has been asking European countries to accept the suspected terrorist detainees, only to suffer stern rebukes. His fall back position has been that he would bring them into the United States and place them in civilian prisons, a move strongly rejected by almost every community in the nation except for tiny Hardin, Montana. There, faced with hard times, local officials offered to accept Guantanamo’s castoffs. It seems Hardin has a brand new but empty $27 million 464-bed prison, which the Town had built thinking that the rest of the state would pay to house their prisoners. That proffer was quickly rescinded, however, by both Montana’s Democrat Senators and its one Republican House member.

Mr. Obama’s move is also opposed by many prominent personages. Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) was unequivocal on the matter, insisting that terrorism suspects will never reach American shores: “You can’t put them in prison unless you release them,” he said. “We will never allow terrorists to be released in the United States.”

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has been outspoken for weeks on the subject. On Tuesday, May 19, he said he hoped the Democrat decision to de-fund the closing was a prelude to keeping the camp open and dangerous terrorism suspects offshore where they belong. “Guantanamo is the perfect place for these terrorists,” he said. “However, if the President ends up sticking to his decision to close it next January, obviously they need a place to be. It ought not to be the United States of America.”

Also weighing in was FBI Director Robert Mueller. Appointed by President Bush in 2001 for a ten-year term, he told a congressional panel that he had concerns about bringing Guantanamo Bay detainees to prisons in the U.S. Among the risks he cited is “the potential for individuals undertaking attacks on those prisons in the United States” to free their fellow terrorists.      

And Senator Lamar Smith (R-TX) said: “No good purpose is served by allowing terrorists, who trained at terrorist training camps, to come into the U.S. and live among us. Guantanamo Bay was never intended to be an Ellis Island.”

As noted above, President Obama campaigned on a promise to close Guantanamo, claiming that it was somehow an embarrassment to us before our allies around the world. Apparently that’s because some prisoners there have been exposed to so-called “harsh interrogative techniques,” which Mr. Obama alleges amount to torture. Without explaining why this was so, he recently promised to close the facility by January 22, 2010. And that same Harry Reid, on May 20, in laying out his party’s rationale for stripping the funds from the funding bill said, “Guantanamo makes us less safe.” He didn’t explain why, either and since many of the 240 prisoners remaining in “Gitmo” are considered too dangerous to release, Reid should be asked why keeping them there makes us less safe.

Democrat verbal attacks on the CIA, enhanced interrogation techniques, and the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, together with the Senate hearing just begun in Washington, will leave this country more vulnerable to potential terrorist attacks. Dismantling the policies and protections begun by the Bush Administration after September 11 is neither wise nor prudent. In view of the recent poll showing that 37% of those previously released from Guantanamo have returned to their terrorist ways, releasing more of them is a valid concern. Furthermore, making public secret memoranda outlining our interrogation methods flies in the face of reason since it will provide our enemies with valuable data about what to expect if captured.

Republican leaders should strongly oppose all Democrat efforts in this regard. “You can’t play politics with national security,” former Cheney advisor Mary Matalin said. “Obama is clearly on the defensive here. He turned this into a values fight. This is not about moral relativism. Evil people want to kill innocents. Seeking to defend ourselves is not an abrogation of our values.”

Anthony Joseph Sacco, Sr., a writer, licensed private investigator, author of two novels; The China Connection, and Little Sister Lost, and a biography, Echoes in the Wind, holds degrees from Loyola University of Maryland and the University of Maryland Law School. His articles have appeared in the Washington Times, Baltimore Sun, Voices for the Unborn, the Catholic Review, WREN Magazine and the Wyoming Catholic Register. E-mail him at anthonyjsacco@hotmail.com, visit his website at www.saccoservices.com, and his web blog at http://anthonyjsaccosr.townhall.com/

PINE BLUFFS - Surely you’ve heard of Barney Frank (D-MA). He’s perhaps the Nation’s most prominent homosexual, who has served in Congress for 28 years. That makes me wonder exactly what the people of Massachusetts can be thinking, or if they're thinking at all: Teddy Kennedy and Barney Frank are returned to Senate and House, respectively, year after year, despite Kennedy’s Chappaquiddick, his unconcealed alcoholism, and now near-senility, and the bizarre, homosexually-driven, out-of-control behavior of Barney Frank.

As Congress grapples with solutions to fix our faltering economy, thrown into disarray by a socialist president touting “change” while skillfully concealing his real agenda from the American people, Barney Frank has quietly ascended to the highest positions of power.

Frank, Chairman of the Financial Service Committee in the U. S. House of Representatives, is playing a crucial role in determining how much of the bailout and stimulus money will be spent and what it will be spent on. That’s because the committee which he heads up oversees the housing and banking sectors, both of which are at the hub of the current economic crisis. But Frank’s power and influence extend beyond his chairmanship of the important Financial Services Committee. Ridiculous as it may be, this man has emerged as one of the heavyweights in the Democrat-led House and as such, will be instrumental in shaping its course and agenda. How’s that for an example of bankrupt leadership in the Democrat Party? Not to mention his “role” as a possible role model for America’s unsuspecting youth.

Frank’s Democrat colleagues, however, insisted this was precisely what happened. During debate, his friend Tom Foglietta (D-PA) said, “Barney Frank is accused of being stupid and, my friends, if being stupid were grounds for expulsion, there’d be very few of us left here.” Although he probably didn’t stop to consider the full implications and accuracy of his words, this incident demonstrated exactly how right he was.

Whatever he may be, Barney Frank is not stupid. A former Harvard instructor, Barney Frank twice won the title “brainiest,” “funniest,” and “most eloquent” member of the House in a survey of Capitol Hill staffers. It truly strains the bounds of credulity that Frank, an accomplished congressman and a former Ivy League lecturer, could have been deceived under his own roof by a street hustler. Barney Frank demonstrated that he is an accomplished liar, but the Democrat Party, filled with many who do the same, does not mind, and even rewards it liars with committee appointments.

Next after Gobi, Barney Frank become involved in another questionable - and possibly criminally tainted - relationship with a man called Herb Moses. Moses, whom Frank referred to as his “spouse,” was a high-level executive at Fannie Mae from 1991 until 1998. Dubbed a “mortgage guru” by the National Mortgage News, Moses boasted that he helped develop “many of Fannie Mae’s affordable housing and home improvement lending programs.” But it was precisely these kinds of programs that ultimately led to the collapse of the sub-prime mortgage market, the wiping out of trillions of dollars from the economy, and producing the economic turmoil that America now faces. Even though there were those warning against the precarious nature of the enterprise, Barney Frank - whose committee [is supposed to] oversees Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - kept resisting reforms and besmirching those voicing concerns.

When George W. Bush proposed that oversight of Fannie and Freddie be transferred to the Treasury Department, Frank strongly opposed the idea. He went before the cameras and claimed: “These two entities . . . are not facing any kind of financial crisis . . . The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.” This was nothing more than pandering to low income blacks, hispanics, and others who were high risk borrowers, which most banks would have turned down for mortgages before the Democrats rammed through legislation forcing banks to make high risk loans.

Up to the day of their collapse, Frank continued to claim that the two mortgage giants were financially sound. If the Democrats were not in control, and if Republicans had any thing to say about it, Barney Frank would be hauled before a congressional investigating committee, placed under oath, and made to testify about his culpability in the current crisis. One question that should be asked is if his ‘romantic’ involvement with Herb Moses - as well as the campaign contributions he received from Fannie and Freddie - played any part in his shilling for these two declining institutions.

Commenting on his shenanigans, the same Jeff Jacoby observed that under normal circumstances Frank’s questionable relationships might have landed him in prison. (Wow! Does Jacoby still have a job with The Boston Globe?) Voters in his very liberal congressional district, however, have rewarded Frank with a string of easy re-elections.

In his public life Barney Frank is known as a civil rights hawk. A feisty liberal activist, Frank has poured much of his energies into the area of lesbian, homosexual, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) issues. That figures, since he is, himself, a homosexual, and it makes me wonder exactly who his constituent base is. Just who does he represent? The people of Massachusetts’ 4^th District or the homosexual movement.

One of his questionable achievements was the founding of the National Stonewall Democrats, a homosexual activist arm of the Democrat Party that brought under one umbrella previously unaffiliated LGBT clubs across America. Describing itself as “a grassroots force for social change,” (a la Acorn, perhaps?), the organization is headquartered in Washington, D.C. and oversees more than 90 local chapters. The organization’s website states that its activities focus primarily on “mobilizing the LGBT [Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender] community to get out and vote on Election Day for fair-minded Democrats; and standing up when Republicans attack our families...”

As could be expected from the founder of the National Stonewall Democrats, Barney Frank voted no on constitutionally defining marriage as one-man-one-woman. During the debate he praised the “progressive” leaning of his own state’s body politic: “I believe the political community of Massachusetts is prepared to say, if two men love each other and are prepared to be committed to each other legally as well as emotionally, that is rather a good thing and we will say it is okay.” Need I point out that Barney Frank himself has had numerous “relationships” with other men, and it seems that ‘commitment” has not been a part of any of them.

Anthony Joseph Sacco, Sr., a writer, licensed private investigator, author of two novels; The China Connection, and Little Sister Lost, and a biography, Echoes in the Wind, holds degrees from Loyola University of Maryland and the University of Maryland Law School. His articles have appeared in the Washington Times, Baltimore Sun, Voices for the Unborn, the Catholic Review, WREN Magazine and the Wyoming Catholic Register. E-mail him at anthonyjsacco@hotmail.com, and visit his website at www.saccoservices.com.

PINE BLUFFS - From an acquaintance came this delightful piece of history regarding a message imprinted on the top of the Washington Monument. The original author is unknown, but I'm reproducing the piece here, and crediting an "unknown writer," while adding a few of my own comments.

"One detail that is never mentioned is that in Washington, D.C. there can never be a building of greater height than the Washington Monument. With all the uproar about [eliminating any and all mention of God from secular society simply because it might offend someone], removing the Ten Commandments, [prohibiting any mention of God at commencement exercises], etc., this is worth a moment or two of your time. I was not aware of this amazing historical information.
 
“On [one face of] the aluminum [point] cap [which crowns the apex] of the Washington Monument in Washington, D.C., are displayed two words: Laus Deo. [There are inscriptions on all four sides of the point, but the other three are simply informatory as to who built the monument, etc.]. No one can see these words. In fact, most visitors to the monument are totally unaware they are even there and for that matter, probably couldn't care less. 
 
"Once you know Laus Deo's history, you will want to share this with everyone you know. These words have been there for many years; they are 555 feet, 5.125 inches high, perched atop the monument, facing skyward to the Father of our nation, overlooking the 69 square miles which comprise the District of Columbia, capital of the United States of America.
 
"Laus Deo! Two seemingly insignificant, unnoticed words. Out of sight and, one might think, out of mind, but very meaningfully placed at the highest point over what is the most powerful city in the most successful nation in the world. 
 
"So, what do those two words, in Latin, composed of just four syllables and only seven letters, possibly mean? Very simply, they say 'Praise be to God!'
 
"Though construction of this giant obelisk began in 1848, when James Polk was President of the United States, it was not until 1888 that the monument was inaugurated and opened to the public. It took twenty-five years to finally cap the memorial with a tribute to the Father of our nation, Laus Deo. 'Praise be to God!' 
 
"From atop this magnificent granite and marble structure, visitors may take in the beautiful panoramic view of the city with its division into four major segments. From that vantage point, one can also easily see the original plan of the designer, Pierre Charles L’Enfant...a perfect cross imposed upon the landscape, with the White House to the north. The Jefferson Memorial is to the south, the Capitol to the east and the Lincoln Memorial to the west. [Actually, the Jefferson and Lincoln Memorials were not part of the designer's original plan. They were built many years later. But, the RESULT of it all - original designer's plan, additions, and changes added later - DO amount to an almost perfect cross]. "A cross you ask? Why a cross? What about separation of church and state? Yes, a cross; separation of church and state was not, is not, in the Constitution [but is a construct developed by activist judges in the 20th Century, interpreting the so-called Establishment Clause of the First Amendment in a way never intended by the founding fathers by using a phrase first coined by Thomas Jefferson]. So, read on. How interesting and, no doubt, intended to carry a profound meaning for those who bother to notice. 
 
"'Praise be to God!' Within the monument itself are 898 steps and 50 landings. As one climbs the steps and pauses at the landings [there are between 190 and 195 memorial stones that adorn the landings] the memorial stones share a message. On the 12th Landing [the 140-foot level] is a prayer offered by the City of Baltimore; [here it is in its entirety:

                   may heaven to this union

                        continue its beneficence

                        may brotherly affection

                        with union be perpetual

                        may the free constitution

                        which is the work

                        of our ancestors

                   Be sacredly maintained

                   AND ITS ADMINISTRATION

                        BE STAMPED WITH

                        WISDOM AND VIRTUE.

On the 20th landing is a memorial presented by some Chinese Christians;  on the 24th a presentation made by Sunday School children from New York and Philadelphia quoting Proverbs 10:7, Luke 18:16 and Proverbs 22:6. 'Praise be to God!' 
 
When the cornerstone of the Washington Monument was laid on July 4th, 1848 deposited within it were many items including the Holy Bible presented by the Bible Society. 'Praise be to God!' Such was the discipline, the moral direction, and the spiritual mood given by the founder and first President of our unique democracy, 'One Nation, Under God.' 
 
"I am awed by Washington's prayer [as first written, this was not a prayer at all, but the concluding paragraph of a letter which Washington sent to all the state governors, upon his disbanding of the Continental Army after the Revolutionary War. It was written not by Washington but by his aide de camp, David Cobb, for Washington. It has been interpreted by some as a prayer, and it is no less sacred] for America. Have you ever read it? Well, now is your unique opportunity, so read on!
 
'Almighty God; We make our earnest prayer that Thou wilt keep the United
States in Thy holy protection; that Thou wilt incline the hearts of the
citizens to cultivate a spirit of subordination and obedience to government;
and entertain a brotherly affection and love for one another and for their
fellow citizens of the United States at large. And finally that Thou wilt
most graciously be pleased to dispose us all to do justice, to love mercy,
and to demean ourselves with that charity, humility, and pacific temper of
mind which were the characteristics of the Divine Author of our blessed
religion, and without a humble imitation of whose example in these things we
can never hope to be a happy nation. Grant our supplication, we beseech
Thee, through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.' 
 
"Laus Deo! 
 
" When one stops to observe the inscriptions found in public places all over our nation's capitol [including on the front of the Supreme Court Building, and on the doors inside], he or she will easily find the signature of God, as it is unmistakably inscribed everywhere you look. You may forget the width and height of 'Laus Deo,' its location, or the architects but no one who reads this will be able to forget its meaning, or these words [taken from Psalms 127:1, and quoted by Dwight David Eisenhower when he took his oath of office as the 34th President of the United States]:

"Unless the Lord builds the house its builders labor in vain.

Unless the Lord watches over the city, the watchmen stand

guard in vain."  
 
"It is hoped you will send this to every child you know; to every sister, brother, father, mother or friend. They will not find offense, because you have given them a lesson in history that they probably never learned in school. With that, be not ashamed, or afraid, but have pity on those who will never see this because someone failed to send it on." 
   

[Well, will you! Send it on, I mean. Or send everyone you know to this blogsite to read it? Or better yet, will you stand up and be counted in the fight against the leftists, the ultra-liberals, the secularists, the appeasers, who would remove the sacred name and even the memory of the God to whom we all owe so much from public life?]

PINE BLUFFS - During the tediously-long 2008 presidential election campaign, mainstream media bias did not go unnoticed by anoyone except the mainstream media. A survey conducted by the Pew Research Center found that 70 percent of voters believed most reporters wanted to see Barack Hussein Obama win. Only 9 percent said the media favored John McCain. The rest said they didn’t know.

Just try this on for size as a blatent example of the steadily-growing media bias toward Republicans. If a worse example exists, I’ve not yet seen it. A recent Washington Times article compared headlines culled from major newspapers four years ago - a few days after George W. Bush’s inauguration - with headlines from the same major newspapers a few days after Obama’s inauguration:

Headlines 4 years ago:

“Fat Cats Get Their $42 Million Inauguration Party, Ordinary Americans Get the Shaft”

“Bush spends $42 million on Inauguration While Troops Die in Unarmored Humvees”

Headlines in January 2009:

“Obama Spends $120 Million on Inauguration, Americans Needs A Big Party”

“Everyman Obama Shows America How to Celebrate”

Citibank Executives Contribute $8 Million to Obama Inauguration”

PINE BLUFFS - When the Casper Ghosts take the field to open their 2009 season against the Idaho Falls Chukars, fans will be treated to a new General Manager, an upgraded Mike Lansing Park, exciting promotions, and innovative community outreach endeavors throughout the summer.  But the burning question will still be the same: can this team win the league championship or even a division title?

Will the 2009 talent be an improvement over the 2008 squad? That bunch finished third in the South Division, with a so-so record of 36 wins and 37 losses. While not that bad, it was enough to put some Ghost’s fans into a deep funk. Real baseball fans will understand what I mean.

But this season, things could get interesting and even exciting. Especially if you consider that these boys of summer are here for just one reason: to eventually make the majors. For them, it isn’t very serious, just the threshold of their whole careers.

As with many minor circuits throughout the country, the Pioneer Advanced Rookie League divides its season into two halves. There’s a winner for each 38-game half, and a playoff for the league championship in September. The Cape Cod League in Massachusetts and the Carolina League in the southeast are two other leagues that use this system. The Ghosts did not win either half in ‘08. Not even close.

Here’s how last year’s Pioneer League teams finished:

NORTH DIVISION:

Billings Mustangs                 42      34      .568    -

Great Falls Voyagers            39      37      .513    4.0

Helena Brewers                  35      41      .461    8.0

Missoula Osprey                  21      56      .280    21.5

SOUTH DIVISION:

Orem Owlz                        52      23      .693    -

Ogden Raptors                   42      33      .560    10.0

Casper Ghosts                             36      37      .493    15.0

Idaho Falls Chukars             33      43      .434    19.5

In ’08, eighteen-year old Catcher, Wilin Rosario’s stats were very impressive among the position players. He led the Ghosts in home runs with twelve. Not too bad in a league where the home run leader slugged only 15 the entire season. Rosario’s on base percentage was .371, his slugging average .532, his RBI total was 49, and his batting average ended up at .316. That’s 83 hits in 263 trips to the plate ? good enough for a team sixth, and seventh in the league. Possessed of a “gun” for an arm, he threw out 46% of base runners attempting to steal on his pitchers. Trust me, that’s super for a catcher at any level.

Last summer, the team’s pitching ace was right-hander, Dan Houston. A Boston College grad, Dan turned in a team tops six wins. With sixty-eight strike outs in sixty-nine innings, and an ERA of 4.17, he ranked 9^th in the League’s ERA race.  

Will either Rosario or Houston be in a Ghosts uniform for 2009? On April 10, I interviewed new General Manager, Mike Sandler, by e-mail. “Neither will be,” he said. “They’ve both been promoted for the 2009 season. Dan will be with the Asheville Tourists of the South Atlantic League and Wilin will be behind the plate for the Modesto Nuts of the California League. Both were bright spots in the Ghosts lineup last year and are sure to be big additions to their respective lineups.” See? In the minors, if you have a good season, you can expect to move up a notch.

Mike Lansing Field is named after Wyoming native and former major league second baseman, Mike Lansing, a career .271 hitter who played nine years in the majors for the Montreal Expos, Colorado Rockies, and Boston Red Sox. The Ghosts showcase their talents Monday through Saturday at 7:05 pm, and Sundays at 5:05 pm at the park, which is located on Kati Lane, next to the North Platte River, just south of the Casper Events Center. Built in 2001 to hold 2,500 rabid baseball fans, the first game ever played there took place on Opening Day 2002.

This year, the Ghosts, a Rookie League affiliate of the National League’s Colorado Rockies [the other affiliates are AAA - Colorado Springs Skysox, AA - Tulsa Drillers, A - Modesto Nuts, A - Ashville Tourists, and A - Tri-City Dust Devils], begin play away on June 23, hosted by the Chukars. 76 games later, our guys close out the summer at home on September 11 against the same team.

Ghosts manager, Tony Diaz, has been with the team since 2001. According to GM Mike Sandler, “he spent his first 6 years as hitting coach and this will be his 3^rd [year] as the team’s manager.”

Craig Bjornson will be this year’s pitching coach. According to Mike, Craig is in his first year with the outfit, having “. . . come over from the Dodgers organization.”

Glancing at the nicknames of the teams in this league, I don’t think the politically correct crowd will ever lodge a complaint against a team for choosing an appellation it considers “offensive.” All except two will carry names of animals or bird; one will take the name of beer makers, and the Casper team will sport its new brand, “Ghosts,” for only the second year, after spending seven as the Casper Rockies. The Chukars take their name from a South Asian partridge introduced into the American west as a game bird.

In June, the Ghosts will showcase its new General Manager Mike Sandler, who took over the reigns in October 2008. Actually, Mike has been with the Ghosts since 2007 when he began his career as an intern. He’s a native of Portland, Maine and a graduate of Roanoke College in Virginia, where he played tennis. During my e-mail interview in April, Mike told me, “I did not play baseball at Roanoke . . . got into baseball more out of passion for the business end rather than the sport.”

In a March 2009 interview with Ghostsbaseball.com, Mike took a few minutes to expound on what his first six months running a minor league baseball team has been like: “There certainly are a lot of challenges and a lot of things on your plate at one time, but all in all it is about as fun a job as anyone could ask for,” he said.         

What else will be new this June? Sandler again: “Brandon White has taken over as our new Director of Ticket sales and Chris Maxwell, who was our PA announcer last year, will also be our Director of Community Relations. Brandon has implemented a new season ticket holder referral plan called Operation 900, where new and old season ticket holders have a chance to win a trip to Phoenix in the fall to see the [Colorado] Rockies play. Chris has been working with local non-profits, helping to expand our role as a partner in community development. We also have a new cleaning crew from Monson Janitorial and we extended our partnership with Central Landscaping to really spruce up the ballpark this year.”

General admission seats are a very reasonable $7.50 (adults) and $6.50 (seniors/children). Reserved seating costs $9.00. For tickets, call 307-232-1111. Fans can also purchase a dynamite season ticket plan. For only $220.50, you can pick up a ticket to every regular season home game, as well as admission to batting practice sessions and those fantastic BBQ’s. You’ll also be given priority to purchase home playoff game seats, should lightening strike.

But will it? In my e-mail interview with Sandler on April 10, I asked him to evaluate the 2009 team: “To be completely honest,” he said, “I have no idea. The team has not been named, and much of last year’s team has been promoted, so we will have to wait and see how it works out. My hope is for a strong outing for the people of Casper.”

On paper this new crop of rookies looks good. If the pitchers step up, if the position players play great defense and get some timely hits, “a strong outing” is a reasonable expectation. In any event, a baseball game at Mike Lansing Field with the entire family is a wonderful way to spend a summer evening.

PINE BLUFFS – In Maryland, death penalty opponents are at it again! Democrat Governor Martin O’Malley’s desire to repeal the death penalty statute, re-enacted in that state in 1978 but seldom used, has everything to do with placating his liberal Democrat base, and nothing to do with looking after the welfare of the citizens of his state.

          Proponents of repeal argue that Maryland’s death penalty law has not resulted in

any reduction in the total number of murders in that state, and as such it is neither a deterrent nor an act of retribution. They overlook the fact that, in at least one case – that of the perpetrator – it is both a deterrent and an act of retribution. A murderer, carefully tried, convicted and sentenced to death in accordance with constitutionally required due process of law is, well … deterred.

          To conclude that repeal is the way to go, Mr. O’Malley ignores statistics, both national and state, that clearly demonstrate the positive effects of capital punishment on murder rates. To see this, let’s start by comparing the number of murders in Texas and Virginia during 2004 - 2007 with the number of murders in Maryland during those same years. Why select these states? Because prosecutors in Texas and Virginia – populous states that had death penalty laws on the books during that time period – aggressively pursue the death penalty, while Maryland does not enforce its’ statute:

Comparison of the number of Murders in Maryland with the numbers in Texas and Virginia during the period 2004-2007:

Year:            Maryland       Texas           Virginia

2004             521              1,364            390             

2005             522              1,407            458                       

2006             546              1,384            399             

2007             553              1,420            406                                 

          In the table above, you’ll note that the number of murders in Texas exceeded the number of murders in Maryland during the sample period. Many more people reside in Texas and Virginia than in Maryland. During these sample years, Texas was our second most populous state, and Virginia hosted a population about one and one-half times larger than Maryland’s. Next, to get a better understanding of what the figures are telling us, the populations of the three sample states should be compared.

Comparison of Populations of Texas and Virginia with the population of Maryland during the period 2004-2007:

Murder Rates in Maryland, Texas and Virginia per 100,000 people during the period 2004-2007:

2004             9.4            6.1           5.2

2005             9.9            6.2           6.1

2006             9.7            5.9           5.2

          Even as Maryland and a few other states debate whether or not to stop executing criminals, Texas, for many years the national leader in executions, has picked up its pace in the first two and a half months of 2009, marking its 11^th and 12^th executions during the second week of March. It is on a pace to eclipse its 2008 number (18), which was a lower than average figure that year due to the freeze placed on executions nationally by the Supreme Court as it studied whether or not the lethal injection method might be unconstitutionally cruel and unusual punishment.  

          Why has Maryland not seen a reduction in either the number of murders, or its murder rate? Simply because, even though the death penalty statute has been on the books since 1978, it has not been used much – not sought or applied by prosecutors, who cite numerous reasons for not doing so, including the expense of prosecuting a murder case. What they leave unstated is that Maryland is effectively a one-party state, where Democrats control the Legislature and most city and county governments. That means that with the two notable exceptions mentioned below, the vast majority of legislators and prosecutors in Maryland are liberal Democrats, who own a philosophical bias against the death penalty. That bias long ago surfaced as a racial argument – that blacks are disproportionately executed in Maryland – even though recent statistics show that this is not accurate.  

          Mr. O’Malley is cut from the same cloth. Since moving into the Governor’s office in Annapolis in 2006, he has frequently stated his desire to eliminate the death penalty. In 2009, he urged the Legislature to abolish the death penalty. A bill to do just that was introduced in the Maryland Senate. It seemed likely to sail through.

          But perhaps there’s hope for the people of Maryland. The 47-member Senate rejected Mr. O’Malley’s repeal plan, and on March 4, 2009, announced a “compromise” of sorts on the death penalty repeal bill by amending the existing bill [rather than killing it – no pun intended] to further restrict capital prosecutions – perhaps at least partially recognizing the wishes of many Marylanders who support the death penalty, but nevertheless, choosing exactly the wrong way to go in a state where gangs of thugs in Baltimore, for example, terrorize its large black population with a murder almost daily. Here’s why I say that.

          The proposed revision to the law would preclude murder cases where the only evidence is eyewitness testimony (which liberals deem unreliable), and in turn, require DNA evidence, videotaped evidence, or a voluntary, videotaped confession. After announcing the “compromise,” Senate President Thomas V. “Mike” Miller, a Democrat and death penalty supporter, said his chamber would not take up any further debate [on the issue] this session. Governor O'Malley then acknowledged that reform was the best he could hope for this year, and urged delegates to abandon repeal in favor of the Senate plan.

          However, in the view of some death penalty supporters, the limitations are tantamount to actual repeal. Maryland’s Attorney General Douglas F. Gansler, a former Montgomery County prosecutor and another death penalty supporter, was quoted as saying that the legislature's compromise "significantly limits the death penalty so as to almost nullify it in the state of Maryland."

          But both Maryland’s Attorney General and President of the Senate are now on record as supporting the death penalty. That bodes well for efforts to keep the statute alive.

          Look for advocates of this change to continue repeal efforts. They cite the findings of a “bi-partisan commission” appointed by the Governor in March 2008 but denounced by Republicans as a “stacked deck,” since proponents of Governor O’Malley’s repeal position occupied twelve of the nineteen Commission seats. At the time, a Republican Delegate from Cecil County said, “The outcome [of the Commission’s work] will be that the death penalty is racially biased, that it’s cruel and unusual punishment, and that it’s more costly to use the death penalty than life in prison.” Other Republicans labeled it “a decision waiting for a process to validate it.”

          As predicted, Marylanders were told that the Commission “carefully studied” the states’ death penalty and recommended abolishing it. But most students of the political scene understand that the appointment of a commission to “study a problem and recommend a solution” is a tactic frequently resorted to by governors, and even presidents, when they recognize a controversial issue and do not want to take responsibility for any change. That way, they cannot be blamed if a commission which they appointed returns with an unworkable solution, or one that proves unpopular with the voters.

          Approximately two-thirds of the American public believes in capital punishment. I support that belief. Even though I was, for a time, a defense attorney, I feel there are some criminal defendants who have earned the ultimate punishment our society has to offer by committing a murder or murders with aggravating circumstances present. Human life is sacred. It cheapens the life of an innocent murder victim to say that society has no right to keep the murderer from ever killing again. It’s my view that society has not only the right, but the duty to act in self-defense to protect its innocent and weaker members.

          The astronomic number of murders in the state of Maryland each year is disturbing. It should no longer be tolerated by the citizens of “the line state.” However, as long as the voters continue to elect Democrats to public office, there will be no “change we can believe in,” and more innocent people will die at the hands of merciless killers.   

Anthony Joseph Sacco, Sr., a writer, licensed private investigator, author of two novels; The China Connection, and Little Sister Lost, and a biography, Echoes in the Wind, holds degrees from Loyola University of Maryland and the University of Maryland Law School. His articles have appeared in the Washington Times, Baltimore Sun, Voices for the Unborn, the Catholic Review, WREN Magazine and the Wyoming Catholic Register. E-mail him at anthonyjsacco@hotmail.com, and visit his website at www.saccoservices.com.  

Prior to September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in the United States, or against U.S. citizens and military personnel in other parts of the world, had been carried out numerous times. (For a comprehensive list by year, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents). Those receiving the most media attention were the first World Trade Center bombing on February 26, 1993, when a car bomb exploded below Tower One, intended to knock the North Tower into the South Tower and bring both down, killing thousands. Although the demonic plan failed, it did kill 6 people and injured 1,042; and the USS Cole attack on October 12, 2000, when a small craft loaded with C-4 explosives blew up alongside the Arleigh Burke class destroyer while it was making a routine re-fueling stop in the port of Aden, Yemen. The blast killed 17 sailors and injured 37.

At least two other noteworthy terrorist incidents that did not garner much attention at the time were: January 25, 1993, when Mir Aimal Kansi, a Pakistani, fired an AK-47 rifle into cars waiting at a stoplight in front of CIA headquarters in Virginia, killing 2 and injuring 3 others; and March 1, 1994, the Brooklyn Bridge shooting, when Rashid Baz killed a Hasidic Jewish seminary student and wounded 4 on the bridge in New York City.

But Democrat President, William Jefferson Clinton, in the White House from January 1993 to January 2001, failed to recognize what was happening; that radical Islam had declared war on the United States. Consequently, little if anything was done militarily to serve notice on the Arab World that the United States would act promptly and decisively to avenge these incidents, protect itself against Islamic extremists, and otherwise join the battle. Further, Clinton continued the outmoded policy of arresting and trying terrorists in our criminal courts, despite the fact that this resulted in long delays in apprehending the perpetrators, and huge expense to American taxpayers as the legal system ground its way through trials and numerous appeals. He and his minions completely ignored the fact that as enemy combatants, terrorists are subject to the terms of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and the protections afforded to them therein, not the due process rights guaranteed to American citizens by our Constitution.

However, all that changed in 2001. George W. Bush moved into the White House in January that year, full of bipartisan zeal, and eager to attack the serious problems – foreign and domestic – that faced us. Little is known as to how his presidency might have impacted those problems, because just eight months later - in September - Mr. Bush was forced to radically alter whatever his plans had been, and devote almost his entire time and energy to a “war on terror” which was thrust upon us.

Because of the policies Mr. Bush has pursued since then, our country has been free of any further attacks like those described above. His actions involved revamping the intelligence community so that CIA and FBI now work together, monitoring terrorist communications that originate outside of America’s borders, and taking the fight to the enemy abroad, by searching out and destroying its training camps and sanctuaries.

But by far his biggest and most important undertaking was the creation of a new Cabinet level organization: the Department of Homeland Security.

In the face of numerous threats to the security of the United States, an entity was needed to come to grips with and attempt to manage the risks. President Bush saw this and moved quickly to establish this agency, appointing Pennsylvania Governor, Tom Ridge as its first Secretary. Later, on February 15, 2005, Michael Chertoff, who previously served as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Philadelphia, as U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey, where he prosecuted several noteworthy cases, and as an Assistant U.S. Attorney General, where he headed up the Criminal Division and co-authored the Patriot Act, became the second Secretary of this new and important cabinet Department, overseeing a $40 billion dollar budget (2008 figure) and coordinating 22 distinct agencies and programs, employing 218,501 employees, approximately 81% of them civilian, and 19% military personnel.

“On an average day,” said Mr. Chertoff in an op-ed piece in The Washington Times (CHERTOFF: Keeping America Safe, 12/26/2008), “the men and women of my department will screen more than 2 million domestic air travelers, inspect more than 300,000 vehicles crossing our borders, check more than 70,000 shipping containers for dangerous materials, and secure thousands of pieces of critical infrastructure.”

The Department’s overriding mission is to lead a unified national effort to secure the country and preserve our freedoms. While it was created to secure the United States against those who seek to disrupt the American way of life, its charter also includes preparation for and response to all hazards and disasters, including events like Hurricane Katrina.

Recognizing that it is impossible to provide “perfect security” to a country as large as the United States, with borders joining Canada (5,525 miles), and Mexico (1,969 miles), and two seacoasts with numerous busy ports, Mr. Chertoff understands that it is probably impossible to eliminate all risks. “Our goal and [former] President Bush’s vision has been to provide risk-based protection against the most significant threats, reduce our major vulnerabilities, and mitigate potential consequences, with minimal disruption and inconvenience,” he said. “I believe we have achieved these aims. Across land, sea, and air, our nation is better equipped to deal with threats of the 21^st century. In many cases, we have implemented programs and capabilities that did not exist prior to September 11.”

He is correct. The task has been daunting. In the transportation field, more than 20 layers of security have been added to airline travel. These include federal air marshals on many flights, 100 per cent screening of passengers and their bags, hardened cockpit doors, and heightened cargo security requirements. The Transportation Security Administration (TSA), comprised of 43,000 security officers, inspectors, directors, air marshals, and managers who protect our nation’s transportation systems so we can travel safely, look for bombs at border checkpoints and in airports, inspect rail cars, patrol subways with law enforcement partners, and work to make all modes of transportation safe.

During the week of January 20 –January 25, 2009, TSA reports that 9 passengers were arrested due to suspicious behavior or fraudulent travel documents, 16 firearms were found at checkpoints, 4 artfully concealed prohibited items were discovered, and 12 incidents that involved a checkpoint closing, terminal evacuation, or sterile area breach were processed.

In the area of Immigration, the Department’s most significant accomplishment has been with the U.S. Border Patrol. It has met President Bush’s goal of doubling the workforce during his presidency from around 8,000 agents to its present force of over 18,000. According to Border Patrol officials, the additional personnel have helped elevate drug seizures and apprehensions of illegals coming across the border.

Just in time, too. The country is reeling under the impact of illegal aliens streaming across what was once a porous southern border. Many communities, conscious of the slogan, “We are a nation of immigrants,” have attempted to provide jobs and services to these people, even though that slogan is not altogether accurate; it is more correct to say, “We are a nation of legal immigrants.” Perhaps these statistics, taken from an article appearing in the Los Angeles Times, a newspaper not known for supporting conservative causes, might bring some perspective to the problem:

1. 40%of all workers in LA County, California (LA County has 10.2 million people) are working for cash and not paying taxes. This is because they are predominantly illegal immigrants working without a green card.
2. 95% of warrants for murder in Los Angeles are for illegal aliens.
3. 75% of people on the most wanted list in Los Angeles are illegal aliens.
4. Over 2/3 of all births in Los Angeles County are to illegal alien Mexicans on Medi-Cal, whose births were paid for by taxpayers.
5. Nearly 35% of all inmates in California detention centers are Mexican nationals here illegally.
6. Over 300,000 illegal aliens in Los Angeles County are living in garages.
7. The FBI reports half of all gang members in Los Angeles are most likely illegal aliens from south of the border.
8. Nearly 60% of all occupants of HUD properties are illegal.
9. 21 radio stations in L. A. are Spanish speaking.
10. In L. A. County 5.1 million people speak English, 3.9 million speak Spanish. (There are 10.2 million people in LA County).
11. Less than 2% of illegal aliens are picking our crops, but 29% are on
    welfare.
12. Over 70% of the United States' annual population growth (and over
    90% of California, Florida, and New York) results from immigration.
13. 29% of inmates in federal prisons are illegal aliens.

And that’s not the half of it. Just look at these statistics regarding what is spent annually to support this invasion of illegals from our neighbor to the south. For ease of checking, the URLs have been included so you can confirm these facts yourself:

1. Nationally, $11 Billion to $22 billion is spent on welfare to illegal aliens each year by state governments. Verify at: http://tinyurl.com/zob77<http://tinyurl.com/zob77>

2.  $2.2 Billion dollars a year is spent on food assistance programs such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches for illegal aliens. Verify at: http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html>
 
3.  $2.5 Billion dollars a year is spent on Medicaid for illegal aliens. Verify at: http://www.cis..org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html>

4.  $12 Billion dollars a year is spent on primary and secondary school education for children here illegally and they cannot speak a word of English. Verify at:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRI PTS/0604/01/ldt.0.h tml <

5.   $17 Billion dollars a year is spent for education for the American-born children of illegal aliens, known as anchor babies. Verify at http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html <

6.  $3 Million Dollars a DAY is spent to incarcerate illegal aliens. Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html <

7.  30% percent of all Federal Prison inmates are illegal aliens. Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html <

8.  $90 Billion Dollars a year is spent on illegal aliens for Welfare & social services by the American taxpayers. Verify at:
http://premium.cnn.com/TRANSCIPTS/0610/29/ldt.01.html <

9.  $200 Billion Dollars a year in suppressed American wages are caused by illegal aliens. Verify at: < BR>http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html <

10.  The illegal aliens in the United States have a crime rate that's two and a half times that of white non-illegal aliens.  In particular, some experts believe that their children are going to create a huge additional crime problem in the US. Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0606/12/ldt.01.html <

11.  During 2005, there were 4 to 10 MILLION illegal aliens that crossed our Southern Border, and also as many as 19,500 illegal aliens from Terrorist Countries.  Millions of pounds of drugs, cocaine, meth, heroin and marijuana, crossed into the U. S from the Southern border.  Verify at: Homeland Security Report:  http://tinyurl.com/t9sht <
http://tinyurl.com/t9sht>

12.  The National Policy Institute “estimated that the total cost of mass deportation would be between $206 and $230 billion or an average cost of between $41 and $46 billion annually over a five year period.” Verify at:  http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute.org/pdf/deportation.pdf.

13.  In 2006 illegal aliens sent home $45 BILLION in remittances back to their countries of origin. This means that the United States is supporting the economies of Mexico and a few other nations. Verify at: http://www.rense.com/general75/niht.htm.

14.  "The Dark Side of Illegal Immigration: Nearly One Million Sex Crimes Committed by Illegal Immigrants In The United States." Verify at:
http://www.drdsk.com/articleshtml <http://www.drdsk.com/articleshtml>

The total cost of all this is a whopping $ 338.3 billion dollars each year.

Surely these are sobering statistics. Those who champion open borders and work to protect illegals once they arrive “seeking only a better life for themselves and their families,” must understand that these illegal aliens are violating U.S. sovereignty and breaking the laws of their new country - as their very first act in setting foot in America. That is NOT the way my grandparents, and probably yours, came to America. It cannot be tolerated any longer. We are a nation of compassionate people. In times of emergency, no country on Earth gives more aid and assistance to others. But when that compassion – and our generosity - are abused and taken advantage of (ever hear of the Reconquista Movement in southwestern United States?) we can and must take action to protect ourselves.

Some progress is being made. In the interior, according to Mr. Chertoff, “. . . we have arrested record numbers of illegal aliens, including more than 11,000 gang members, 34,000 fugitives. We also have cracked down on employers who violate immigration laws, while giving businesses better tools, such as E-Verify, to maintain a legal work force. The result has been a historical reversal of illegal immigration, with no net increase in the illegal immigrant population in our country for the first time in decades.”

What’s E-Verify? A voluntary program that allows private employers to ensure electronically that their new hires are eligible to work in the United States. In just one year it has processed more than 4 million eligible checks, and 82,000 employers have taken advantage of the free service.

The system has proven to be quite effective,” explains James Carafano of The Heritage Foundation, “and SSA and DHS continue to work to improve service, reliability, and privacy protections.”

Knowing that business is (or at least, was) driving the illegal immigration problem, recent raids on large corporations that hire numerous illegals have been conducted recently. And an end to “Catch and Release” policies followed by two Democrat Administrations in the ‘90s, whereby illegals were arrested, processed, assigned a trial date and released on their own recognizance never to be seen again, has been mandated. Also resources have been assigned to end gang violence, which is among the most difficult of criminal activity to quell. All this is good news indeed.

Other accomplishments of the Department of Homeland Security include the building of hundreds of miles of pedestrian and vehicle fencing, including an attempt at a “virtual fence” of about 128 miles, and adding new technology to prevent entry of terrorists, criminals, illegal aliens, and dangerous drugs and weapons.

With so much of its resources devoted to the southern border, what about our seaports? Radiation scanning equipment has been deployed to check almost 100% of incoming cargo for weapons of mass destruction. Before September 11, no cargo was scanned for such threats. And in an interesting innovation, U.S. inspectors have been stationed overseas to screen cargo as it leaves foreign ports.

Driving across America, one can’t help but notice large numbers of oil, gas, and chemical plants, which appear unprotected and vulnerable to terrorist attacks. Is anything being done there? Mr. Chertoff again. “We now require high risk facilities to develop security plans and harden their assets. We have implemented new regulations for chemicals traveling by rail. To guard against biological threats, we have developed early warning systems for 30 major metropolitan areas under the Bio Watch program. We have built new national facilities to characterize and respond to biological attacks. And to counter emergency threats in cyberspace, we have launched a major, multi-agency initiative to protect cyber systems and infrastructure.”

Since 2001, excluding Iraq and Afghanistan, terrorists have killed more than 20,000 innocent people and wounded more than 43,000 around the world. But not one of these has happened in the United States.  According to Mr. Chertoff, “That is a testament to the president’s [Bush’s] leadership and to the deliberate efforts of the 218,000 men and women of the Department of Homeland Security who serve our nation today.”     

Anthony Joseph Sacco, Sr., a writer, licensed private investigator, author of two novels; The China Connection, and Little Sister Lost, and a biography, Echoes in the Wind, holds degrees from Loyola University of Maryland and the University of Maryland Law School. His articles have appeared in the Washington Times, Baltimore Sun, Voices for the Unborn, the Catholic Review, WREN Magazine and the Wyoming Catholic Register. E-mail him at anthonyjsacco@hotmail.com, and visit his website at www.saccoservices.com.

          Because I think what the secularists have done with Saint Valentine's Day is deplorable, and because Christians have apparently, perhaps unknowingly, let it happen, I searched for and found a description of who these mysterious Saints were, when they lived and died, why we actually celebrate this holiday, and its religious significance to Christians worldwide.

          Saint Valentine's Day, as we know it today, contains vestiges of both Christian and ancient Roman tradition. Who was Saint Valentine and how did he become associated with this ancient rite? Today, the Christian religions recognize at least three legends about the real Saint Valentine. Musty historical vestiges from a lost age? No. The Saint Valentine legends clearly refer to heroic men who stood on principal, and who are worthy of emulation in today’s world.

            Three different Saint Valentines, all of them martyrs, appear in martyrologies under the date February 14. One is described as a priest in Rome, another as bishop of Interamna Nahars (modern Terni, capital city of Terni Province in the Umbria region of Central Italy). These two men both suffered in the second half of the third century and were buried on the Flaminian Way but at different distances from the city. In William of Malmesbury’s time, what was known to the ancients as the Flaminian Gate of Rome, and is now the Porta del Popolo, was called the Gate of Saint Valentine.  The name seems to have been taken from a small church dedicated to the saint which was in the immediate neighborhood. A third Valentine apparently lived and suffered in Africa, but little is known about him. ions, nothing further is known.

Africa a number of companions, nothing further is known.

          One legend contends that Valentine was a priest who served during the third century in Rome. When Emperor Claudius II decided that single men made better soldiers than those with wives and families, he outlawed marriage for young men — his crop of potential soldiers. Valentine, realizing the injustice of the decree, defied Claudius and continued to perform marriages for young lovers in secret. When Valentine's actions were discovered, Claudius ordered that he be put to death.

             Another story suggests that Valentine may have been killed for attempting to help Christians escape harsh Roman prisons where they were often beaten and tortured.

          According to yet another legend, Valentine actually sent the first 'valentine' greeting himself. While in prison, it is believed that Valentine fell in love with a young girl — who may have been his jailor's daughter — who visited him during his confinement. Before his death, it is alleged that he wrote her a letter, which he signed 'From your Valentine,' an expression that is still in use today.

          Although the accuracy of the Valentine legends is murky, the stories certainly emphasize their appeal as sympathetic, heroic, and romantic figures, who suffered and died for a cause. It's no surprise that by the Middle Ages, Valentine was one of the most popular saints in England and France.

            I don't know about you, but I'm tired of seeing secularist efforts like this one going unchallenged. They’ve almost completely succeeded in removing any religious meaning from this holiday, all because of the feeling in some quarters (secular media, some publishing houses, Madison Avenue advertising, to name three) that to express any religious sentiment in the public forum might offend a few. Talk about the tyranny of the minority! Their determined attack to remove Christmas from our society almost succeeded, and would have succeeded if it weren't for groups like the Alliance Defense Fund, which mounted a counter-attack in the courts and schools to stop that effort in its tracks.
 
          I think we should mount another counter-attack; this one to "take back" the St. Valentine's Day holiday. What about you?

          If you agree, the first thing you can do is to refer all your relatives and friends to the site of this article, with instructions to read it and e-mail it to everyone on their e-mail lists.
 

          The second action you might take is to write or e-mail the advertisers mentioned in Mr. Solman’s article (those who advertise on That’s So Raven, and that Vermont Teddy Bear ad might be good places to start), telling them you disapprove and urging them not to repeat their disgusting ads next year.

          At least, these actions might put a small dent in the secularist’s effort to turn a basically Christian religious holiday into yet another salacious, commercial non-event.

          This Christmas week in December 2008, many parts of the west have been hit hard with snow and ice storms. Winter has barely set in, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has reported 63 record snowfalls, and 115 lowest-ever temperatures for the month of December. Here’s what a few cities were experiencing. But surely, in view of what the experts have been saying, this can’t be anything more than an aberration.

          In Seattle, temperature was at 32º F and snow was falling. To the chagrin of pilots charged with safely flying passengers in and out of Seattle-Tacoma Airport, visibility was down to just three tenths of a mile. The forecast called for more snow mixed with rain, continuing through Christmas day, adding to the 13 inches of white stuff already on the ground. Seattle? That city doesn’t usually get snow of any magnitude because of its proximity to the warm waters of Puget Sound.

          Exasperated Seattle residents told reporters how grateful they were for their wind chill index, devised by the Government some time ago to do more than accurately describe weather conditions; it lets us know how we experience it. “We sure are grateful to the U.S. Weather Bureau for the wind chill index,” a shivering, unnamed resident of nearby Tacoma said. “It lets us know exactly how toasty warm we really are. Just now, it feels like a super 22º.”

          In eastern Washington State, Spokane residents have already measured a total snowfall for the month of 46.2 inches, a record for December, according to a Weather Service spokesperson.

          Six hundred miles east, in Butte, MT, a winter storm warning was in effect, and the forecast was cloudy and 13º.  But were it not for that same wind chill factor, residents would be unaware that “it really feels like 4º.” If ignorance is truly bliss, I think Butte residents might like some just about now. 

          In fact, winter storm warnings were in effect for parts of Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, Utah, Montana, Wyoming, and the western Dakotas. A blizzard warning covered the mountains of southwest Colorado, while yet another snowstorm closed highways around Reno, NV, the latest in a tiring week of bad weather for that area.

           “It’s going to be a heck of a storm,” said Chris Cuoco, senior forecaster for the National Weather Service in Grand Junction, CO. “[Here] we’re expecting significant snowfall in all the mountains of Colorado. Even the valleys are going to see 4-plus inches of snow. The forecast called for up to 20 inches of snow in parts of the Rockies, along with gusts of wind up to 80 mph.

           Moving farther eastward, in Chicago, IL, hundreds of holiday travelers spent Tuesday night at the country’s second busiest airport, temporarily converted into an upscale motel due to a barrage of ice and snow storms. Some travelers faced the prospect of doing it again on Christmas Eve as airports across the country slowly recovered. Wednesday morning a light rain was falling, and the temperature hovered at a torrid 35º F. Wind chill? Felt like 29º F, but that has not deterred Chicagoans who were attempting to cool off the political situation, especially in the Democrat Governor’s office, where it’s been extremely warm of late.

           Global warming notwithstanding, the Midwest has not escaped winter’s wrath. Freezing rain glazed streets and highways in the Chicago area. Interstate 290 (The Eisenhower Expressway) was closed for several hours due to ice, and the Town of Lemont blocked off all its major intersections. 

           And in Denver, CO, the day before Christmas, it was cloudy and 30º F with a wind chill factor of 23º F. Men shoveled piles of snow from the rooftops of homes in Crested Butte after a heavy storm blanketed that town on Friday.

           Next door in Indiana, 150 miles of the Indiana Toll Road was shut down for about two hours because, as a State Trooper said, “It was an entire sheet of ice.” Numerous accidents were reported along its length. Indiana also closed a 10-mile stretch of Interstate 69 north of Fort Wayne.

             In fact, seven traffic deaths in Indiana were blamed on the ice Friday, adding to the four weather-related deaths in that state earlier in the week. In Indianapolis, a fire engine was reported to have slid off a road into a tree, and four firefighters were hospitalized with minor injuries.

           But Omaha, NE reported the most serious effects of global warming. There, the sun shone brilliantly the day before Christmas, and it was a robust 8º F.  That pesky wind chill index suggested that all Omaha residents should feels like it was -8º F. Helpful local media informed one and all that they should not burn coal – clean or otherwise - because of the cumulative effects of carbon monoxide trapped under a layer of warmer air. CBS, NBC and ABC Television news affiliates took pains to ensure that Nebraskans heard that doing so would increase “respiratory aliments” among residents in that city; just one more thing for them to worry about.

           Across the country, according to the New York Times, Boston Globe, Baltimore Sun, Washington Post, and other “top” newspapers, people were tightening their belts and going without food and medicine, in order to control the atmospheric interiors of their homes, environmentally. “We need to control the atmospheric interiors of our homes environmentally,” LaTonya Washington, an inner city Denver resident told a reporter for the Rocky Mountain News, after its reporter ended his long search for someone in that neighborhood who could speak English, “just like Al Gore does.” No doubt this astute observer of the national scene was referring to the Cap and Trade system to reduce carbon emissions advocated by our esteemed former Vice-President, who began making use of such a system at his home in Nashville, TN shortly after recuperating from his exhaustive efforts inventing the Internet. Mr. Gore could not be reached for comment. When pressed, a spokeswoman admitted that her boss was busily flying about the country in his private jet, drumming up support for the Cap and Trade idea. When it was pointed out that the Earth seemed to have been cooling for the past decade despite everything Mr. Gore has been saying, she did admit that his plane carried a supply of extra blankets.

          Anthony J. Sacco, a writer, licensed private investigator, author of two novels; The China Connection, and Little Sister Lost, and a biography, Echoes in the Wind, holds degrees from Loyola College and the University of Maryland Law School. His articles have appeared in the Washington Times, Baltimore Sun, Voices for the Unborn, the Catholic Review, WREN Magazine, and the Wyoming Catholic Register. E-mail him at AnthonyjSacco@hotmail.com and visit his blog at AnthonyjSaccosr.townhall.com. His work can also be seen at Triond, an on-line Internet magazine.

          John was the eldest son of former Ambassador Ellsworth Bunker and Harriet Allen Butler, of Yonkers, N.Y. His father, a prominent Democrat, served both Republican and Democrat Administrations as an Ambassador to Argentina, Rome, India, The Organization of American States (OAS), and South Vietnam until his death in 1984. Hawkish on that war, while in Vietnam he strongly supported the war efforts of both Presidents Johnson and Nixon.

          John’s mother, a bright, articulate woman from a wealthy family, saw her role in the traditional way; providing personal support for her husband, and taking part in the social life that figures prominently as an ambassador’s duties. For her, that included ensuring that the children were well brought up, developed a strong sense of right and wrong, and enjoyed a stable home life. And this was the first of the fortuitous events mentioned above, because John and his two siblings, Ellen and Sam, benefited greatly from their mother’s tutelage during their parents’ 44-year marriage. Harriet died in 1964.

          The second fortuitous event was Ellsworth Bunker’s deep seated belief in public service fostered during his four years at Yale, and later passed on to his three children.

           Born in Manhattan, John spent his early years there, where he attended local private schools. Later, after the family moved to Dummerston, Vermont, near Brattleboro, his parents sent him to the Putney School, a private, college-preparatory high school not far from Vermont’s border with New Hampshire. Later, as his father and grandfather had before him, his college years were also spent at Yale.

          The third fortuitous event was Wyoming’s gain – of the Bunker family. John’s son, John C. Bunker, was the first to arrive. Part owner and General Manager of Brown Company, which sells New Holland farm equipment in Wheatland, John told me, “I came out here in 1983 and bought a 6000-acre ranch. My father was partners with me in that. Later he decided to retire here. In fact, if you look at his Yale yearbook, it [the caption under his photo] says his ambition was to ‘move west and cattle ranch.’” 

          The fourth event was John’s acceptance of a position on the Board of Directors of the First State Bank in Wheatland. Retired as President of C&H Sugar, California’s and Hawaii’s sugar company, he was asked to serve, and he did not refuse a chance to become a part of his adopted community. He filled that post with distinction until his death after a short bout with stomach cancer. “Dad fought cancers [of various kinds] in other parts of his body on and off over the years,” young John said. “He was diagnosed with stomach cancer in December 2004, and died a few months later.”

          Enter Bruce A. Hellbaum, First State Bank’s President and Chief Operating Officer, with the fifth fortuitous event. “It was a long-standing bank policy to do something special for a Board member after his or her death,” Bruce told me in an interview at the Platte County Library. “John had been an avid reader, so I approached Julie Henion, the Library’s Director, with an idea; a circa 1900 Wyoming ranch house reading room, containing western literature and art, rustic furnishings, and a place for local residents to hold meetings or just to work quietly. (See photo). With her help, we flexed out the concept.”

          “When Bruce came in, we’d been wondering what to do with some space which used to be the alcove at the Library’s old front entrance,” Julie explained. “We wanted to do something different with it. Bruce’s idea was exciting.”

          The next event was a gathering of people who could make it happen; DaMarr Raben, a local artist and interior designer, and Blayn Tamlin, maintenance supervisor with Platte County. “The bank set our budget,” DaMarr, who did the design and decorating, said. “It was a generous but also realistic $10,000 - $11,000.”

          Together these two talented people came up with a concept for the room’s entrance, and an interior design for the 28’ x 13’ space. “Our idea featured two French doors that can be closed for meetings, for laptop use, or just reading and research,” DaMarr said. “On each side of those doors are two decorative panels that I painted,” she elaborated proudly, “The subject is Wyoming’s State flower - Indian Paintbrush. The panels are canvas painted and applied to sheet rock, and antiqued to remind of turn of the Century architecture.”

          Meanwhile, Blayn recalled seeing an old oak table and several chairs in a storage room in the Courthouse, which appeared to date back to 1910-1915. “The County Clerk and Commissioners were all in on it,” he chuckled. “With their permission, I negotiated that table and several chairs from over there, in exchange for a few chairs the Library had on hand.”

          It took several months to put the project together. “We used all local resources,” Julie Henion said. “We didn’t have to go out of town for anything. Or anyone.”

          First, an acoustic tile ceiling was installed, with track lighting on each end designed by DaMarr Raben. Then the block walls were coated and textured, creating the effect of a leather finish, merging modern function with early 20^th Century style. Crown molding was then added. Next, bookcases with adjustable shelving were built on both north and south walls, allowing plenty of room for expansion. Finally, additional furniture was introduced.

          “The Library already had several barrister bookcases,” Julie said. “and also a beautiful hat rack with mirror, which had been around for ages. They fit the look we were striving for, so we moved them in.”

          What about the leather couch and two comfortable overstuffed chairs, which add so much character to the room? Another fortuitous event. DaMarr Raben explained: “They’re reproduction pieces from the 1800s. A client of mine, local developer and collector, David S. Cronk, was downsizing his home. He wanted to dispose of them. I was able to acquire all three pieces.”          

          Some other very interesting artifacts adorn the Wyoming Room. These include a framed, undated but very early reproduction of a map of Wyoming, Colorado and Utah, a Charles Russell (1864-1926) print – The Broken Rope; a historic photograph, entitled Winter-Absaroke - donated in October 1985 by W. R. Jones, William K. Vines, and Raymond B. Hunkins, of the local law firm of Jones, Jones, Vines & Hunkins, a bronze sculpture of an Indian on horseback, entitled The Scout, by James Allard, and another, Cowboy on bronc, presented in memory of Rachael Ann Fish.

          But the crowning item – a piece of artwork that dominates the room and brings everything together - is an original oil painting on Masonite, by Wyoming’s noted landscape artist, Conrad Schwiering. Donated to the Library by Ed Foreman in April 1967, the painting portrays the famous twin peaks of the Grand Tetons towering above the Snake River, with trees in the foreground. Schweiring’s work completes the theme originated and carried out by Hellbaum, Henion, Raben, and Tamlin, and is part of a fitting tribute to John B. Bunker, who adopted the Cowboy State as his home in his later years, and served it well until his death.  

          Anthony J. Sacco, a writer, licensed private investigator, author of two novels; The China Connection, and Little Sister Lost, and a biography, Echoes in the Wind, holds degrees from Loyola College and the University of Maryland Law School. His articles have appeared in the Washington Times, Baltimore Sun, Voices for the Unborn, the Catholic Review, WREN Magazine, and the Wyoming Catholic Register. E-mail him at AnthonyjSacco@hotmail.com and visit his blog at AnthonyjSaccosr.townhall.com. His work can also be seen at Triond, an on-line Internet magazine.

PINE BLUFFS - On November 11, 2008, Jesuit Father Federico Lombardi, director of the Vatican press office, announced that U.S. President-elect Barack Hussein Obama called Pope Benedict to thank him for his congratulatory telegram. The call responded to a telegram the Holy Father sent to Obama after he won the presidential election November 4.

          According to Zenit, a news agency specializing in coverage of the Holy Father, in his papal telegram the Bishop of Rome promised Obama his prayers so that God would assist him in his “weighty responsibilities at the service of the nation and the international community.” And it expressed Benedict’s wish that the Lord's blessings support Obama and the American people, “together with all men and women of good will, [in efforts] to build a world of peace, solidarity and justice.”

          A congratulatory telegram from the Pope does not mean the Vatican approves the results of the election, which saw the most pro-abortion administration in U.S. history take the reigns of power. Heads of state routinely send congratulatory messages to winners of major elections in other countries. The head of the Vatican City State does, too. Nor does it mean that Pope Benedict XVI and the Church hierarchy will sit idly by while Mr. Obama follows through on his promise to overturn 300 plus pro-life laws and restrictions enacted during the administrations of Presidents Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II, by passing the so-called Freedom of Choice Act. 

          Just days after Rev. Jay Scot Newman handed a letter to his parishioners at St. Mary’s Roman Catholic Church, Greenville, SC, telling them that if they voted for Mr. Obama they should refrain from receiving Holy Communion, because the Democrat president-elect supports abortion, and supporting him “constitutes material cooperation with intrinsic evil,” the Church began mobilizing to deal with this new and alarming situation. 220 Catholic Bishops met in Baltimore and drafted a statement warning the President-elect that passing the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) would be viewed as a direct attack on religion.

          It seems that back in July 2007, Mr. Obama announced to a Planned Parenthood audience that signing FOCA would be his first priority: “Well, the first thing I'd do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act . . . On this fundamental issue, I will not yield and Planned Parenthood will not yield.” Now, with his Party in full control of Congress, Obama will be pressed to live up to his promise as payback for the abortion community's support. If successful, the newly expanded majority might even overturn the partial-birth abortion ban, which a Republican Congress passed twice, only to see it vetoed by former President Clinton. It was through the efforts of President George Bush that this abhorrent practice was finally ended.

          Catholic bishops have offered to work with the incoming Democrat administration on numerous issues. But the defense of life is not one of them. “This is not a matter of political compromise,” Bishop Daniel Conlon of Steubenville, Ohio said. “It's a matter of absolutes.” Might the church's forceful opposition to FOCA be the excuse some Catholic Democrats in Congress need to vote the legislation down? We’ll see.

          Several prelates promised to call to account Catholic policy makers on their failures to follow church teaching. Bishop Joseph Martino of Scranton, Pa., singled out Vice President-elect Biden, a Catholic, Scranton native who supports abortion rights. “I cannot have a vice president-elect coming to Scranton to say he's learned his values there when those values are utterly against the teachings of the Catholic Church,” Martino said.

          Archbishop Joseph Naumann of the Diocese of Kansas City in Kansas said politicians “can't check [their] principles at the door of the legislature.” Naumann has said repeatedly that Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, a Catholic Democrat who champions abortion rights, should stop taking Holy Communion until she changes her stance. “They cannot call themselves Catholic when they violate such a core belief as the dignity of the unborn,” Naumann said.  

          Also at risk is the Mexico City Policy, a policy originally announced by President Reagan in 1984 at an international population conference in Mexico City. It required that to receive funds under the population control aid program overseen by the Agency for International Development (USAID), private overseas organizations would henceforth have to agree not to perform abortions, except to save the mother’s life or in cases of rape or incest, and not to promote abortion as a method of family planning — by campaigning to weaken or repeal the pro-life laws of foreign nations.                

          When Bill Clinton took office in January 1993, he overturned this policy by Executive Order. But on George Bush’s first day as President he delivered on his campaign promise to re-instate Reagan’s Mexico City directive. Mr. Obama? His long-standing pro-abortion record, going back to his days in the Illinois State Legislature where he even opposed the Born Alive Infants Protection Act at the state level, and later at the federal level, points to what may be in store for us.

          If for no other reason, Congress should take seriously the Bishops’ warning because Roman Catholics are powerful players in the U.S. health care system. Catholics run approximately 550 hospitals and over 400 clinics in America. The Church spends billions to help the disadvantaged obtain their needed care. Under FOCA, religious providers would have two options: either comply with the abortion mandate or end their services completely.

            Would Mr. Obama and a Democrat Congress be so intent on appeasing Planned Parenthood that they’d close down the entire Catholic hospital system? Would they have the power to do it? With a pro-choice Democrat occupying the White House, and majorities in both Congressional bodies, only a slim 5-4 majority in the Supreme Court and the necessity to raise 60 votes to cut off a Senate fillibuster stand in their way. James Madison, speaking on January 30, 1788, said: “The accumulation of all power, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands . . . may justly be pronounced as the very definition of tyranny.”

          Do Roman Catholics really understand? Do they care? The election is over and the voters have spoken. Catholic voters appear to have made a huge mistake in judgment. An AP article on November 13, 2008 citing national exit polls said: “54% of Catholics chose Obama …”  Don’t the statements of Bishops Martino, Naumann, and others apply equally to all Catholics?

            Saddened by this situation, Rev. Thomas Euteneuer, Director of Human Life International, wrote in HLI’s e-Newsletter on November 14, 2008: “Now that the election is over, we can separate the real Catholics from those who just act the part. Those still reeling from the results of the election can rest assured that they are in good company with the saints. Those who have drawn a line in blood and made a decision to stand with the culture of death need a serious examination of conscience… America has made her ‘choice’ for maximum leader and it is not pretty. In fact, it’s one of the most devastating blows to American civilization that we have ever undergone, and I do not speak in hyperbole. Even such a saintly figure as Mother Theresa said that ‘a nation that kills its children has no future;’ likewise, an authority like Fr. Benedict Groeschel recently commented that we have entered into ‘the beginning of the twilight’ of our country - dire words that touch on the reality of electing the most extreme, pro-abortion candidate America has ever had the misfortune of occupying the highest office of our land.”

          It could’ve been worse. The voters did not give Mr. Obama such a decisive victory that he can claim a mandate to advance a radical social agenda. What exit polling confirms is that this election was driven by the economy and a loss of confidence in the Republican Party. Despite what some in broadcast and print Media may claim, the country is not lurching leftward socially. Exit polling commissioned by Family Research Council (FRC) asked voters where “moral values” ranked in their list of priorities. In the 2004 election, 22% rated moral issues as their first priority when voting. On November 4, 2008, in the midst of the greatest economic challenge in many years, 20% still cited “moral issues” as their first or second priority.

          So while we congratulate Mr. Obama on his victory and pray for his safety, Roman Catholics – those who do NOT just act the part - must be there to remind him daily that values aren’t just among the issues; they are the most important issues.” We cannot sit idly by while a president who does not respect life from the moment of conception to the moment of natural death reverses the hard-fought gains we’ve made, and advances policies attacking human life.  

      Anthony J. Sacco, Sr., a writer, licensed private investigator, author of two novels; The China Connection, and Little Sister Lost, and a biography, Echoes in the Wind, holds degrees from Loyola College and the University of Maryland Law School. His articles have appeared in the Washington Times, Baltimore Sun, Voices for the Unborn, the Catholic Review, WREN Magazine,  the Wyoming Catholic Register, and Triond.com.  E-mail him at anthonyjsacco@hotmail.com, and visit the original source of this article at Triond.com.   

PINE BLUFFS - The Presidential Election of 2008 – 21 months of charges and countercharges, exaggerations and distortions, outright lies and twisting of facts - is a thing of the past.

          The Media tell us we made history on November 4th by electing the first black President in our long, colorful existence. They conveniently overlooked the publicity they gave to liberals like black author Toni Morrison (aka Chloe Anthony Wofford) in 1998, and black Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX) speaking at the Congressional Black Caucus in September 2001), who, with perhaps a bit of overblown rhetoric, claimed that former President Bill Clinton was actually the first.

            That omission is neither here nor there. But Media bias cannot be overlooked as a contributing factor in this election. According to the Center for Media and Public Affairs, comments made on ABC, CBS, and NBC by sources, voters, reporters, and anchors over the two months immediately prior to the election reflected positively on Barack Obama 65% of the time, but on John McCain only 31% of the time. Nevertheless, despite these findings, Bernard Goldberg’s two books Bias and Arrogance, and the opinions of many people, including much if not all of Middle America, the Media are not biased. Members of the Media have told us so, and we “can trust” them.  

          And we can overlook its mistakes, too. Such as its constant drumbeat during the campaign that America’s youth would turn out in droves to elect Barack Obama. Obama was elected alright, but the youth did not turn out in droves; in fact the youth vote was actually less than it was in 2004. 

          Anyway, the election is over. The people have spoken. John McCain gave a very gracious, gentlemanly concession speech. Barack Hussein Obama is our President-Elect and will be our 44th President. Blacks are happy. Even though the city of Toledo issued riot gear to its entire police force – the idea being that if Obama lost, blacks would riot in the streets, and if Obama won, blacks would riot in the streets – election night appears to have passed peacefully.

          So, my first comment after the election is to offer congratulations to Obama and his supporters. I will now join the ranks of the loyal opposition, or as some are putting it, the Conservative underground. 

        As my friend Eric, a Conservative Jewish radio talk show host (yes, there are such people alive and well in the United States), and blogger extraordinaire put it a few days ago on his blog (See www.blacktygrrrrexpress.com): “There will be many days ahead where I will offer everything from analysis to criticism to self reflection. Today, as much as I am disappointed, I offer only congratulations. . . . Senator Barack Obama won this race fair and square. We can argue about merit and policy, and in the coming months we absolutely will. However, getting elected in politics is a game, and Barack Obama played it well enough within the established rules to win.”

            Here’s one thing I won’t do, and I hope all Conservatives will refrain from doing. I will try not to fall into that reflexive, mindless, knee-jerk hatred of a President that Liberals did. Directed toward George W. Bush from the inception of his presidency by such ultra-liberal organizations as MoveOn.org, Slate, and others, and venom-spewing individuals like George Soros, they attempted not just to prove his policies wrong, but to destroy at every opportunity a fine man who did much good for America during his 8-year term. Sadly, that venom was picked up and parroted by ordinary Democrats who do not follow politics closely and are often victimized by rhetoric from irresponsible sources.     

            Many are now asking, “How will Obama govern? From the Center? Well, yes, if you think that the Left is now the Center. Or, will he govern from the far Left? To get at least something of an answer now, it’s helpful to examine his political career, which includes his years in the Illinois Senate representing perhaps the most liberal (and corrupt) district in that State, his friends – such as Bill Ayers, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, and Fr. Michael Pflaeger - who have influenced him most, his campaign promises, and his rhetoric.

          Let’s begin by looking at his election night acceptance speech. Obama touched all the bases – I’ve heard nine presidents give these speeches during my lifetime, so I know - the speech was standard boiler plate stuff. As they all did before him, Obama said that in a spirit of bipartisanship he’d reach out to Republicans and include them in his Administration. But the very next day, we saw that the first appointments to his Transition Team were all Democrats; all former Clinton transition team staffers. Not a Republican among them, and here, if he really wanted to display a bipartisan approach, was the perfect spot to do so. People on transition teams have very specific jobs to do and cannot hurt a president’s policies in any way).

          As for me, I’m happy that we live in a land where, as President Bush said the day after the election – and as I’ve written before - the peaceful transition of power is a hallmark of our Democracy and a credit to our people. Karl Rove, a former presidential adviser to Mr. Bush and another man hated and persecuted by the Democrats because of his political effectiveness, put it well: “The masses are not asses!” 

          Bipartisanship? On Thursday, November 6, it was announced that Obama’s first major appointment – Chief of Staff in his future White House – would go to Rahm Emanuel, a member of the U.S. House of Representatives since 2003, who represents Illinois 5^th Congressional District. That area covers the north side of Chicago and parts of infamous Cook County, which many believe, invented the lowest standards of political corruption in the country. A rabidly partisan Democrat, Emanuel served as Director of former President Clinton’s Finance Committee during Clinton’s first primary campaign. He proved an adept fundraiser, and still is, this time for Barack Obama, who raised $750 million, the most ever in the annals of presidential campaigns.

          Rumor has it that Emanuel mailed a rotting fish to a former Party co-worker after they parted ways. Can you imagine the message that must have sent to its recipient? And after the 1996 election, Emanuel was so enraged at the president’s enemies that he stood up at a celebratory dinner, and in front of everyone, grabbed a steak knife, and began rattling off a list of “enemies” or betrayers (a la Richard Nixon’s enemies list, perhaps?), shouting “Dead! . . . Dead! . . . Dead! and plunging the knife into the table after every name. His lack of bipartisanship earned him the nickname “Rahm-bo.” 

          Emanuel, a Jewish person who once supported the War in Iraq, left the White House in 1999 and took a well-paid position at Dresdner Kleinwort, an investment bank in Chicago from 1999 to 2002, where he reportedly earned $18 million. He was named to the Board of Directors of the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) by then President Clinton, where he oversaw some, if not all, of the disastrous policies that brought about the financial crisis with which the country is now dealing.

          To be fair, however, some say Emanuel has aligned himself with the center-right of the Democrat Party since his election. He has been returned to the House every two years since 2003, by ever increasing voter majorities. Does this mean he might counsel his new boss to run a center-right Democrat Administration. We can hope.

          It’s interesting that the drive-by Media, which neglected its job of vetting Obama during this intolerably long and costly presidential campaign - no, actually championed his cause – now is being heard to say, quoting Tom Brokaw on the evening of the election – that “We don’t really know who Obama is.” What? All the Media had to do was assign a reporter to investigate his background. And it had 21 months to do it. Someone in the broadcast or print Media could have selected an investigative reporter from among the 41 the Media dispatched to Alaska to hunt through Sarah Palin’s trash digging for dirt about her. Or, they could have gone to any one of numerous websites such as mine, or listened to Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Hugh Hewitt, Glen Beck, or other respectable Conservative talk show hosts, who attempted to do the Media’s job for it by bringing Obama’s background to the public’s attention.    

          On November 4th,  I watched Obama’s acceptance speech and considered it clever politics. As I said, he touched all the bases. Several things struck me, especially this one. Have you ever seen one where the successful candidate stood up there alone delivering his speech? No wife. No cute kids. No Vice-President, and his wife and family. Yes, I know they came onstage prior to, and they came back after, but during? Just him alone. I don’t know quite what to make of that. Egotistical? Narcissistic? Creepy?  We’ll see.

          In any event, governmental power is now firmly in the hands of the Democrats. That’s the way the people voted. Republicans cannot win every election. After winning seven out of ten previous elections, we got what we probably deserved. Given stewardship of the country beginning with both houses of Congress in 1994, we failed to exercise it responsibly and the voters saw that. Remember that famous quote of Lord Acton? “Power often corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.” All Republican office holders were not corrupt. Some were. Earmarks point to that fact. John McCain promised to rid the federal government of “pork barrel politics,” and reduce the deficit once again to the balanced budget brought about by Newt Gingerich and his Contract with America in 1994. The voters didn’t think that was important enough to entrust Mr. McCain with the highest office in the land at this time. Will Obama cut government spending or raise it? Balance the federal budget or continue and even add to deficits? Raise taxes on the middle class or lower them? We’ll see.  

          One thing is clear: many of the people who will hold power in the new Administration will be leftists. Some of them are or have been members of the Hate America crowd. How will they govern? That’s a big question mark. The stock market suddenly seems to be concerned. Counting Election Day and the two days following the election, it declined substantially, incurring the largest losses ever experienced immediately after an election in American history. It has begun to rebound, but it will take months to recover to pre-election levels.

          The Media are spinning, spinning; it was the bad news about unemployment; it was the bad news about the economy; it’s the War in Iraq and the War in Afghanistan, etc. Of course, it was not the news that Obama, who previously promised to raise the capital gains tax, to raise taxes on corporations (you know, the ones that provide a large percentage of the jobs Americans depend upon), or that he was found to have said, earlier this year in an interview with the San Francisco Chronicle, that he intends to bankrupt an entire coal industry in order to cease our dependence upon coal as an energy source. That, for states like West Virginia and Wyoming, would be disastrous. Nor could it have been anxiety that an Obama Administration might nationalize all IRA, Keough and 401K funds, removing them from the capital markets in which they are now invested. Of course not.

          Barack Obama is seen by many as someone who wants to unite people. Is he? There is now talk among the Democrats of reprisals against those in the Senate and House who disagree with them. Senator Joe Lieberman, a close friend of John McCain, who did not support Obama, is a case in point. Senate majority leader Harry Reid (D-NV) will “meet with him to discuss his future.” At issue is a filibuster proof Senate. To get there, Democrats need 60 votes. Lieberman, who chairs an important committee, changed his registration to Independent when he last stood for election after Democrats abandoned support for him and supported his ultra-liberal opponent. It’s well-known that Connecticut is the third or fourth most liberal state in the Nation. Lieberman often disagrees with the Democrat leadership. Will he be forced into line? Yes. Threatened with loss of his Committee chairmanship? Probably.              

          One final thing: life will go on. I will not climb out on a narrow ledge and contemplate jumping just because my Party did not win this election. The people chose Barack Hussein Obama, and although I did not agree, I will respect that decision.

          Generally, the Liberal elites think they know what’s best for the country. I do not believe, as Liberals do, that they know better than we how to spend our money, when we should and should not go to war, and - I love this one – that paying higher taxes is a patriotic duty, while Joe the Plummer and the rest of us are simply, as Rep. John P. Murtha (D-PA) said just a few months ago, ignorant “rednecks clinging to their religion and their guns,” because they do not understand the world around us.

          May God bless the United States of America!

          Anthony J. Sacco, Sr., a writer, licensed private investigator, author of two novels; The China Connection, and Little Sister Lost, and a biography, Echoes in the Wind, holds degrees from Loyola College and the University of Maryland Law School. His articles have appeared in the Washington Times, Baltimore Sun, Voices for the Unborn, the Catholic Review, WREN Magazine and the Wyoming Catholic Register. E-mail him at anthonyjsacco@hotmail.com, and see this article on TRIOND, at http://www.newsflavor.com/Oponions/Medias/Mission-Accomplished-Republicans-Out-Democrats-In.336745/3

PINE BLUFFS - A couple of friends have suggested that this year, John McCain, like Bob Dole in 1996, is a "giveaway candidate" who in losing this time around will surely set the stage for a Republican win in 2012. Sounds good, doesn’t it? Until you begin to think about it.

          There will be many very serious problems with four years of Barack Hussein Obama and the Democrats running things. That the public is already at least partially aware of this, but has not yet completely connected the dots, is seen by recent job approval ratings for this Democrat-led Congress; presently at 13%, according to a combined NBC/Wall Street Journal Survey taken October 4-5. Here are a few of the concerns that I see.

 
That Pesky Supreme Court Issue:

          Say what you will about George W. Bush’s presidency, unlike a few of his predecessors, his father among them, he’s certainly done well with Supreme Court appointments, placing two Justices on the Court who don’t attempt to legislate from the bench. John Roberts and Samuel Alito, appointed during Mr. Bush’s second term, have moved the Court from a liberal body to a more conservative one. However, that spot is tenuous at best, because it depends upon what Anthony Kennedy - who took Sandra Day O'Connor's role as the swing Justice - will do on any given day.

            Four liberal Justices still sit on that Court: John Paul Stevens, who is 88, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 75, Steven Breyer, 69, and David Souter, 68.  It is said that Stevens, who once announced he'd not retire while a Republican president occupied the White House, still plays tennis at 88. Ginsburg, 75, works out regularly in the Supreme Court gym. These two oldest Justices — half the Court's liberal wing — will, whether they like it or not, probably be forced to retire during the next presidential administration. Despite Stevens' and Ginsburgs’ apparent vigor, change on the Supreme Court is more likely than not over the next four years. If nothing else, the actuarial tables will catch up with them.

            With five Justices 70 or older by the time the Court meets again in October 2008, interest groups and others are buzzing about the Court's role in the presidential election. One change on a Court that divides 5-4 in key cases can alter the results in a case and affect the law for years.

            I recently read a tongue-in-cheek story that the Justices, concerned about the number of 5-4 decisions they were releasing, met to decide if they could not begin to have at least a few more 6-3 decisions. Their vote? 5-4.

            But predictions of the pundits on the future makeup of the Court depend on three factors — who wins the presidency, who leaves the Court, and who is appointed. Democrat Barack Hussein Obama would surely replace liberal justices with like-minded successors. Just imagine: William Ayers, former member of the Weathermen terrorist underground as a Supreme Court Justice. On the other hand, Republican John McCain, if elected, might fulfill a campaign pledge and put conservative justices on the court in the mold of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito, who don’t seek to impose their own agenda on the country.

            The problem of liberal judges and the mischief they can cause is highlighted by this recent story out of a federal courtroom in Washington, D.C., where a U.S. District judge, ignoring the fact that there’s a war going on – a war against Terrorists - ordered the release, into the United States, of 17 detainees who have been held at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base since 2002 as enemy combatants.
            Luckily, this latest detainee disaster was averted - at least temporarily - when an appellate panel issued a stay the following day so that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit could consider the issue before the status quo changed. Nevertheless, the stark and shocking reality of the initial ruling remains; 17 terrorists released into America simply because a liberal judge decided that they can be tried in our civil courts. Maybe we should ask the judge who made this decision to guarantee their appearances in court by putting them up at his house until then.

            If an ultra-liberal president appoints two liberal justices to the Court, we'll be saddled with them for anywhere from 20 to 40 years. That's too long for the United States to again suffer under a liberal Supreme Court, as we were forced to do under the Warren Court.

The Pro-Life Angle:

Taxes, Taxes, Taxes:

          When you consider these two extremely important social issues, and then toss in Obama’s promise to raise the capital gains tax, which Republicans have fought so hard for years to reduce to its present level in order to benefit those millions of Americans - ordinary Americans who now and then purchase a few shares of stock or make an occasional investment in real estate rental property - to help make ends meet or to put the kids through college; well, I can't go along with the idea that we should not be too concerned about four years of a Democrat in the White House. Nor do I agree with Obama’s vice-presidential nominee, liberal Senator Joe Biden (D-DE), that it’s “actually patriotic” to pay higher taxes.

Think It Over:

          These are crucial times. As Dr. James Dobson, former head of Focus on the Family recently said so eloquently, “Our nation’s future literally hangs in the balance.”