Right Minded Online

It’s time for a global warming update. There is now no doubt that it’s occurring. At least that’s the conclusion of two “top U.S. government climate experts.” Slam dunk. Case closed. Debate over.

According to Thomas Karl of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Climatic Data Center, and Kevin Trenberth of the Climate Analysis Section of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, “There is no doubt that the composition of the atmosphere is changing because of human activities, and today greenhouse gases are the largest human influence on global climate.” Karl and Trenberth claim industrial emissions are a leading cause, which contradicts critics, already in the minority, who argue that global climate change could be caused primarily by natural forces. (Source: “No Doubts Global Warming Is Real, U.S. Experts Say,” Reuters, 12/3/03.)

Well, I’m glad everyone is in agreement here.

Please excuse me for being a dunderhead, but on behalf of those in the scientific community who still adhere to the “natural forces” argument, I personally do not believe human beings are capable of altering the course of global climate. I still naively believe that enormous yellow sphere of combustible hydrogen known as “the sun” wields a little more influence over our climate than the tailpipe.

For example, there are several scientific studies which show a nearly one-to-one correlation between earth’s temperature cycle and sunspot activity. Earlier this year, in fact, scientists V.S. Bashkirtsev and G.P. Mashnich from the Institute of Solar-Terrestrial Physics of the Siberian Division of the Russian Academy of Sciences published citations of previous studies as well as results of their own investigations into the impact of sunspot activity on terrestrial temperatures.

Among their conclusions, they state “solar variations naturally explain global cooling observed in 1950-1970, which cannot be understood from the standpoint of the greenhouse effect, since [carbon dioxide] was intensely released into the atmosphere in this period.” In addition, the Russian scientists accurately link the subsequent growth of solar activity to the temperature rise of the last quarter century. (Source: “Is the Global Warming Bubble About to Burst?” Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, 9/10/03.)

Meanwhile, Karl and Trenberth note that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased 31% since preindustrial times. Since carbon dioxide is a measurable quantity, I won’t dispute that. The scientists note that, in addition to industrial emissions, sulfate and soot particles also have significant effects. But there’s another source that introduces carbon dioxide into the atmosphere which never seems to warrant mention: human beings. All 6.3 billion of us. And I would categorize the human respiratory function as “natural forces.”

Karl and Trenberth estimate that between 1990 and 2100 there is a 90% probability that average global temperatures will rise between 3.1 and 8.9 degrees Fahrenheit because of human influences on climate. This is truly amazing, because there’s not a meteorologist in the field who can give you the weather forecast five days from now with a 90% probability of accuracy.

Furthermore, I checked the three-month seasonal outlook for January, February, and March from the Climate Prediction Center (also part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). For Tennessee, there is a one-in-three chance that temperatures will be above normal for the period, a one-in-three chance that temperatures will be normal, and a one-in-three chance that temperatures will be below normal. Such is the nature of long-range weather forecasting. Yet Karl and Trenberth can predict, with 90% confidence, that global temperatures 97 years from now will be between 3.1 and 8.9 degrees warmer than in 1990? I don’t think so.

Karl and Trenberth write in the December 5 issue of “Science” that “Given what has happened to date and is projected in the future, significant further climate change is guaranteed.” And, yes, there is also the element of fear which is inherently built into the global warming agenda. “The likely result is more frequent heat waves, droughts, extreme precipitation events, and related impacts, e.g., wildfires, heat stress, vegetation changes, and sea-level rise.”

But what these scientists overlook is that our climate exhibited natural swings even before the combustible engine. To claim that a 31% increase in carbon dioxide, which is so scarce that it is measured in parts per million, can have a catastrophic impact on our climate to the exclusion of all other variables is, in my opinion, a little myopic.

In any scientific field, there is a natural discourse that follows the introduction of any theory. In order to “prove” a theory, one must successfully run the gauntlet of scrutiny. Karl and Trenberth have put forth what they believe is supporting evidence to the theory of global warming. And certainly, their predictions warrant some attention. But to simply claim that further discourse on the topic is closed, which is more or less what they have done, demonstrates the unique intolerance of dissent which surrounds global warming.

No area of science should be quarantined from the laboratory of scrutiny and counter-theory. Sure, there are enumerable scientific facts that we accept, because they have withstood scrutiny and been proven and re-proven. But the only reason global warming is considered exempt from challenge is because it is as much a political issue as a scientific one. And, contrary to the claims of Karl and Trenberth, there is a field full of credible scientists who do not buy global warming.

George Soros is a financier who is worth a reported $7 billion. He has spent a sizable portion of his wealth on philanthropic endeavors such as fighting AIDS in Africa and economic development in Eastern Europe. But Mr. Soros recently found a new cause. He has pledged to donate matching funds up to $5 million to MoveOn, which began a $15 million advertising blitz during the Thanksgiving weekend to slam the President.

In addition, Soros and Peter B. Lewis, chairman of the Progressive Corporation, have each given $10 million to America Coming Together — a political action committee that expects to raise at least $94 million in soft money (that Democrats had sought to ban) to help defeat President Bush in 2004. (Sources: Kelley Beaucar Vlahos, “Billionaires bundle funds for Democrats,” FoxNews.com, 11/28/03, and Dick Morris, “Democrats have built a soft-money lifeboat,” The Hill, 12/3/03.)

To be fair, I commend George Soros on his philanthropy, and as a free market capitalist, I couldn’t care less that he spends his own money on behalf of Democrats. That’s not the point of this piece. What I do find ironic is that Mr. Soros is reported to have spent at least $18 million of his fortune to help pass campaign finance reform (CFR) laws — whose chief sponsors were Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Russell Feingold (D-WI) — almost two years ago. And I thought CFR was designed to rid politics of the “corruptive influence” of money!

There’s also Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY), a prolific fundraiser, who aims to collect as much as $50 million for her senate run in 2006. (Source: Jon E. Dougherty, “Hillary’s money driving Dems,” NewsMax.com, 12/2/03.) Again, as long as it’s done legally, I have no problem with that. But I again find it ironic that the Democratic Party, which was the primary proponent behind CFR, plans to raise and spend more money on the forthcoming political campaigns than ever before. So much for getting money out of politics.

Apparently, the new campaign regulations, which became effective the day after the 2002 elections, contain enough loopholes to make Swiss cheese seem impermeable. Indeed, the impetus behind these laws was nothing more than the desire of incumbents to muzzle dissent in what was once the arena of free speech. Even Congressman Richard Gephardt (D-MO), has conceded that CFR is antithetical to the First Amendment. (Source: Paul Jacob, “Dems and Reps host campaign finance judgment day,” townhall.com, 12/1/03.)

As an example, CFR bars special interest groups, ranging from the NAACP to the NRA, from mentioning the names of candidates in television advertisements within sixty days of an election. This makes the work of political challengers much more difficult. After all, it is the incumbents who find it far easier to get their name in the media. And incumbents also have franking mail privileges, which enable them to mail political advertisements to constituents at taxpayer expense.

Of course, Republicans aren’t suffering from a lack of cash, either. And in the end, they deserve some of the blame for the thumb-of-the-nose that CFR turned out to be. Although Republican support for CFR was much more tepid, it was the Republican-controlled House of Representatives which passed CFR. (The Senate was under Democratic control at the time.) And Republican President George W. Bush, however reluctantly, still signed the legislation into law.

In the end, although CFR is far too complex to analyze fully within the space of one editorial, the legislation has done nothing to rid politics of the influence of money. It has merely re-routed the channels, while at the same time violating the First Amendment to the Constitution. Indeed, CFR has merely emboldened the culture of incumbency inside the beltway. My hope is that it will be dismantled by the court system. But in the meantime, lawmakers who piously claim to have purged the cash from politics in the name of CFR have done nothing but mask their pretense, while at the same time benefiting from more political gold than ever before.

December 31 marks the one-year anniversary of the first Right Minded. I am grateful to the Lebanon Democrat for extending to me the opportunity to publish conservative commentary. Even then, Right Minded would never have been possible without your readership, and I am most grateful for those of you who take the time, at least occasionally, to read this column, especially those on the left. I mean that.

To mark the end of the year, I am going to dedicate this column to announce the first-ever Right Minded Awards, a selection of cheers and jeers that encapsulates the political year of 2003.

First, we have the Right Minded Quote-of-the-Year, awarded to Thomas Sowell, one of the premier conservative columnists in the country. The award-garnering quote reads “A careful definition of words would destroy half the agenda of the political left and scrutinizing evidence would destroy the other half.” Well said, Mr. Sowell.

The Lowes Home Improvement Award goes to John Shumaker, former president of the University of Tennessee at Knoxville. Tennessee may be 48th in this and 49th in that, but thanks to Mr. Shumaker (er, the Tennessee taxpayers) we have provided a residential palace for the UTK president.

Next in line is the William Wallace “Braveheart” Award. There was a tie in this year’s voting. The first co-winner is Roy Moore, former Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, who took a stand against judicial tyranny and defended his right to display the Ten Commandments in public. He lost his job, but gained quite a following.

The other Braveheart is actor Mel Gibson, who has spent a vast sum of his own money to produce the film “The Passion of the Christ,” a movie which accurately and gruesomely portrays the torture and execution of Jesus Christ as it is written in the Scriptures. He’s now persona non grata in Hollywood, but a hero among Christians. May both of these men see their eternal rewards multiplied tenfold.

The next three jeers constitute the coveted Right Minded Wizard of Oz Awards.

The Scarecrow Award goes to the former governor of California, Gray Davis. As a liberal in perhaps the most liberal state in the union, Governor Davis had it easy, but still brainlessly succeeded in getting recalled by the state’s voters, who replaced him with a Republican actor.

The Tin Man Award is extended to the Democrats in the U.S. Senate who have now blocked six of President Bush’s judicial appointees — one a Hispanic, another a female African-American. (Does affirmative action not apply to conservative minorities?) Republicans would be labeled racist if they tried this. I just call it heartless.

And the Lion Award goes to the eleven cowardly Republican members of the Tennessee House of Representatives who helped re-elect Jimmy Naifeh as Speaker of the House.

Meanwhile, the Poetic Justice Award was easily won by U.S. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz for denying firms from France and Germany prime contracts in the reconstruction of Iraq.

Then we have the ignominious RINO (Republican-In-Name-Only) Award. From a long list of “worthy” candidates, I have selected the name of Curtis Person, a state senator from Memphis, as this year’s top RINO. At a recent fundraiser, Senator Person declared “If the Republicans gain control of the Senate next year, I want it known that I’ll vote for John Wilder to be Speaker once again.” Senator Person, go ahead and switch parties now. Save us the grief.

Finally, it’s time for the coup-de-grace, the prestigious Right Minded Conservative-of-the-Year. I have to give the nod to the President of the United States, George W. Bush. True, I have been hard on the President at times for not always being a conservative. But when it counts most, he’s a conservative.

Here’s a man who inherited a recession when he came to office, and a collapsing stock market that was exacerbated by 9/11 less than eight months later. He has pursued and won tax cuts relentlessly, and had the good sense to then step out of the way and allow the free market to roar back to life on its own. (Re: Conservative Belief #17: “There are only two things government can do to help end a recession: cut taxes and get out of the way of the private sector.”)

As a result, the stock market has enjoyed a sustained rally, the GDP grew by 8.2% last quarter (adjusted upward a full point since I reported on this last month), and we now have 94.1% employment. And according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor, there were 2.6 million more jobs in November 2003 than in January 2001, when Bush came to office.

Finally, there is the flawlessly executed War on Terrorism and the defense of our national interests. With President Bush as Commander-in-Chief, our military quickly and successfully liberated the people of Iraq with a remarkable minimum of casualties, and captured their former dictator Saddam Hussein. And all this in less than three years? Few Presidents have accomplished so much in so little time. It could not have been done without applying conservatism to all the right places. It works every time, folks.

God bless, and may you all have a prosperous 2004. It’s an election year. It ought to be fun.

“In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. (This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria.) And everyone went to his own town to register. So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David. He went there to register with Mary, who was pledged to be married to him and was expecting a child. While they were there, the time came for the baby to be born, and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son. She wrapped him in cloths and placed him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.” (Luke 2:1-7, NIV)

This is the traditional meaning of Christmas, the celebration of the birth of Jesus Christ (hence the “Christ” in “Christmas”).

But not everyone shares our joy of Christmas. To illustrate, I have assembled a small inventory of Christmas spoilers, those who spread holiday misery and bad tidings to all.

The principal of an elementary school in Sacramento County, California has prohibited teachers from uttering the word “Christmas” in class or in written materials. In Madison, Wisconsin, atheists have posted a winter solstice sign at the Capitol, declaring that “Christians stole Christmas” from ancient pagans. (Source: Joe Kovacs, “Christmas in America becomes battleground,” WorldNetDaily.com, 12/14/03.)

All Saints Church in High Wycombe, England has been told that it cannot publicize its Christmas services on a community notice board in order to avoid offending other religions. The Buckinghamshire County Council upheld the ban, noting the church represents a “religious preference group.” (Source: Stewart Payne, “The day that Christmas carols fell foul of the PC brigade,” Telegraph, 12/12/03.)

Music teacher Mark Denison of Clover Creek Elementary School in Bethel, Washington, substituted the word “Christmas” with the word “winter” in a carol to be sung at a school program so as not to appear to be favoring one faith over another. (A Hanukkah song that mentiones the “mighty miracle” of Israel’s ancient days will be included in the program, however). And in New Jersey, one school board eliminated all religious music from school programs. (Source: “Taking ‘Christmas’ Out of Holiday Jingles,” FOXNews.com, 12/12/03.)

In Baldwin, Kansas, the nation’s top Grinch, the ACLU, has successfelly halted Santa’s sleigh from visiting public schools there, because of “improper religious activities occurring in the district.” It seems that last year Santa asked students why Christmas is celebrated. “In every school, one or more children would pop up and say Jesus’ birthday,” stated the school superintendent. (Source: Kristen Dymacek, “School board examines ACLU allegations,” Baldwin City Signal, 12/10/03.)

A middle school in New York has decorated a tree with ornaments celebrating the world’s cultural, ethnic, and religious differences. But it’s not a Christmas tree, says teacher Debbie Smith. It’s a “diversity tree.” (Source: Scott Norvell, “Successfully Stopping Santa and A-Caroling We Won’t Go,” FOXNews.com, 12/15/03.)

In New York City, the public school “Holiday Displays” policy prohibits the display of Christian Nativity scenes during the Christmas season, while permitting and encouraging the display of the Jewish Menorah and the Islamic Star and Crescent during certain religious holidays and observances. (Source: Jon Dougherty, “Ban on Christmas leads to court fight,” WorldNetDaily.com, 12/10/03.)

Not surprisingly, a study recently conducted by Britain’s University of Warwick has concluded that “Religious people are happier than those without spirituality in their life.” And those who keep their religious practices intact during Christmastime are happier than those who rely on the pleasures of shopping for their holiday meaning. (Source: Jennifer Harper, “Religion leads to a merrier Christmas,” The Washington Times, 12/11/03.)

Project director and psychologist Stephen Joseph noted that “Religious people seem to have a greater purpose in life, which is why they are happier. Looking at the research evidence, it seems those who celebrate the Christian meaning of Christmas are, on the whole, likely to be happier. The research shows that too much materialism in our lives can be terrible for happiness.”

Leave it to the politically correct, anti-Christian zealots in our society to attempt to steal the joy of Christmas from those of us who celebrate the holiday for its religious meaning. It’s easy to have contempt for the Grinches and Scrooges, but then it’s hard not to feel sorry for them, too. After all, the birth of Jesus Christ is, for those who believe, the primary source of Christmas joy — not the decorations and festivities.

The way I see it, if anti-Christians want their joyless holiday without the “Christ,” then they can have it. This is a free country, after all. (But may their chestnuts roast a little too long, and scorch.) Really, what does banning Nativity scenes, religious music, Santa Claus, and the word “Christmas” actually accomplish other than to further someone’s political agenda? Indeed, the Scrooges of the world can keep their holiday misery to themselves. In the meantime, Merry Christmas to all.

I have never seen the reality program “Queer Eye for the Straight Guy,” nor do I plan to, as its own promo describes the show as “Five gay men, out to make over the world – one straight guy at a time.� The show features five cultured and stylish homosexual men who, according to a Focus on the Family review, “meddle in the sorry lives of the slovenly straight.”

You’ve probably never heard of William J. Benson. I hadn’t myself until very recently. Mr. Benson spent ten years as a criminal investigator for the Illinois Department of Revenue. In 1984, he began a year-long project to examine the ratification of the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution — a project that culminated in the book “The Law That Never Was.” He has now been at the fulcrum of a controversy surrounding the 16th Amendment for nearly two decades.

The 16th Amendment, which has perhaps had a greater impact on the whole of America than any amendment since the Bill of Rights, is said to have been ratified in 1913. It reads “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census of enumeration.”

To summarize this puzzling story, Bill Benson contends that the 16th Amendment was never ratified in the manner required by law, and is therefore not technically part of the Constitution, which means, technically, the Congress has been illegally collecting income taxes from the American people for 90 years, because, technically, the income tax is unconstitutional.

Benson cites a memorandum written by Ruben J. Clark, attorney for Secretary of State Philander Chase Knox, dated February 15, 1913. Clark cites that of the certified copies of the amendment supposedly ratified by thirty-seven state legislatures, only four of the resolutions (Arizona, North Dakota, Tennessee, and New Mexico) had quoted absolutely and correctly what was proposed by Congress. The remaining thirty-three resolutions contain either errors of capitalization, spelling, or wording.

This is crucial, because Clark states on page fifteen of his memorandum that “…under the Constitution, a Legislature is prohibited from altering in any way the resolution proposed by Congress.” The role of a legislature is merely to give a thumbs up or thumbs down. Legislatures are prohibited from tinkering with proposed amendments, or any resolution passed by that legislature is rendered null and void.

For example, Benson claims the federal government lists Kentucky as the second state to ratify the 16th Amendment, on February 8, 1910. However, records of the State of Kentucky show that after the House proposed a resolution to adopt the amendment, the Senate rejected it by a vote of 22-9. In Oklahoma, the House passed the proposed amendment, and the language of the resolution perfectly matched that passed by Congress. But the Senate amended the language to give it precisely the opposite meaning. The California general assembly never recorded a vote on the 16th Amendment. And Minnesota sent nothing to the U.S. Secretary of State.

In 1913, there were forty-eight states in the Union, meaning that amending the Constitution would have required the approval of thirty-six (three-fourths) of the states. In February of that year, Secretary Knox issued a proclamation that thirty-eight states had ratified the amendment, including Kentucky, California, Oklahoma, and Minnesota. But Kentucky rejected the amendment, Oklahoma passed something entirely different, California never recorded a vote, and Minnesota provided no documentation. This already drops Knox’s count of thirty-eight states to thirty-four, which is below the number needed for ratification.

In a sworn affidavit, Bill Benson states that during 1984, he traveled to the Capitols of the forty-eight states which constituted the United States in 1913. He obtained certified copies of the legislative journals in each of these states which pertain to the ratification of the 16th Amendment. Benson also obtained certified copies of records kept by the National Archives which pertain to the ratification of the 16th Amendment, as well. Altogether, he has assembled a cache of approximately 17,000 certified and notarized documents that are relevant to this subject.

In the final analysis, eleven states failed to vote on the 16th Amendment, and thirty-three changed the language, thereby nullifying any resolutions passed by their legislatures. Therefore, the 16th Amendment was legally ratified by no more than four states. Indeed, William J. Benson makes a highly credible legal case that the Congress of the United States has never had constitutional authority to levy taxes on the incomes of Americans, even though it has been doing so for nine decades.

Phil Bredesen is at it again. Proving that this year’s state budget cuts were no fluke, Tennessee’s first fiscally conservative governor in some time wants to do it again. We conservatives are still rubbing our eyes wondering if we are living a dream following the nightmare of Don Sundquist, because we have a Democrat advancing our own fiscal agenda.

Governor Bredesen began the current round of budget hearings on November 17 by announcing that we had ended the last fiscal year with a $150 million surplus, of which $59 million was the result of contained spending and over-collection of state taxes.

Let’s pause for a moment so I can take another shot at state income tax proponents. I know I’m repeating myself from previous columns, but I can’t help saying “I told you so!” If you will recall, during the four-year income tax war, we citizens were repeatedly told by the previous governor and select members of the general assembly that state government could not spare another nickel, that the sales tax could not keep pace with economic growth, and that we absolutely had to have a huge tax increase disguised as “tax reform” (which is a Tennessee euphemism for “income tax”).

Of couse we were treated to a large tax increase last year, but not of the magnitude Don Sundquist, Jimmy Naifeh, and Bob Rochelle had sought. Enter Governor Phil Bredesen. (By the way, how did this guy end up a Democrat, and Don Sundquist a Republican?) The new governor cut what was said could not be cut. And the sales tax has collected what was said could not be collected.

Back to the story. Noting that next year’s budget is still very tight, Governor Bredesen has asked each state department to come to the table with budget requests reflecting reductions of five percent. This is in addition to the cuts incurred by the current year’s budget. Said the governor, in a quote that should be woven into the oath of office, “What I’m trying to break into is this ethic in government that whatever you got last year is now sacrosanct and here’s what you need on top of it.” I’m still pinching myself, coming to grips with the realization that those words were actually uttered by a Tennessee governor.

Also, do you recall two years ago when Governor Sundquist mournfully closed state parks in order to cut spending? I have always maintained that was done for show. The Governor sought to make cuts that would be most visible to the public in order to win sympathy for the income tax. It turns out that, according Jim Fyke (deputy commissioner for parks and conservation), there have been about 100 funded but vacant positions within that department, some of which had been on the roll for years without the department’s knowledge. (Source: Tom Sharp, “Bredesen brings good budget news,” Associated Press, November 18, 2003.)

In other words, while state parks were being closed, we were funding vacant government positions. Because income tax supporters, led by Don Sundquist, lost the “tax reform” debate on every front, the former governor had to resort to mismanagement and deceit in order to win the support that his arguments could not. He failed there, too, because most taxpayers were smart enough to see through Governor Sundquist’s transparent political shenanigans.

Why am I still wagging my finger at Don Sundquist? Because we are still cleaning up after him. Phil Bredesen is providing fiscally conservative leadership that was sorely lacking during the Sundquist era. Now that the governor is doing what was said couldn’t be done without ill effect, doomsday income tax advocates are quiet. The cuts now being made were treated before like an amputation without anesthesia. Indeed, the predictions that Tennessee would become a wasteland resembling a post-nuclear apocalyptic holocaust without a state income tax have never quite materialized. And that is because conservatism works every time it’s tried.

We are less than a year away from the next Presidential election, and every candidate for office already has a detailed master plan. I suppose it’s necessary to go before the American people and outline one’s ideas for specific programs, management of the economy, and job creation. After a while, though, they all seem to run together.

I don’t plan to ever run for President. First, I don’t want the job. Second, my wife would probably leave me if I tried. And third, I could never get elected. But if I were ever to run, I would probably be limited to exactly one campaign speech before being tossed out on my ear. I wouldn’t even get my fifteen minutes of fame, because my entire platform could be explained in about two-and-a-half minutes. This is what I would tell the American people:

“My fellow Americans, I am here today to announce that I am a candidate for President of the United States. All other candidates have stood before you and described the ways they plan to take over more areas of your lives and your money. My only plan is to turn the reigns of this great nation back over to you.”

“Therefore, I do not have a plan to give out ‘free’ medicine, ‘free’ health care, or anything else that’s ‘free,’ because it’s not free. I would like to cut your taxes in order that more money show up in your paychecks, thereby enabling you to go into the free market and provide for your own needs.”

“I do not propose a New Deal, a Fair Deal, or a Great Society. My only deal is ‘No Deal.’”

“Unlike my fellow candidates, I actually believe in you, the American people. I believe you know what’s best for you, that you know best how to acquire what you need, and that you can do a far better job of raising your children than I ever could. I still believe in the American dream. And I believe more people could achieve the American dream if government weren’t in the way.”

“Therefore, you may be asking yourself ‘Mark, what are you going to do for me if you get elected?’ Well, except for getting government out of your way and protecting you from those who would do this nation harm, absolutely nothing. It’s not the job of government to do things for you. It’s the job of government to allow you to do things for yourself.”

“You may also be asking ‘But if government doesn’t help poor people, then who will?’ My answer is ‘This is America. Anybody who wants to.’”

“Rather than stand before you today and promise to be all things to all people, please allow me to tell you everything that I would not be as your President. I would not be your child’s teacher, your health care provider, or your pharmacist. I would not be your retirement planner, your employer, or your daycare provider. I would not be your father, your mother, or Big Brother. I would not care what you did for a living, how you spent your money, whether you smoked, or if you ate a super-sized Big Mac extra value meal every day of your life.”

“I also do not plan to create any jobs. Presidents don’t create jobs, after all, and I would be no exception. That’s what the private sector does, and does well.”

“That would not leave a whole lot left for me to do. And that’s exactly my aim. I would be your Commander-in-Chief. I would endeavor to spend as little of your money as possible and eliminate reams of government regulation so you could go about the task of living your own lives, raising your own families, and/or running your own businesses. I would remind you how great you are at every opportunity, that your potential is boundless, and I would rely on your input to remove any limitations imposed on you by your government.”

“I would continue fighting the War on Terrorism, world opinion notwithstanding, because I believe it is our duty to confront evil and defeat it. I would desire to make freedom and capitalism our chief export. And I would like to drill for oil on our own soil, wherever we find it, in order that we become less reliant on foreign petroleum. Drill. Drill. Drill.”

“I would also freely invoke the name of God and Jesus Christ, quote Scripture whenever applicable, and hang my Ten Commandments plaque in the Oval Office, because I do believe in God, and am not ashamed of it.”

“So, my fellow Americans, I am asking you to vote for my electors next November. Thank you for your attention. May God bless you, and may God bless the United States of America.”

I would obviously be skewered by the press, the Democratic Party, and a healthy number of Republicans, too. My speech would be characterized as cruel and heartless, not because I wish anyone harm or misfortune, but because I would confront the American people with a plea for personal responsibility and self-reliance. Sadly, we live in an era which demands that government relieve us of the necessity of taking care of ourselves and our families. I would therefore be lucky to pull down two percent of the popular vote. So I will stick to writing editorials, and leave the campaigning to those who are more adept at telling people what they want to hear.

Bad news keeps piling up for the Democratic Party, not because of any national malaise, but because good things keep happening to Americans. An avalanche of positive economic news continues to bury the DNC, making it increasingly difficult for the minority party to create the negative spin it needs to stay afloat. On November 13, for example, USA Today exposed another nail in the DNC’s coffin as taxpayers’ refund checks are expected to increase nearly 27%, to an average of $2,500 per family early next year. The culprit? President Bush’s 2003 tax cuts.

According to tax software company Petz Enterprises, approximately eight million families who did not receive refunds this year will likely get them in 2004. The biggest winners, according to Petz, are the approximately ten million married couples with a combined income of $46,700 to $56,800. Those couples dropped from the 27% bracket to the 15% bracket. Other winners include parents who had their first child in 2003, because they will be eligible for the $1,000 per child tax credit. (Hey, wait a minute! Weren’t those tax cuts only supposed to go to the rich?)

So what is the result of allowing Americans to keep more of their earnings? More spending. And spending gains led to phenomenal growth in the gross domestic product during the third quarter of 2003, as workers started bringing home fatter paychecks and parents received child tax credit rebates in the mail. Indeed, the 7.2% spike in the GDP was the largest since 1984, when Americans, not coincidentally, were partaking the fruits of the Reagan tax cuts.

So the Democratic Party, which has developed a greater propensity for casting illusions than Siegfried & Roy, finds its claim that the current economy is the worst since the Great Depression being refuted daily by the rush of economic optimism and shrinking unemployment. It’s next illusion may be to cast the tax cuts as the reason for the federal budget deficit. So let’s wrestle with that.

The Treasury Department estimates it will collect $100 billion less in taxes during the first half of 2004 than it would have without the tax cut. Expanding this to one full year doubles the figure to $200 billion. Even this is misleading, because tax cuts stimulate economy activity, which increases the flow of revenue into the public coffers. In other words, I’ll wager the federal government still collects more revenue in 2004 than in 2003.

As an example, President Reagan cut income tax rates dramatically early in his tenure, and the federal government ultimately realized a cumulative 65% increase in revenue collections during his eight years in office. Therefore, can anyone explain how $200 billion in tax cuts singularly creates a $400+ billion deficit? Indeed, there must be other reasons (the war and profligate domestic spending) for the explosion of deficits.

The effect of President Bush’s tax cuts on the expanding economy is further proof that conservatism works whenever it’s applied. Yet the Democrats are so far out of alignment with mainstream America that they want to undo the economic catalyst the tax cuts have become. Unbelievably, Howard Dean, the Democrats’ current 2004 presidential front runner, has outlined four economic fundamentals for “rebuilding America’s economy.” The first of those fundamentals? Repeal the Bush tax cuts. He is, therefore, proposing a tax increase on all wage-earning Americans, from the rich all the way down the economic ladder to the “working poor,” which, by the way, is that class of citizens over whom the Democrats typically shed tears anytime an election draws near.

Folks, the Democratic Party has backed itself into a corner, because anything that’s good for this nation and its economy is a setback to them. More people working is bad for the Democrats. Having more money in our paychecks is bad for the Democrats. Low interest rates, which has led to an epidemic of home-buying and refinancing (which gives homeowners even more spending power), is bad for the Democrats. Rising stock prices, which pads 401(k) and other such retirement accounts for America’s workers, is bad for the Democrats. Why? The Democratic Party has bet the house on a poor economy, because a poor economy would produce one of the few glimmers of hope for them politically in 2004.

As a conservative, I prefer to ride the wave of American determination and industriousness and share in our prosperity. I find it un-American to employ the illusory tactic of warping positive economic news with the singular goal of deceiving voters in order to get elected to public office. Yet that is apparently the Democrats’ campaign strategy. Given the optimism to be found on the economic and war fronts, it may soon be time for the listing DNC ship to let down the lifeboats. As for the torpedo that broadsided them? I call it “The Bush Boom.”

On August 1, 1620, a ship called the “Mayflower” left England with 102 passengers bound for the New World. The manifest included two groups. The Separatists, led by William Bradford, had fled their homeland and the oppressive Church of England under King James I in search of a home where they could live and worship God according to their own conscience. The Strangers sought the New World for other reasons. Together they formed the Pilgrims.

Their intended crossing to Virginia strayed off course, and they instead landed on Cape Cod — outside the territory covered by the King’s Charter. Thus, the Pilgrims were responsible for their own governance. Following the nine-week journey, the Pilgrims composed an agreement that would establish just and equal laws for all members of the new community. Indeed, the revolutionary ideas expressed in the Mayflower Compact were derived from none other than the Holy Bible.

Only then, on November 11, 1620, did the Pilgrims leave the Mayflower. A cold and barren wilderness awaited them. There were no friends to greet them, no houses to shelter them, nor stores of food to sustain them. That first winter was perilous, as half the Pilgrims died of starvation, sickness, or exposure.

When spring arrived, an Indian named Squanto taught the settlers how to plant corn, fish, use fertilizer, and stalk deer. Bradford wrote that Squanto was “a special instrument sent of God for their good beyond their expectations.”

In October, following their first harvest, Governor Bradford set aside a day of thanksgiving. Squanto, his chief Massasoit, and other members of the tribe were invited to the thanksgiving feast. The Indians brought deer and turkeys, while the Pilgrim women cooked vegetables and fruit pies. The purpose of the feast was not to give thanks to the Indians or Mother Earth, as contemporary history textbooks commonly report, but as a devout expression of gratitude to God.

What modern history texts also omit is that the contract the Pilgrims brokered with their merchant-sponsors in London specified that everything they produce go into a common store, with each member entitled to one common share. In addition, all the land they cleared and the structures they built belonged to the community.

William Bradford, Governor of the new colony, realized the futility of collectivism and abandoned the practice. Instead, Bradford assigned a plot of land to each family and permitted them to market their own crops and other products, thereby unleashing the power of free enterprise. What Bradford had wisely realized was that these industrious people had no reason to work any harder than anyone else without the motivation of personal incentive.

Thus, what can only be called the Pilgrims’ attempt at socialism ended like all other attempts at socialism — in failure. What Bradford subsequently wrote about the experiment should be in every American history textbook. The lesson provided therein is invaluable.

“The experience that was had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years and that amongst godly and sober men, may well evince the vanity of that conceit of Plato’s and other ancients applauded by some of later times; that the taking away of property and bringing in community into a commonwealth would make them happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser than God. For this community (so far as it was) was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For the young men, that were most able and fit for labour and service, did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men’s wives and children without any recompense.”

And what happened after collectivism was replaced by capitalism and the concept of private property?

“This had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any means the Governor or any other could use, and saved him a great deal of trouble, and gave far better content.”

The Pilgrims soon found they had more food than they could eat, so they set up trading posts and exchanged goods with the Indians. The profits they realized allowed them to pay off their debts to the merchants in London. The success and prosperity of the original Plymouth settlement attracted more European settlers, setting off what came to be known as the “Great Puritan Migration.”

Three hundred and eighty-two years later, Americans still set aside the fourth Thursday in November each year as a celebration of thanksgiving. Although this quintessentially American holiday has become more secular than religious, it was originated by devoutly Christian people who were expressing gratitude for the bounty brought forth by their labor and the blessings bestowed upon them by God.

Few things are sacred from the overreaching arm of Congress. An AP article on October 29 bearing the title “Senators looking into legality of college football championship selection” discusses the next potential victim of congressional regulation. According to Senator Joe Biden (D-DE), the Bowl Championship Series (BCS), which is college football’s method of determining which two teams play for the national championship, “looks un-American. It really does. It looks unfair. It looks like a rigged deal.”

Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT), a graduate of Brigham Young University, says that it is in college football’s best interest to fix the BCS instead of forcing Congress to intervene. The complaint from senators revolves around the limited number of teams that are able to compete for the national championship. Teams such as BYU, Marshall, and Tulane, even though they may have stellar records, do not belong to one of the power conferences whose teams compete for an appearance in the championship bowl game. (Note to Senator Hatch: BYU would lose 65-0 if it did play in the championship game.)

So this set me to thinking. What would happen to the college football landscape if it were “federalized” by Congress?

First, the government would confiscate all college football stadiums and place them under jurisdiction of the park service. All stadium employees would be converted to the civil service, and airport screeners would be brought in to work the gates.

The ACLU would file a lawsuit to have religious schools such as Notre Dame and Texas Christian University banned from competition, as allowing them to compete would violate “separation of church and state.”

Several bowl games would find themselves under pressure to alter their names to more politically correct titles. The Fiesta Bowl would have to choose an alternative that wasn’t demeaning to Hispanics. The NAACP would threaten to boycott the Cotton Bowl, since it’s name serves as a reminder of the southern antebellum plantation. Labor unions would have a fit over the Sugar Bowl, since sugar is often harvested by non-union immigrant workers. And the United Nations would take aim at the Liberty Bowl, since they find the word “liberty” offensive.

The National Education Association would then pressure coaches to replace halftime pep talks and chalkboard strategy discussions with diversity and sensitivity training. The National Organization for Women would demand that cheerleaders trade their mini-skirts for gender-neutral attire. And some congressman would recognize the inability of the working poor to afford the high cost of stadium food, prompting Congress to implement price caps on concessions.

Referees would be chosen by presidential appointment, which would create a problem within itself. President Bush would seek constructionist referees (those who would adhere strictly to the rule book). But Senate Democrats would filibuster the President’s nominees, instead seeking a more enlightened officiary that would view the rule book as a living document and thereby take great liberty in altering rules during the middle of games (or create new rules altogether).

Of course, football lingo would have to be whitewashed of its offensive terminology. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals would try to eliminate the word “pigskin,” as it would be deemed offensive to swine. Gun control advocates would bristle at “shotgun,” and peace activists would be uneasy over the defensive rush called the “blitz.” Some poor announcer would refer to a long, last-second desperation pass as a “Hail Mary,” and the ACLU would sprint back to the courthouse to prevent other announcers from using the phrase, since it would represent a clear establishment of Catholicism. Pro-choicers would love the “option,” but would come unhinged if someone wearing a “Choose Life” tee-shirt sneaked past the airport screeners.

Because some teams would fail to lose their fair share of games, Congress would implement a “win tax.” Of course, they wouldn’t call it that, but would instead mask their punishment of success as the “No Team Left Behind Act.” By this graduated system of victory redistribution, teams in the upper win bracket (11+) would have to forfeit 33% of their victories to “underprivileged” teams. For instance, a 12-0 team would have four of its wins transferred to an 0-12 team, thus making their records 8-4 and 4-8. Teams in the second tier bracket (8-10 wins) would be charged 25% of their victories. And teams in the lowest tier would be taxed 10%. Those teams with losing records could fall back on the “earned win credit,” and be eligible to receive victories from the winners, even if they didn’t play a game. Of course, the entire win tax code would run more than 900 pages.

A fight would break out at a UT-Alabama game, and Jimmy Carter would be flown in to negotiate peace. Football stadiums would be forced to erect additional scoreboards in braille. And the first wide receiver to prayerfully kneel in the end zone after catching a touchdown pass would prompt another ACLU lawsuit.

Somehow, despite the injection of political correctness, government regulation, and punitive taxation, two determined teams would still find their way to the national championship. The powerful Oklahoma Sooners would face off against some liberal arts college team from New Hampshire (to the joy of Congress, no doubt, which would be patting itself on the back for “fixing” college football). Of course, half the tickets would go unsold, the television network carrying the game would have to reduce its commercial fees in order to attract enough advertisers, and the bowl game itself would be forced to operate at a loss, but no matter.

Unfortunately, less than two hours before kickoff, an OSHA inspector would shut the stadium down due to a rusty sprinkler, and the championship game would be delayed indefinitely. And the government will have ruined yet another institution it had taken it upon itself to repair.

Okay, perhaps these are nothing more than wild exaggerations, but I still believe I’ve made my point. Imagine college football as a microcosm of the broad spectrum of government domain. Congressional intervention would doom the BCS. Indeed, some things (well, a lot of things) are best left outside bureaucratic regulation.

When George W. Bush was elected President, Republicans were handed control of Washington by virtue of the Presidency and majorities in both chambers of Congress. Now, almost three years after Bush’s inauguration, there have been some measurable gains made under Republican leadership. Taxpayers have enjoyed two notable tax cuts. The military is being rebuilt, and the Commander-in-Chief has led an effective War on Terrorism. There has been a ban on partial-birth abortion, and the President has been trying to fill court vacancies with imminently qualified conservative judges.

Aside from these accomplishments, Republicans have very little to show for their presence in Washington. Although power-hungry Senator Jim Jeffords’ switch from Republican to Independent in 2001 threw control of the Senate to the Democrats, Republicans regained majority status after last November’s mid-term elections. They have had ample time to advance a conservative agenda, yet it is the liberal agenda that enjoys greater airplay.

Most notably, Republicans in the House and Senate, with the apparent blessing of President Bush, are spending money like drunken sailors. It also appears that a vote-buying scheme disguised as a taxpayer-funded prescription drug entitlement for seniors is imminent. With the return of budget deficits, one would think a halt to profligate spending might be prudent, but I suppose that idea hasn’t penetrated the beltway.

Because the Democratic Party has shifted so far to the left, Republicans have felt obligated to shift leftward, too, in order to co-opt the center of the political spectrum. This is misguided for two reasons. First, Republicans win by being conservatives. In becoming invertebrate centrists, they risk alienating conservatives into either not voting, or voting for third-party candidates. Second, by blurring the lines between themselves and Democrats, left-leaning Republicans present an indistinguishable alternative between themselves and their opponents, giving Democratic voters no reason not to vote for the candidate with the “D” beside his name.

Although the House of Representatives does tend to cling more stubbornly to conservatism, the Senate has become a dumping ground where conservative legislation goes to die. This is not to say the upper chamber is devoid of conservatives, but the leadership is lukewarm, and conservatives seem to feel comfortable hiding in the cloakroom. Indeed, the concept of limited government appears to have left Washington with Ronald Reagan almost fifteen years ago. Sure, there have been flashes of greatness, such as Newt Gingrich and the Contract with America. But by and large, Republicans seem content to advance the liberal agenda of big and intrusive government, such as campaign finance reform, federalization of airport screeners, the farm bill, and drug entitlements, and all in order to appear “compassionate.” (And by the way, is anyone interested in shutting off the tsunami of illegal immigrants? Republicans certainly aren’t.)

Ronald Reagan won two landslide presidential elections over liberal opponents because he was a conservative, campaigned as a conservative, and governed as a conservative. He also went over the heads of Congress and the media by taking his vision directly to the people. It worked. Yet Republicans today — particularly those in the Senate — are learning more lessons from the lion in the Wizard of Oz than Ronald Reagan.

For a classic “how to” example, let’s take Mae Beavers, our state senator. She got her message out during the disaster that was Don Sundquist’s second term. While most legislators (conservatives included) were cowering inside the state capitol during the perennial tax protests, then-Representative Beavers was one of only three or four lawmakers who regularly walked outside and through the crowd of protesters to use the power of talk radio to get her conservative message to taxpayers. Her name and the conservative ideals to which she adhered — then and now — spread far beyond the boundaries of her district. When the opportunity arose for her to run for the Senate, she took the risk of running in a district in which Republicans had heretofore been persona non grata, and won.

I know part of the Republicans’ “Mr. Nice Guy” timidity is respective of the “new tone” George W. Bush brought to office. It was a sweet idea, but it isn’t working. Democrats seem more partisan now than ever. Therefore it is time for the majority party in Congress and the keeper of the White House to grow a spine, make a hard swerve back to the right, and be willing to openly and persistently spar with Democrats over judicial appointments, limited government, and sealing our borders. The recent marathon session in the Senate over judges was a welcome sign of courage. More of this is needed. Otherwise, given the ebb and flow of politics, when Democrats eventually regain majority status in Washington, there will be few indications Republicans were ever there.

It has been said the Tennessee lottery has produced its first winner, and the first ticket has yet to be sold. Her name is Rebecca Paul, and she has been imported from Georgia to run Tennessee’s copycat lottery. Her base salary is $350,000, but she stands to earn an additional $402,500 in bonuses. In addition, Paul has brought three of her fellow Georgians to serve as senior managers, each hired at salaries of $180,000, plus yet unspecified bonuses. Paul’s recklessness prompted even Governor Bredesen to publicly chastise the lottery chief for both stacking her team with Georgia friends and the exorbitant salaries.

These salaries are far above those paid to administrators of competing lotteries. Rebecca Paul was paid $500,000 last year, including bonuses, to run the Georgia lottery. The four largest lotteries in the nation, New York, Massachusetts, Texas, and California, generated an average of $3.715 billion in gross revenue. Their directors earned an average of $119,000 last year. The Tennessee games are expected to generate around $900 million the first full year, and we are paying our director a base salary of $350,000.

The shenanigans have not gone unnoticed by some of our legislators, either. A letter to the governor drafted by 19 Republican senators and representatives, including Wilson County’s Susan Lynn, expressed their own dissatisfaction at the very liberal distribution of administrative salaries being funded by a lottery that is supposed to exist on behalf of education. The letter asks, in part, “Now we call on you to use the authority you requested to right this ship before it spins out of control. We stand ready to help you restore our constituents� faith that the lottery is being run for the benefit of students across the State of Tennessee.”

There are obviously more than a few Tennesseans, even some who voted for the lottery, who have expressed dismay at the Georgia pipeline and the Hollywood salaries. Well, what did you expect? This is the gaming industry, inherently unscrupulous and corrupt. When the voters approved the lottery last November, they opened the door to corruption. That corruption is already becoming manifest should surprise no one.

Here’s another pill to swallow. Counterfeit lottery tickets are popping up. At least one convenience store in west Tennessee is selling its own brand of lottery ticket. Said one clerk, “it is kind of our own lottery.” Indeed, the potential for fraud is ripe. Under the forthcoming system, outlets will be paid 6.5 cents per dollar ticket sold. But the temptation to sell fake tickets in order to pocket the entire dollar will undoubtedly yield more corruption, and nothing for education.

Regardless of how honorably our governor and lawmakers intend to administer the Tennessee lottery, there are already a swarm of greedy hands eager to reach into the $900 million cookie jar. Big money contracts to lottery vendors have yet to be awarded. There are the administrative costs which are already being escalated by the highly paid Georgia dream team. And there are payouts to lottery “winners” that must be distributed from time-to-time. What is left — about one-third of gross revenues — will go to scholarships.

Indeed, Tennesseans approved the lottery because the “education” crusade seemed to make it palatable. It is now becoming apparent that scholarships for the “best and brightest” merely provided the vehicle by which the gaming industry has stormed into Tennessee in order to extract as much money as possible from its citizens under the false hope of “becoming a winner.”

This is the second in a two-part column about homeschooling. In the last column, I discussed the clash between the liberal establishment and homeschooling. This column I’ll cover the reasons for that clash.

According to the U.S. Department of Education, the top ten reasons parents choose to homeschool are: 1) they can give better education at home; 2) religious reasons; 3) poor learning environment at school; 4) family reasons; 5) to develop character/morality; 6) they object to what the schools teach; 7) school does not challenge the child; other problems with available schools; 9) student behavior problems at school; 10) child has special needs/disability.

One mother who posted a recent letter on Dr. Laura Schlessinger’s website encapsulates the aversion many parents develop toward public schooling, as she tells “When I heard about public school policies informing parents about sex surveys or the age of which my child would be approached about the subject of sex, I checked it out. Unfortunately, I have found all this to be true. Not only does the school not wait for the parents’ permission to begin teaching child sex education, but at the tender age of 5 and 6, the school has had an abortion doctor come to speak to the children about ‘private parts.’”

And so the mother, identified only as “Jennifer,” took action. “My children spent their last day in a public school last Friday and my husband and I signed up for homeschooling on Monday. I will continue my college studies and with the help of my husband we now have control over what is taught our children and at what age. I sleep better at night knowing that their future is COMPLETELY in our hands….”

Parents who choose to homeschool are often asked the stereotypical question “Aren’t you concerned about your child’s socialization?” Dr. Brian Ray of the National Home Education Research Institute has conducted a survey of 7,300 homeschooled adults. He reached two interesting conclusions: homeschooling produces more active citizens, and it produces Americans who tend overwhelmingly to hold conservative values. (Source: Art Moore, “Survey: Homeschoolers new political force refutes ’socialization’ concerns posed by thinkers in academia,” WorldNetDaily.com, October 23, 2003.)

And this is where the worlds of the NEA and homeschooling collide. Says Dr. Ray, a “very large proportion [of homeschool families] follow a traditional Judeo-Christian worldview and believe in the founding concepts of liberty and limited government along with active participation by citizens.” Such concepts are shared by very few in academia, where much of the criticism of homeschooling originates.

To summarize Dr. Ray’s study, adults who were homeschooled are far more likely to participate in community service activities, belong to churches and other organizations, attend college, and participate in politics. And 95% of the homeschool graduates say they are glad they were taught at home. Dr. Ray’s study (along with common sense) effectively counters the supposition that schools operated by government-certified teachers know better than parents how a child best acquires knowledge and a worldview.

I therefore contend the NEA’s hostility toward homeschooling (and private schooling and vouchers, too) is borne out of fear. In the liberal mind, if you can’t beat it, regulate it. The NEA, which has a great deal of influence over public education policy, would have mandatory public education from preschool through senior high. Its objective is not to provide America’s children with the best possible education, but, in a totalitarian sense, to control the substance that shapes their minds. Children who are removed from the grasp of the NEA and liberal policymakers are children over which they have no control. This is why the NEA recoils with horror at homeschooling — its successes notwithstanding — and demands stringent regulation.

In mid-October, CBS Evening News broadcast a condemnatory two-part report called “A Dark Side to Homeschooling” in which CBS “found dozens of cases of parents accused or convicted of child abuse or murder who were teaching their children at home.” CBS exposed its own bias against homeschooling in attempting to discredit this growing form of education by broad-brushing the entire movement. In his introduction to the story, Dan Rather blared that CBS had “uncovered a dark side to this largely unregulated system of education.” The report continued by exposing a handful of isolated, egregious examples of child abuse committed by homeschool parents. (Sources: WorldNetDaily.com & Focus on the Family.)

Caveat: This is not a diatribe against school teachers. My own mother has taught in public schools for more than three decades, and I have many friends and acquaintances who teach in either public or private schools. My wife and I have entrusted our own son to a terrific kindergarten teacher at a local Christian school, and I attended public school myself for thirteen years. I owe what writing ability I do possess to the encouragement of a very dedicated English teacher with whom I was blessed during my junior and senior years. And my love of American history stems from seeds that were planted while I was a high school senior by a man who taught that subject with great understanding, knowledge, and humor.

Homeschooling provides a very clear distinction between liberal and conservative ideology. To start, homeschooling is anathema to liberalism. This is not to say that all homeschool parents qualify as conservatives, but the autonomy sought by these parents is certainly championed by conservatives. Liberals tend to view homeschooling as a threat, given the CBS characterization of homeschooling as a “largely unregulated system of education.” The key word is “unregulated.” Owing to their paternalistic view of government, liberals believe most everything should be regulated.

There is no one who views homeschooling with more disdain than the National Education Association (NEA). In it’s non-binding Resolution B-67, the nation’s largest teachers’ union, in an arrogant, elitist assertion of educational omniscience, states “The National Education Association believes that homeschooling programs cannot provide the student with a comprehensive education experience.” The resolution continues with four additional commandments.

NEA: “When homeschooling occurs, students enrolled must meet all state requirements.”

There’s the demand for government regulation. In the eyes of the NEA, parents — even if they are certified teachers — are without exception disqualified from determining the educational requirements of their own children. The all-knowing government must instead make such determinations.

NEA: “Homeschooling should be limited to the children of the immediate family, with all expenses being borne by the parents/guardians.”

Again, the NEA desires to cage home-school parents with the shackles of government regulation. In the NEA’s brave new world, homeschool families would be isolated, parents could not invite outside experts to provide instruction, and parents would not be allowed to accept outside monies to assist them.

NEA: “Instruction should be by persons who are licensed by the appropriate state education licensure agency, and a curriculum approved by the state department of education should be used.”

So, although my wife and I both hold Bachelor degrees, the NEA deems us unqualified to homeschool our own child — even in our fields of major — because we do not have teaching certificates. (By this argument, Albert Einstein would have been unqualified to teach physics or calculus to his children without a state teaching license, too.) Even if we were licensed teachers, the NEA believes we would still have to use a state-approved curriculum.

NEA: “The Association also believes that homeschooled students should not participate in any extracurricular activities in the public schools.”

Yet nowhere will you hear the NEA argue that homeschool parents should be excused from paying the taxes that support the public schools the NEA believes it owns. (Homeschool advocates place the number of homeschooled children in America at around two million. Given the average annual cost of public education in the U.S. runs roughly $8,000 per child, homeschooling saves taxpayers some $16 billion per year. Yet there’s not even a “thank you” from the NEA.)

So why the clash between the liberal establishment and homeschooling? That will be the topic of the next Right Minded.

It has been fascinating to watch the political drama run its course this campaign season in Lebanon. First, given the reputation of Wilson County politics of being dirty, I was impressed by the civility shown by the various candidates for city council toward each other. However, the sometimes rocky relationship between Mayor Don Fox and at least two of the three incumbent councilmen easily made up for the lack of fireworks.

The message sent by the voters to the mayor, either directly or indirectly, was resounding. The two candidates for whom the mayor actively campaigned, Gary Renfro and Lee Painter, were outpolled by incumbents Kathy Warmath and William Farmer by a combined 804 to 389, or 67% to 33%. And although Fox did not officially endorse a candidate in the three-person race in Ward 4, he did publicly state that he opposed all incumbents. So, I guess Joe Hayes’ victory there more or less completed the hat trick.

Having lived in Wilson County just four years, there are many long-standing elements of Lebanon politics to which I am not privy, less what I read in the newspaper. But as an observer, the greatest feud undoubtedly erupted between Mayor Fox and Ward 3 councilman William Farmer, who won his race with 78% of the vote. Apparently, Mr. Farmer invoked the mayor’s anger several weeks ago by questioning Fox’s use of a city credit card.

I tend to believe there is a very clear distinction between asking questions and making accusations. I am a sincere believer in government accountability, which Farmer more or less made the centerpiece of his campaign. Integrity in our society, top to bottom, is maintained through accountability. Husbands and wives hold each other accountable. Parents hold their children accountable. Teachers hold their students accountable. Employers hold their employees accountable. Customers hold the companies they patronize accountable. Law enforcement holds us all accountable. And citizens hold the public servants they elect to office accountable — or at least they should.

Living on one income, my wife and I spend our money carefully and frugally, save every penny we can, clip coupons, skim sales papers, and cut corners wherever possible. I expect elected officials at every level of government to do the same with the money I earn and send to the treasury in the form of taxes. It frustrates me when government wastes money (and I am certainly not accusing Mayor Fox of wasting money), which is why I welcome public servants who do ask questions of each other in order to ensure that government expenditures are both reasonable and necessary.

Questions regarding the collection and expenditure of public funds, whether made by auditors, councilmen, or ordinary citizens, should be met with open ledgers — not hostility and political retribution. Indeed, it proved an unwise gamble for the mayor to wager his political chips campaigning so heavily against two of the incumbents. We can all debate who was right or wrong: Fox, Farmer, or Warmath. But the way I see it, 67% of the voters can’t be wrong.

So where do the mayor and city council go from here? Forward, it appears. After all, there is the issue of the city’s audit sitting squarely in the middle of the table. The ball right now, though, is in the mayor’s possession. His political future is his to make or break. Although the incumbents Fox opposed justifiably have an axe to grind, I do believe the offer to pass the peace pipe made by Mayor Fox the morning following the election should be met with earnest acceptance.

The next mayoral election is two years away, and that’s a geologic era in the political world. The mayor is a politically astute gentleman, no doubt, and realizes that he has no choice but to work with the council the voters sent to him. I am an earnest believer in redemption, and Mayor Don Fox, clearly humbled following Thursday’s election, needs to be redeemed in the eyes of the city’s voters.

The primary objective I set to achieve throughout my Right Minded columns is to advance conservatism. Current events often provide an opportunity to articulate a particular conservative position. I also believe it is important, if conservatism is to be advanced, to always contrast it with liberalism. The two systems of thought truly are opposite.

The term “conservative” is not just a label. It is an entire belief system — a worldview, if you will. Providing commentary on current events is an invaluable method to convey the deeper current of ideology, but doing so only allows the writer to cover one or two topics at a time. Therefore, I want to set aside one column to convey as many ideas as space will allow.

I have composed what I will call my “Forty beliefs about life from a conservative perspective.” This is not exhaustive, because the constraints of paper and ink fortunately prevent me from rambling on ad nauseum, but it is at least comprehensive. So here’s my side of the story. As Bill O’Reilly says, I’ll let the reader decide.

1. There is a God.
2. Right is right, wrong is wrong, and wrong is never right.
3. Abortion is murder.
4. If it weren’t for profit-seeking businesses, none of us would have jobs.
5. There’s nothing wrong with seeking and acquiring wealth.
6. In order to get elected, liberals often have to convince voters they’re not liberals.
7. A conservative never has to pretend to be someone he’s not. I am a conservative, and am not ashamed of it.
8. If you get lung cancer from smoking, it’s your own fault, and no one else should be held liable.
9. Every child needs a mother and father. The best parents for a child are his own parents.
10. The nuclear family — one man, one woman, and their children — is the fundamental building block of any society.
11. Conservatives believe in helping individuals with their own money. Liberals believe in helping themselves to other peoples’ money.
12. Conservatives believe in empowering individuals. Liberals believe in empowering the government at the expense of individuals.
13. Liberals despise the Constitution and Bill of Rights, because they were designed as limitations on government. This is why liberals expend so much brain power trying to devise ways around them.
14. No one has the right to not be offended.
15. The government is not capable of growing the U.S. economy. That’s the role of the private sector.
16. Presidents do not create jobs. The free-market economy takes care of that.
17. There are only two things government can do to help end a recession: cut taxes and get out of the way of the private sector.
18. There is no separation of church and state to be found anywhere in the U.S. Constitution or its Amendments.
19. Guns don’t kill people. People kill people.
20. The Second Amendment makes all the others possible.
21. No nation has ever taxed itself into prosperity.
22. Conservatism works whenever it’s applied. Socialism, on the other hand, has failed every time it has been attempted.
23. Ordinary Americans are and always have been capable of doing extraordinary things.
24. It’s okay to be intolerant, because some things are just plain dumb.
25. Tennessee is the greatest state in the union.
26. Anything a politician claims is “for the children” rarely is.
27. Political correctness is the product of liberal busybodies who actively seek ways to be offended.
28. Welfare has created more poverty than any other factor in this nation’s history.
29. The terrorist strikes of September 11, 2001 were caused by Islamic militants, and were the fault of no one else.
30. Liberals vehemently oppose placing conservatives on the judiciary, because the only way the left can advance its agenda is the willingness of activist judges to rewrite laws in their favor.
31. The process of chance and random biological mutation espoused by Darwinists provides no reasonable explanation for Creation.
32. The desire of environmentalists is not to protect the environment. It’s to destroy capitalism.
33. Diplomacy and negotiation do not produce peace. Military victory and deterrence produce peace.
34. Feminists ostracize masculinity in men while at the same time trying to make themselves appear more masculine.
35. The key word in the phrase “illegal alien” is “illegal.”
36. Tax cuts do not cause deficits. Overspending causes deficits.
37. As long as liberals pay homage to affirmative action, diversity, and multi-culturalism, Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream will never be realized.
38. Every word has a definite meaning.
39. Every action has a consequence.
40. A great teacher is one who inspires others to a life-long pursuit of self-education.

Terri Schindler-Schiavo is a 39-year-old disabled Florida woman whose husband, Michael Schiavo, is using the court system to seek termination of her life by dehydration.

Thirteen years ago, Terri collapsed and suffered brain damage under still-unexplained circumstances. Since then Terri has required the use of a feeding tube. However, her family observes “Terri’s other bodily functions are physically stable. Terri smiles, laughs, and cries. Terri recognizes voices and responds. At times, she vocalizes sounds, trying in her best way to speak.” Furthermore, “Terri is not on a respirator or any artificial life support. She is a living human being and needs to be granted an opportunity to recover.”

Having no durable power of attorney for health care, Terri’s husband, Michael Schiavo, became her guardian following the collapse. He filed a malpractice lawsuit on her behalf against the doctors who attended her, and was awarded $1.3 million. Most of the award money was placed in a trust fund for her care and rehabilitation. However, during the past ten years she has received no meaningful rehabilitation treatment. Instead, her husband hired well-known right-to-die advocate George Felos as his attorney, and began petitioning the courts to have Terri’s feeding tube removed, which, of course, would kill her. (Source: Jane Chastain, “Another 9-11 date with death,” WorldNetDaily.com, September 4, 2003.)

Although a handful of doctors, as well as Terri’s husband, have testified she is “vegetative” or “comatose,” and will never regain her facilities, over a dozen prominent doctors and therapists have provided sworn testimony that she could be rehabilitated if allowed to receive therapy.

In another twist, Terri’s husband currently lives with his fiancee. They have been engaged more than seven years, recently gave birth to a baby girl, and have announced plans to marry when Terri is no longer alive. Should she die, her husband would inherit what remains of her $750,000 medical fund.

Death by dehydration, which Terri faces, is an agonizing process that takes 10 to 14 days. In addition to feeling the pangs of hunger and thirst, the skin, lips, and tongue crack. The nose bleeds because of the drying of the mucus membranes. Heaving and vomiting may ensue because of the drying out of the stomach lining. The victim may experience seizures.

As the fluid level in the body decreases, blood pressure drops and heart rate increases. Respiration also often increases as blood is shunted from the extremities to the central part of the body in a desperate attempt to sustain the primary organs. The hands and feet become extremely cold.

In late August, the seven-member Florida Supreme Court unanimously washed its hands of the matter by turning down an appeal by the Schindlers to review the case. The court’s refusal to become involved cleared the way for Schiavo to remove his wife’s feeding tube. On September 17, Circuit Court Judge George W. Greer established October 15 as the date on which the tube may be removed.

For over two months, people from across the country and around the world have been signing the Internet petition form posted on the family’s website (www.terrisfight.org), urging Governor Jeb Bush to intervene. To date, over 40,000 people have signed the petition. On October 6, in response to the flood of support, Governor Bush filed an amicus brief supporting an injunction filed on Terri’s behalf.

I find it more than a little disturbing that in the United States of America in the year 2003, one individual can have such absolute power of life-and-death over another. It is even more distasteful that one man, through his use of the court system, could sentence another human being (especially his own wife), who is guilty of no crime, to a prolonged, excruciating death simply because that person’s life presents an inconvenience.

Will Americans be able to prove their humanity by rallying en masse behind Terri Schindler-Schiavo? This case is not yet ended, and there is considerable action that can still be taken by willing Americans. Yes, fellow citizens, this is a direct challenge.

College campuses are supposed to stand as beacons of intellectual pursuit, critical thought, and scholarly exploration, which is why I find it ironic so many of our universities have become Orwellian graveyards for free speech.

While the higher education community sees fit to lecture society on the virtues of tolerance and diversity, it plays by a different set of rules. Tolerance and diversity seem to fit quite nicely into the atmosphere of “open-mindedness” which supposedly permeates our universities — unless conservatives make overtures of manifesting themselves. Then the door of tolerance is abruptly closed, and the table of diversity suddenly has no room.

There is a trough full of fodder available on this topic. I am choosing just a few examples from the smorgasbord of campus newspeak to bolster my argument. The case of Steve Hinkle, one I recently discovered in a Focus on the Family article, is typical of the syndrome.

Hinkle, a senior at the California Polytechnic State University at San Luis Obispo, encountered the thought police when he tried to post a flier in a university multi-cultural center advertising the appearance of conservative black author Mason Weaver, who had penned a book entitled “It’s OK to Leave the Plantation.”

Some black students confronted Hinkle, one even accusing him of “disrespecting their right to not be offended.” The students called campus police, and Hinkle was eventually convicted of causing a disruption on campus. He’s taking the school to court to clear his name.

Then there is 23-year-old Jason Roberts, a third-year law student at Texas Tech in Lubbock. To counter gay-rights groups’ claims that God doesn’t consider same-sex relationships sinful, Roberts wanted to distribute leaflets listing Bible verses about homosexuality at the campus bookstore. Then he learned about a university “speech code” banning any expression that might “humiliate” or “intimidate” someone. And that spelled the end of Roberts’ plan. (Source: Candi Cushman, “Hostile Territory,” Citizen Magazine, September 2003.)

In the spring of 2001, pro-life students at the University of Houston (UH) assembled an exhibit featuring oversized posters of aborted babies at various stages of development. Sheree Tullos, president of the UH Pro-Life Cougars, said in an interview “I had professors e-mailing me, telling me my college career was going to be over.”

The club plowed ahead with the exhibit, much to the dismay of a “tolerant” university administration, which resorted to another tactic: a zoning policy restricting “potentially disruptive” expression to less-visited areas of the campus. This seemed unfair to Tullos, especially considering a homosexual-adoption rally had earlier been held in a more heavily-traveled area.

The saga continued into the following summer, when Jonathan Saenz, the club’s new president, requested permission to wear a sandwich board with the words “Life is beautiful” on one side and “Choose life” on the other. Predictably, the “tolerant” university administration denied him permission.

The pro-life club eventually took the university to court, where a U.S. district judge found the administration’s refusal “astonishing” and declared UH’s speech policy unconstitutional because it gave campus officials “unfettered discretion” in deciding which expression was allowed.

At Baylor University in Waco, Texas, there is a push to remove constitutional scholar Dr. Francis Beckwith. His thought crime? Dr. Beckwith gave the Texas Board of Education solicited advice that it is perfectly legal to present intelligent design theory in science textbooks. And for that, the champions of diversity and tolerance are calling for his head.

And this summer, the University of Alabama’s Office of Residential Life was miffed when a professor-in-residence hung the Confederate flag in his dormitory. So the diversity-minded office drafted a policy which would ban students from displaying anything in residence halls “inconsistent with accepted standards or University policies.” According to the school’s newspaper, at least one students’ group, aided by civil libertarians, challenged the proposed policy. As a result, the ban will not go into effect this year.

Many of our universities, including those publicly-funded, are controlled by left-wing ideologues, and are therefore far from the bastions of tolerance and diversity upon which they parade. Instead, hypersensitive university administrators frequently design speech codes or speech zones in order to squash unpopular dissent in order to protect the “right to not be offended.” In so doing, public discourse which may run perpendicular to their carefully-guarded agendas is sifted out. If pure tolerance and diversity were sincerely pursued, it seems that viewpoints from all persuasions, the left and the right, would be welcomed and afforded equal consideration.

It is now common knowledge that Rush Limbaugh is addicted to painkillers. He formally made that admission during the last minutes of his radio program on Friday, October 10. The “Maha Rushie” then declared he would be checking himself into a rehabilitation facility forthwith, where he would spend the next 30 days dedicating himself to overcoming an addiction that has plagued him for several years. Mr. Limbaugh confessed the addiction began following unsuccessful back surgery, and it is very likely his persistent use of the painkillers are the culprit of his ensuing deafness.

The news of Mr. Limbaugh’s addiction was received with predictable glee by liberals across the nation, fully embodied by a hatchet job on Limbaugh published in Newsweek the following week. In fact, during the most recent Democrat debate on CNN, candidate John Kerry quipped that to improve access to prescription drugs, “You can hire Rush Limbaugh’s housekeeper, or you could elect me president of the United States.” Ouch. (Source: Brent Bozell, “Pulling for Rush,” Townhall.com, October 15, 2003.)

I am a “dittohead” — one who listens to Rush Limbaugh on the “Excellence-in-Broadcasting” (EIB) network as often as possible. I was somewhat deflated by Rush’s admission, but admired his openness. Although the man with “talent on loan from God” — and we all have talent on loan from God — did warn his listeners there were some wild exaggerations resonating through the media, he did confess to his 20 million listeners that he is indeed addicted to painkillers. He also took full responsibility for his transgressions, blaming no one but himself, and humbly reminded us he does not consider himself a role model.

Mr. Limbaugh did not deny the charges, did not blame his problem on some vast left-wing conspiracy, and did not attempt to manipulate the English language in order to create some nebulous aura of innocence or victimhood. I respect him for that. There is still the issue of legal prosecution. After all, Rush does appear to have broken the law. I don’t know what penalties he faces, but he should certainly be treated by the legal system as any ordinary citizen would.

Rush Limbaugh has probably done more to advance conservatism in this nation than any one person since Ronald Reagan. He is credited with opening a heretofore untapped market more than 15 years ago, paving the road for several conservative commentators who now enjoy nationwide listenership. Dittoheads enjoy hearing Rush’s perspective on current events, his “see, I told you so” predictions come to pass, his wit, satire, parodies, and hilariously authentic Clinton impersonations. But most importantly, listeners are endeared to his undying optimism and love of country and freedom, which is bolstered by his genuine belief in the unlimited ability and potential of average, ordinary Americans.

Liberals are salivating at what they perceive as the end of Rush Limbaugh. I have a disheartening prediction of my own. Rush will be back behind the “golden EIB microphone,” perched atop his “prestigious Attila-the-Hun chair” following rehabilitation, with “half his brain tied behind his back, just to make it fair.” His leave of absence will have been nothing more than a blip.

My heartfelt hope for Mr. Limbaugh, a self-described “harmless, lovable fuzzball,” is that he is able to overcome his addiction. Those who have overcome similar circumstances testify that such a quest is extremely difficult. That Limbaugh’s critics — most of whom do not bother actually listening to the program — have rained down cries of “Hypocrisy!” is expected. But to revel in the misery of a fellow human being is certainly not compassionate.

I look forward to the day Rush Limbaugh returns to the airwaves, reading news stories from his “stack of stuff” held by his “formerly nicotine-stained fingers,” firing up the “ditto-cam,” and “invoking the fourth hour” whenever the mood strikes.