A Feel-Good Final Four

Saturday is fast approaching and with it, the NCAA Tournament's Final Four. This is one of my favorite sporting events of the year, and I'll be glued to the television from 6pm on. But this year's games will be different than any other, for one major reason: I have no one to root against.

I think every college basketball fan develops new loyalties and disdain toward certain teams as March Madness progresses. Sure we all root for our faves, but when they're eliminated, we adopt other teams to cheer for...or cheer against. The Cinderella teams almost always develop a loyal following, as it's practically obligatory to get behind the little guy as he goes off to battle the big boys of the power conferences. We may even start rooting for certain teams because we've come to like one of their players, their style of play, or even their coach.

But as much as we may not want to admit it, there is always that one team that we love to hate as they mow down their foes in each round of the tournament. You know what I'm referring to. You've seen these teams before, and you've hated them every bit as much as I have. They're the teams with the cocky, arrogant attitudes who believe they're entitled to number one seeds and a ticket to the Final Four. Their rosters are laden with punks who talk trash and start trouble out on the court. Even their coach rubs you the wrong way with his mannerisms and tone of speech.

But you know what the best scenario is? The ideal situation occurs when the team that you've adopted as "your team" the rest of the way faces off with the team you've come to despise. Nothing incites more passion, energy, and enthusiasm in a college basketball fan, and I have lived for those moments, such as when George Mason defeated UConn in their regional final in 2006. I can still remember jumping up and down in my living room when the buzzer sounded after that 86-84 overtime thriller.

This year, however, is different. When you look at the Final Four, you don't see any brutes, ogres, or bullies. No trash-talking troublemakers, no odious characters, no supercilious snobs with a sense of entitlement. Don't even look for it. It's not there.

Instead, what you have are four teams that were very unlikely to make it this far. All of the number one seeds are gone, only the third time that has ever happened in the tournament's history. All of the number two seeds are gone as well; that is a first.

The highest seed left is the number three Huskies from the University of Connecticut. But even they are an unlikely story. They finished ninth in the Big East during the regular season, and had to win five games in five days in order to win the Big East tournament, something that had never been done before. But this young team, loaded with freshmen and led by an unassuming star guard named Kemba Walker, somehow got it done. How can you not be happy for them?

The next highest seed remaining is the Kentucky Wildcats. Now I know what you're thinking. People have every reason to hate Kentucky. They're the winningest program in college basketball history. They've been too good for too long, and their coach is a weasel who already had two Final Four banners taken back by the NCAA due to rules violations. Like a rat leaving a sinking ship, he fled UMass and Memphis just in time, right before the you-know-what hit the fan. I get that.

But again, this Wildcat team is different. This is not the Kentucky team that won the National Championship in 1998. Like UConn, they too are quite young. Kentucky starts three freshmen, including Brandon Knight, their fearless leader who has hit two buzzer-beaters in this tourney to help his team advance. Their own coach questioned their mental toughness earlier in the season, and they have worked extremely hard to turn that around and get to where they are now. Their senior center, Josh Harrellson, is a player who the previous coach gave up on. He was grossly overweight and had a sloppy work ethic, but even he cleaned up his act. After a vigorous conditioning program initiated by Coach Calipari, he got himself into shape, had a solid season, and has been a beast throughout this tournament.

As for the other two teams, how do you root against a number eight seed (Butler) or a number eleven seed (Virginia Commonwealth)? They're both classic Cinderellas, and the lowest seeds to ever face off in a national semi-final. After losing their star player from last year's team, Gordon Hayward, it was widely believed that this year's Butler team would be unable to muster another tournament run. But they've proven everyone wrong, with gritty play and solid leadership from Matt Howard and Shelvin Mack. And come on, how can anyone not root for Brad Stevens? The 34 year-old head coach is soft-spoken, humble, and looks like a choir boy sitting on the sidelines.

Coach Shaka Smart of VCU is another guy you have to get behind. CBS showed his pre-game speech before his players went to war with Kansas, and it made me want to go out there and lock horns with the Jayhawks. He's charismatic, inspiring, and like Brad Stevens, a young, likable guy. Many so-called experts deemed the Rams unworthy of a spot in the tournament, but they have proven the critics wrong by beating one team after another from the power conferences. First it was the Pac-10, then the Big East, followed by the Big Ten, ACC, and the Big 12. The little engine that could from the Colonial Athletic Association has shocked the world, and as a college basketball fan, you can't help but love it.

So now, we have a major dilemma. Who do we cheer for? Who do we hope brings home the National Championship Trophy in this year chock full of feel-good stories? Vegas has Kentucky tabbed as the favorite, but as I said earlier, they are not the type of favorite that I can ever root against. What then do we do?

My answer is this: we should just sit back and enjoy the games. They are likely to be hard fought and competitive, and I for one can't wait to see Brandon Knight and Kemba Walker go head-to-head. I predict that the winner of that game will be the guy who has the ball in his hands when that buzzer is about to sound. Both Walker and Knight have proven time and again that they have ice water in their veins, and I wait with great anticipation to see which one is going to hit the last-second, game-winning shot that sends his team to Monday night's championship game.

In this time of economic crisis and widespread hardship, I think we can also draw inspiration from these teams. Lessons learned from sports can often be applied to life, and there are plenty of them to go around in this year's Final Four. Those who have been told they don't belong can look at VCU's run and use that as motivation. Young people who may have been told they don't have enough experience can use Kentucky and Connecticut as role models. If you're an underdog in the game of life, whether looking for a job or trying to overcome a difficult situation, you can draw inspiration from any of these four teams. Josh Harrellson is an example of an incredible comeback, while his coach's situation shows us that life does grant second (and third) chances.

So let's make the most of this year's Final Four by enjoying the games, allowing the teams to entertain us, and embracing their amazing individual stories. I can live with any one of them being crowned the champion on Monday night, and I hope that you can too.

Disaster Looming in Libya

In my previous blog post regarding the situation in Libya, I stated unequivocally that I supported President Obama's decision to launch airstrikes against Muammar Gaddafi's forces in order to prevent them from slaughtering innocent civilians. However, I also said that I reserved the right to change my mind if the president failed to define the mission more clearly and set realistic, measurable, attainable goals for our military. Unfortunately, President Obama has failed in his attempt to do so, and as a result I am officially withdrawing my support from this initiative.

After a five-day jaunt to South America, one for which President Obama received a great deal of criticism, he finally addressed the nation two days ago on his policy in Libya. Amazingly enough, the address left Americans with more questions than answers, and it's beginning to look as though this entire operation could become a complete fiasco.

First of all, the president continues to contradict himself. Originally, he had said that Gaddafi "has to go," and that regime change was necessary in Libya. Then he reversed his position and stated that regime change was not necessarily our goal. He claims to have sent in our military to prevent a humanitarian crisis, namely a massacre of the Libyan rebels that would be carried out by Gaddafi's forces.

Clearly, the president believes that we have a moral obligation to be there. Several of our leaders in Washington echo that sentiment, and I cannot disagree with it either. But in order to ultimately prevent this from happening, don't we need to remove Gaddafi from power?

If unseating Gaddafi was our goal, then it would be crystal clear and one-hundred percent measurable. As it stands, we don't have an objective that we can fully assess. There's no question that our attacks have, for the time being, forced Gaddafi's thugs to retreat and helped the rebels make significant gains. That's all well and good, but does that mean we can now pull out? Of course it doesn't.

Once we pull back our airstrikes and stop supporting the rebels, Gaddafi's men will annihilate them. That is a fact that no one will dispute. So here is my question for President Obama. If we're there to prevent a humanitarian crisis but not to remove Gaddafi, how can we possibly know when we've achieved our goal? Isn't the threat of a merciless massacre omnipresent as long as this psychopath remains in power?

There are several other reasons to be very concerned. The costs of the operation are mounting, and that is hardly something that Americans want to see in this time of economic crisis. The latest figure is $550 million and counting.

Gaddafi remains defiant and continues to battle back. Earlier this morning, his troops forced rebels to retreat from the key oil port of Ras Lanouf. This makes it clear that he is not going to go quietly, and that as long as he's in power, he'll continue to press on. Does that in and of itself not show the president that regime change in Libya is necessary?

There has been talk of arming the rebels in the fight, but that too has its drawbacks. Arming someone is one thing. Training them in the use of arms is another. It would be great if it was as simple as dropping loads of weapons and ammunition, then wishing the rebels good luck in their fight for freedom. But it's not. We'd have to stay and train them, just as we've done in Iraq and Afghanistan. This would mean a major commitment on our part in terms of time, money, and effort.

Then there's that nagging question about NATO assuming control of the operation. They were scheduled to do so earlier in the week, but then it was announced that they were not ready yet. This also causes Americans to lose patience, and leaves us asking the question, "Did we just allow ourselves to get roped in again?"

Through it all, I have to think that Gaddafi is emboldened by the president's statements. Put yourself in his position. If the leader of the United States was saying things like, "Regime change is not the goal in Libya," wouldn't that be comforting to you? I think my response would be something like, "Great! If they're not going to remove me by force, then I can just keep on fighting."

The president most recently stated that the international community has to ratchet up diplomatic and political pressure on Gaddafi to make him hand over his power. Well I've got news for President Obama. That's not going to happen.

Didn't our president hear Gaddafi when he gave rambling, incoherent speeches at the U.N. over the past couple of years? Was he not paying attention? The man is a lunatic. He is completely out of his mind. Gaddafi is not going to leave, so as uncomfortable as it may be for President Obama, he's going to have no choice but to force him to go.

If we are going to succeed in Libya, there can be only one goal: remove Gaddafi. I'll say it again: remove Gaddafi. Until the president comes to that realization, he is putting our country at risk of getting caught up in a quagmire from which there will be no escape. We'll spend lots of money, possibly lose American lives, and all for what? Get it straight, Mr. President. Go into Libya and do the job right. Make removing Gaddafi our goal, and do what has to be done to achieve it. Then we can put this behind us and move on. God knows we already have enough crises to deal with, both at home and abroad. Another long, drawn-out conflict is about the last thing America needs right now.

London Bridge is Falling Down

As Congress returns this week to attempt to hammer out a budget agreement, I remain very concerned about the situation across the Atlantic and how it might affect us here at home. But I'm not referring to the Middle East, though there is little doubt that what ultimately transpires in Libya, Syria, Yemen, Bahrain, and Egypt (let's not forget that things there are not settled yet either) will have serious implications for us as well. For the purposes of this blog post, I'm talking about Great Britain.

Over the weekend, there was a massive protest in London in response to the country's latest round of budget cuts. These were the steepest cuts since World War II, and one would only have needed to watch the parade into Hyde Park to realize it. In all, the Metropolitan Police confirmed that there were over 250,000 people marching through central London.

Unfortunately, the protests eventually turned violent. Splinter groups consisting of several hundred people broke off from the main march and began causing chaos. They scuffled with police officers, hurling paint bombs and ammonia-filled light bulbs at them. They tried to smash shop windows on London's main shopping avenues, threw objects at the posh Ritz Hotel in Piccadilly. and later broke into the luxury department store Fortnum and Mason, where they shattered some displays. Needless to say there were several arrests for public disturbances, destruction of property, and assault on police officers.

Remember now, this is Great Britain we're talking about here. This is not some third-world country where ninety percent of people are unemployed and so poor that they don't have electricity or running water. Rather, these events are unfolding in a country that is America's staunchest ally, a country that up until the 20th century was the world's most dominant superpower.

I've said in previous posts that I see the unrest in Europe as a pre-cursor to what will ultimately happen here in America. I so hope I'm wrong, but I still can't help but think that Europe is merely one step ahead of us. Let's take a brief look at what caused this to happen.

Prime Minister David Cameron's coalition government is proposing $130 billion in spending cuts to get their budget deficit under control. This deficit has come about as a result of billions in spending to bail out indebted banks, a huge reduction in tax revenue, and an increase in welfare bills. It's estimated that 500,000 public sector jobs will be lost, the pension age will have to be increased for those lucky enough to keep their jobs, and the portion of the population relying on welfare (unemployment) payments will see $28.5 billion cut from their programs.

Does any of this sound familiar? I think I know of another country that is dealing with a massive deficit after spending billions to bail out banks. They too have seen decreases in tax revenue, an increase in people filing for unemployment benefits, raises in the pension age, and are in the process of proposing deep cuts to government spending. Gee, I wonder who that might be.

Great Britain is a step ahead of us right now because our government has yet to come to an agreement on the 2011 budget. After the Republicans gained control of the House, there was talk of cutting spending by $100 billion. That number quickly dwindled to $61 billion, which is still pretty substantial. However the Democrats in the Senate countered with $10 billion in cuts, leaving the two sides over $50 billion apart and seemingly unwilling to compromise.

The latest talk coming out of Washington is that the two sides are close to an agreement. I'll believe that when I see it, but several members of the Senate and House have confirmed it. Needless to say it's quite comforting to hear such good news, but let's face it: no matter what the final number is, we're going to have a lot of unhappy people in this country.

The Tea Party is already talking about kicking John Boehner out and mounting a challenge against him in the next election. They are furious that he did not draw a line in the sand at $100 billion in budget cuts, and their ire will only increase when the proposed $61 billion is lowered even more.

The left will be up in arms over any significant cuts in spending, and a march on Washington seems unavoidable to me. They seem to be residing in a parallel universe where money grows on trees and the supply never runs out.

My best guess is that the final number will be between $30 billion and $40 billion, but most likely at the higher end of that range. That's far less than the $130 billion being proposed in Great Britain, so hopefully that will aid in avoiding the civil unrest that occurred in the streets of London.

We've already seen some major labor protests in Wisconsin, but they were fairly timid aside from some bullying of reporters and one Republican legislator who got caught up in a crowd of union supporters. I still say that more of these protests are on the way as states continue to ratchet up the anti-union rhetoric, but again I hope that they pale in comparison to what happened overseas this past weekend.

Be prepared for anything, my friends. In the coming months, don't be surprised if you read about throngs of people descending on state legislatures or the U.S. Capitol. Don't be shocked if you or someone you know loses their public sector job. Don't be caught off guard by your parents or grandparents seeing major revisions to their Medicare and/or Social Security.

But most of all, don't be anxious and worried. Let's face it; you and I can't control any of these things. We can't go back into the past and undo what has already been done. We are where we are, and we just have to move on as best we can. Let not your heart be troubled, and leave it all up to God. We'll make it through this. As Americans, we always have, and we'll be a better and stronger nation because of it.

Tell It to the Guv

It was still somewhat surreal when I walked out the front door to my home today at 9am. I couldn't believe that Governor Christie was hosting a town hall literally right around the block from me, on Park Ave. in Nutley. I walked down to the corner, crossed the street, and after walking up about a hundred yards or so, I had arrived at the Frank Cocchiola Center.

The set-up was as I had expected. Having gone to the governor's town hall in Paramus, I was well prepared for it. I even came up with an idea to get recognized during the Q & A session, and I didn't see how it could possibly fail.

You see, at that town hall in Paramus, Governor Christie called on a couple of people who were wearing blue and orange. He proceeded to tell us how smart those people were, because he is a devout Mets fan and those colors always stand out to him.

So I developed the perfect plan to get recognized this time around. Believe me when I tell you that it killed me to do this. But you know what they say: desperate times call for desperate measures.

I went to The Sports Authority at Clifton Commons and I purchased a....I still can't believe I'm saying this...New York Mets baseball cap. When the cashier asked if I wanted a bag, I immediately said, "Yes!" God knows that I didn't want anyone to see me carrying that thing around.

I brought it with me to the town hall today, and during the Q & A, I raised it as high as I could. At first, the governor wasn't even looking in my direction. The first three or four people who got to ask questions were all seated in other sections. But I was patient, and I knew that sooner or later he had to look my way.

Then it happened. The governor looked right at me, and I saw a semblance of a smile come to his face. But before he called on me, he addressed the entire group. He said, "Here's a really cheap way to have the chance to ask your question. Some of you may know that I am a lifelong Mets fan, and when you come to the town hall waving a Mets cap, then I almost have to call on you because I know that you can relate to my pain and suffering."

Hey, it may have been cheap, but it worked. I stood up and waved the Mets cap while the crowd had a hearty laugh. When I took the mic, I started by telling the governor what a wonderful job he was doing. I barely got one sentence out before the room erupted into vigorous applause. Pretty much what I had expected.

But then I said, "Nonetheless, Governor, I am not going easy on you today." That immediately grabbed his attention, as he responded with an "OK" and looked me right in the eye. Then I asked my question, which went something like this:

"My question relates to the findings on your task force for higher education. They have lamented New Jersey's 'brain drain,' whereby many of our best and brightest leave the state after graduating high school. They go to college elsewhere and never return to New Jersey.

"You, Governor, want to stop the brain drain. You've called yourself a loyal son of the state of New Jersey. You want our best and brightest to be loyal sons and daughters of New Jersey as well. But I have an issue with that.

"You see, Governor, like you I am a loyal son of this state. I was born here, raised here, and lived here my whole life. I went to school here, earning my bachelor's, master's, and my doctoral degree. I worked in the education field here for 14 years.

"When I finished my doctorate at Seton Hall in 2007, I became a Director in Academic Affairs at a public university in New Jersey. At that point, I was on my way to fulfilling a dream. But last year, Governor, that dream turned into a nightmare.

"It started when you cut $174 million in aid to public higher education. Now, I know why you did it. We're broke. I get it. But I also want you to know that those cuts cost me my job.

"I've been unemployed for 9 months now. I can't find work despite all my credentials, and I'm getting crushed by the astronomical cost of living in this state. For the first time, Governor, I'm facing the grim reality that I might have to leave the state I have always called home.

"So my question is this. As you aim to keep our best and brightest here in New Jersey, what are you going to do to make sure that those kids don't suffer the same cruel fate that I have, and that they're not punished for their loyalty to New Jersey the way that I have been punished?"

I couldn't believe it, but when I handed over the mic, the room broke out in applause once again. The governor said, "Great question," and then proceeded to answer me. His response was what you would expect. The state is broke, the cuts were necessary, and he's sorry that those cuts cost me my job. He went on to say something to the effect of, "I'd hate to lose you. You're clearly a bright, articulate guy, and I hope that you're able to find something else here. But if you don't, then I hope that you go somewhere where they will appreciate your talents and abilities."

He also promised that he'd do everything he could to make sure that we wouldn't have to get on a plane to go and see our grandchildren play Little League baseball. He is committed to keeping our best and brightest here, and he hopes that his spending cuts and plethora of reforms will turn the tide and help bring New Jersey back to fiscal solvency.

It would have been nice for him to say, "John, give us your resume. We're going to help you find a job." But again, I didn't go in expecting that. Of course, I did have a copy of my resume on hand just in case. You never know, right?

Once the town hall was over and the governor had departed, I stood up to gather my things and immediately found myself surrounded. I was overwhelmed as people came up to shake my hand, tell me how insightful my question was, and wish me well in my job search. Among them was a throng of reporters, from the Star Ledger, Bergen Record, New York Times, NJN, PolitickerNJ.com, the Nutley Sun, Verizon Fios TV, and some other smaller publications.

The gentleman from the New York Times said, "I got an excellent picture of you. Hopefully it will be in tomorrow's edition." Another said, "Yours was a compelling tale, and you can see just how compelling it was from the attention you're getting from the press." One even asked me if I was planning on running for office. I left that one open, though I was so tempted to say that I'd be running as a Tea Party candidate for U.S. Congress.

For the most part, they just wanted my name, contact information, and the name of the university where I had worked. The most common questions I fielded were, "Where do you go from here with your job search?" and "Were you satisfied with the governor's response to your question?" I basically told them I just had to keep plugging away and not give up, and that my savings could hold me over for a little while longer. As for the governor's response, I will graciously admit that I skirted the question. I told them, "His response is pretty much what I had expected it would be."

NJN actually interviewed me on camera for a few minutes and told me that a segment of that interview would be shown tonight. If you're interested, the start times are 6pm, 7:30pm, and 11pm.

Two retired teachers came up to me to express their sympathy. They told me something that I've been suspecting all along, namely that my credentials and experience at this point in my career work against me. Hiring someone with a Ph.D. and 14 years of experience means you have to pay them more, and in this economy, no one wants to do that. I thanked them for taking the time to share that with me and for wishing me well.

Little did I know that the COO of Berkeley College would be in the audience. I had a feeling that someone important was approaching when a tall gentleman in a fancy suit walked toward me. He handed me his card and asked for my resume, saying that he'd do what he could to help me. I imagine his comments were sincere, because he could have simply left without anyone knowing who he even was.

Finally, when the reporters had left and I was standing there alone getting my jacket on, I was approached by a dark-haired woman who was dressed very professionally. She identified herself as Jeanne Dovgala-Ashmore, the Director of the Governor's Office of Constituent Relations. She said, "I don't know if we can help, but please send us your resume and we'll see what we can do." Needless to say, that brought a big smile to my face.

Overall, this event was the rousing success I was hoping for. I got my point across, made others aware of my plight, and opened up doors for myself. I always say that if you want something, you have to go out and get it. You have to make it happen; no one else. You need to use all the tools at your disposal, and I'd like to think that I did that today.

Who knows what will ultimately come of this? But whether it bears fruit or not, at least I can say that I gave it my best shot. I had nothing to lose, so I went for it. If nothing else, I hope this inspires others, maybe even some of you, to use your resources to formulate strategies that will help you advance toward your goals, and do whatever you have to do to attain them. In the meantime, I'll let you know if someone, maybe even the governor himself, comes through for me as a result of today's events. I'm hoping and praying it happens, because I'm a bit overdue.

Better Late Than Never for NOW

Hold on to your seats, everyone, because this one is going to blow your mind. Bill Maher, the liberal atheist who hosts HBO's "Real Time with Bill Maher," launched another unprovoked, inappropriate, disgusting attack on Sarah Palin. Can you believe it? Shocking, I know.

It never ceases to amaze me how obsessed the left is with denigrating Governor Palin. I still don't understand the assaults on her intellect, considering that this is a woman who served as mayor of her town, took on corruption single-handedly within her own party, and ultimately won the battle, marching all the way to victory in her campaign to be Governor of Alaska. Maybe it's just me, but in my experience, people who really are stupid tend not to accomplish such endeavors.

Yes, I know that she has had a tendency to misspeak on occasion. But is she the first politician in U.S. history to stumble with her words? The media sure treats her as if she is. Someone may want to tell them that other leaders have made similar mistakes throughout the years, including the current resident of the White House, who remarked during his campaign that he was visiting all 57 states.

The only way for me to make sense of it all is to say that the left is deathly afraid of Sarah Palin. And I mean DEATHLY. They don't just despise her for her conservative views. They loathe her for her good looks, likable personality, and immense popularity. They perceive her as the ultimate threat, and for that reason they will do anything and everything to bring her down.

On just about any given day, you can go on a website for one of the liberal news networks and find another story attempting to depict Governor Palin in a negative way. Whether it's another outrageous rant from Kathy Griffin or Bill Maher, a poll that shows a semblance of hope that her popularity is diminishing, a scene from one of her book signings...the media is quick to jump on anything they can use to belittle her. Even the headlines of such stories are spun in a way so as to make her look bad.

While this has been going on over the past two years, Governor Palin has managed to acquire one strong ally in her battle with the media. That ally of course is Fox News Channel. Fox has called out the liberal media time and time again for their bias against her, and continuously asked a very relevant question, "Where is the National Organization for Women?" One would be hard pressed to deny that the backlash against Governor Palin isn't at least somewhat rooted in sexism. So then, why is it that NOW never came to her defense?

The answer is quite simple. Governor Palin's platform is not in line with the views of NOW. Although NOW likes to proclaim itself as the universal vanguard for all women in the never-ending battle against sexism, they are anything but. They have their own agenda, and will only look out for those women whose views are in line with their own. Hypocrisy? Sure seems that way to me. Needless to say, NOW never responded to Fox News on this issue.

That is, until now. You see, Bill Maher has since crossed a line that no else had crossed. As a white male, Maher attacking Sarah Palin is a lot different than Kathy Griffin attacking Sarah Palin. That's one part of it. The other part has to do with Maher's choice of words. Recently, he referred to Governor Palin as a "dumb tw*t," and the outrage incited by his comments has opened up another whole can of worms.

As you would expect, Fox News immediately rushed to Governor Palin's defense and called out NOW for not issuing a statement condemning Maher's remarks. At first, the call was ignored, just like all previous calls that have been made for NOW to stop the insane attacks on Sarah Palin. A NOW rep told Fox News, "It is a known fact that NOW does not correspond with Fox News." Wow! Well, I guess that explains why they hadn't responded to FNC over the previous two years. Thanks for clearing that one up.

But something changed later that day. We can only guess what it was, but I certainly have my own theory. Someone at NOW finally came to realize that things had gone way too far, and that failing to step in would not only lead to an escalation in the use of slurs against women, but perhaps even damage NOW's credibility. Hence, NOW communications director Lisa Bennett issued the following statement:

“Listen, supposedly progressive men (ok, and women, too): Cut the crap! Stop degrading women with whom you disagree and/or don’t like by using female body terms or other gender-associated slurs."

Well it's about time! Thank you, NOW, for finally doing the right thing, even if it took you two years too long and you're only doing it to salvage your own image. Of course, they couldn't just leave it at that. NOW had to attempt to justify their previous actions (or lack thereof) and take a dig at the right by saying:

"You’re trying to take up our time getting us to defend your friend, Sarah Palin. If you keep us busy defending her, we have less time to defend women’s bodies from the onslaught of reproductive rights attacks and other threats to our freedom, safety, livelihood, etc. Sorry, but we can’t defend Palin or even Hillary Clinton from every sexist insult hurled at them in the media. That task would be impossible, and it would consume us. You know this would not be a productive way to fight for women’s equal rights, which is why you want us stuck in this morass.”

Interesting. So the 5-10 minutes that it takes to issue a 3-4 sentence statement defending women like Sarah Palin from sexist attacks would "consume you?" It would take up so much time that you couldn't focus on the rest of your agenda? Ha, ha. Thanks for the laugh, ladies. We appreciate it.

Anyone with a shred of common sense knows that it killed the NOW brass to issue that statement. And that makes me H-A-P-P-Y. I love it when an organization that claims to be something it's not is forced to live up to that claim in order to remain relevant. I call that "justice."

As for Maher, he must be really desperate for viewers if he's resorting to these types of tactics. Like NOW, he is on a quest to remain relevant, though I would say that his chances of succeeding are far less than theirs. Good luck, Maher. You're going to need it.

Through it all, the one who emerges victorious from this debacle is none other than Governor Palin herself. She gains public sympathy as a result of Maher's attack, and a vote of support from a national organization that is diametrically opposed to her agenda. I love it. Few things give me more joy than seeing attacks from the left blow up in their faces, and this one did. Big time.

While Maher's face is left blackened with ash, the folks at NOW are grinding and gnashing their teeth behind closed doors, and Governor Palin...well, she's doing what she's always done throughout these constant assaults. Holding her head high, smiling brightly, and marching on gracefully and triumphantly. I wonder if those on the left will ever learn their lesson. In a way, I hope they never do.

Where Were They Going Without Ever Knowing the Way?

Yes, I know. The title of this blog post is borrowed from a 1998 hit song by Fastball. Oddly enough, I didn't choose it because we're now just over a week from the start of baseball season, but rather because of the recent crisis in Libya and the approach that President Obama has decided to take.

Unless you've been living under a rock, you know that our military is now pretty much officially engaged in what could be categorized as a third war. After Moammar Gadhafi announced that he was going to have "no mercy" in crushing the rebellion in Libya, several of our allies, including Great Britain and France, decided that it would not be a good idea to sit idly by and watch thousands of innocent civilians get massacred. So a multinational coalition was formed to begin imposing a no-fly zone over Libya, and President Obama, as reluctant as he is when it comes to leading us into war, decided to join the coalition.

The president has actually taken heat from both sides on this issue. The left, as always, is opposed to America's involvement in any war overseas, and is undoubtedly shocked that their savior would even consider lauching attacks on Gadhafi's air defense system. Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), one of the most devout liberals in Congress, has called Obama's decision an "impeachable offense," mainly because he did not get approval from Congress before sending our troops to Libya. Other Democrats have gone on the record as criticizing the move as well.

On the right, politicians and pundits alike are decrying the lack of a clear objective in the campaign against Libya. What is our goal? Why are we there? They'd like more concrete answers to those questions before expressing any type of support for the president's actions.

As for the public, in keeping with the growing trend in our society, they are sharply divided on this issue. A recent Fox News poll showed that 51% of Americans support President Obama's decision to commit troops to Libya, while 49% oppose it. The gap doesn't get any narrower than that.

Even I am not sure yet about where I stand on Obama's decision. If you know me at all, then you know that I have very strong convictions and that I usually know right away where I stand when a situation is presented to me. But I can honestly say that it hasn't been that way with regard to Libya.

On the one hand, I want Gadhafi taken out. I've wanted him taken out ever since December of 1988, when 189 Americans were killed in the Lockerbie bombing. We know from our intelligence that Gadhafi ordered the bombing, and the fact is that our troops should have been on Libyan soil by January of 1989. But we never went in, and for the last two decades Gadhafi has been a sponsor of terrorism. He's played both sides of the fence at times, even assisting America in rooting out some members of Al Qaeda following the 9/11/01 attacks. But he is no friend of the United States, and his rambling, incoherent speeches at the U.N. have shown us just how delusional and dangerous he has become.

On the other hand, we have to ask ourselves who we are aiding. Obviously we're against Gadhafi, but then whose side are we on? You might say, "We're on the side of the people." OK, but who are these people? It's been said that there are opposing factions within the rebels themselves. Will those who come to power be a friend to the United States? Will they support us in the war on terror? I don't think anyone can answer these questions right now.

Even worse is the ambiguous communication coming out of Washington. Just over a week ago, President Obama said, "Gadhafi has to go." But within the past two days, he said that regime change in Libya is not our objective. Rather, we are there to protect innocent people from being slaughtered by their brutal dictator. The general in charge of the operation in Libya reiterated the President's statement, but I'm very puzzled by it all. I mean, didn't we just launch strikes on Gadhafi's compound, nearly obliterating the place? If removing him is not our objective, then why did we target his compound? Something just doesn't add up here, and few things make me more angry than people insulting my intelligence.

I guess I would say that I'm more inclined to support military action in Libya than oppose it. However, I also want our president to come out and say, "Here is our goal. We are going to remove Moammar Gadhafi from power and look to establish a democratic government in Libya that will be a friend to the United States. We will bring Gadhafi to justice for his ordering of the 1988 Lockerbie bombing, finally bringing peace to the victims' families who have so ardently clamored for justice all of these years."

But that's not going to happen. So as usual, we the people are left with a lot of gray to sort through in order to decide whether or not we want to get behind the president. Obviously, our biggest concern has to be the lives of the brave men and women who have been deployed to Libya, and that they do not die in vain fighting to achieve goals that are obscure at best. Say what you want about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; at least our objectives there were clear and we are committed to achieving those objectives before we pull out.

It will be interesting to see how the president defines our role in Libya moving forward. For now, I am supporting his decision, but I reserve the right to change my position if he fails to establish clear objectives and communicate them effectively to the American people. It's been said over and over that our country failed in the Vietnam War because we never defined our mission clearly enough, and didn't set goals that were both attainable and measurable. I only hope the war in Libya doesn't turn out to be the same, otherwise we'll one day look back at this multinational coalition and say, "Where were they going without ever knowing the way?"

Rose's Comments Reek of Racism

As I watched the NCAA Tournament games yesterday, I rooted really hard for Duke to defeat Michigan. Rarely do I cheer on the favorites during March Madness (unless of course the favorite happens to be my Notre Dame Fighting Irish), but yesterday's game was different. It was different because it occurred just one week after former Michigan players made disparaging comments about Duke's program that are rooted in bitterness, hatred, and racism.

It all started when former Michigan star and current ESPN analyst, Jalen Rose, produced a documentary on Michigan's "Fab Five." It told the story of how five freshmen, including Rose himself, came together in the early 1990's to propel Michigan's basketball program to national prominence. The documentary was shown on ESPN last Sunday, March 12th, and it drew a record audience. Now, it stands as ESPN's highest-rated documentary ever.

As you might expect, the program included several interview segments with each member of the Fab Five: Rose, Jimmy King, Chris Webber, Juwan Howard, and Ray Jackson. It was pretty standard up until an interview segment where Rose lashed out at Duke. He made it a point to say that they would never have recruited him, because he was a poor black kid from the inner city. In Rose's mind, Duke only aims for rich kids from the suburbs who attend prestigious private schools. You know, kids like Bob Hurley who grew up in a modest Jersey City home, attended a small, inner-city Catholic high school, and had a father who worked full-time as a Hudson County probation officer. But I digress. Though Rose didn't come out and say that Duke focuses on recruiting mostly white athletes, that's what he was implying.

The fact is that Duke doesn't only recruit white players, and Rose knows that all too well. So he just had to come out and take a shot at the black kids who go to Duke, and specifically called Grant Hill an "Uncle Tom." In a separate interview segment, Jimmy King referred to Grant Hill as a "bitch." It sure is nice to see that Rose and King both turned out to be upstanding citizens following their Michigan education. The fact that these comments weren't edited out of the final version of the documentary is unconscionable. Though one may wonder if Rose left them in just to generate controversy and draw more attention to his film.

While the comments have drawn some harsh responses from former Duke players, the liberal media has given Rose a free pass. I applaud Grant Hill for writing an open letter to the NY Times, one in which he praised Duke's program, head coach Mike Krzyzewski, and the family atmosphere that exists at Duke. He even outlined the success of a number of black men who played basketball for the Blue Devils, listing them one by one.

Kudos to Bob Hurley for his defense of Duke as well. In an interview with Dan Patrick, Hurley noted that Rose is probably bitter because Michigan never beat Duke when the Fab Five were there. He also said that Rose probably wasn't recruited because he would have been a bench-warmer, and that he never would have taken Hurley's place as the starting point guard. Hurley went on to say that the Fab Five constantly talked trash on the court, but they never backed it up. When he was asked if he himself was ever the target, Hurley noted that Jimmy King said that he had "no game." But Hurley then quipped, "Maybe he should have gotten the hint when I scored 26 points on them."

Let me first respond to Rose by saying that Duke recruits high-level kids for one reason: because they can. When you're one of the best programs in the nation, you get to pick and choose who you want. Why would Coach K take a chance on a kid who is prone to getting into trouble or likely to struggle with the rigorous academics that exist at Duke? Coach K has always run a clean program, and ninety percent of his players have graduated during his tenure. For this, he deserves to be honored, not denigrated.

Perhaps Rose would rather see Krzyzewski run a program similar to the one run by Nolan Richardson when he coached at Arkansas. Richardson won a lot of games and even a national championship, but never graduated one player. Yes, you read that correctly. Not one. But no one ever called him out on it, probably because he was black and anyone who did so would have been accused of racism.

And so it is with Rose and Jimmy King. They have not been lambasted by the media. They have not been asked by ESPN to issue apologies. Rose wasn't asked to resign his position as an analyst. Instead, they both got a chance to clarify their comments in a segment with Skip Bayless, one in which Bayless lobbed softballs at them and continuously used the disclaimer, "I'm not black, so I can't imagine what it was like for both of you." Give me a break.

When I was growing up during the 1980's, the St. John's Redmen (yes, Redmen, not Red Storm) had an excellent basketball team and their games were consistently shown on local television. Those were the days of Chris Mullin, Mark Jackson, Walt Berry, and Coach Louie Carnesecca roaming the sidelines in his trademark sweater. I cheered hard for the Redmen, especially when they played their arch-nemesis, Georgetown.

Over time, I noticed something about the Hoyas. What stood out to me as a kid was that I never saw one white player on their team. Not one. When I asked my grandfather about that, he told me that he believed Coach John Thompson was a racist.

Now I don't know whether Thompson is a racist or not. The only ones who know that for sure are God and Thompson himself. But what if someone insinuated that he was? What if they pointed out that for the longest time, he didn't recruit one white kid to play at Georgetown? Would the reaction be similar to the one Rose has gotten for saying that Duke only recruits upper-echelon kids who are mostly white?

I doubt it. My guess is that a white man who made such a comment would be labeled a bigot himself. If he held a position at ESPN, he would be forced to apologize for his "rude, racist remarks" or risk losing his job. Maybe he would even lose his job regardless of issuing an apology or not.

My whole point is this. Rose's comments, and the reaction of the media toward them, indicates a huge double standard. There is no way that things would have played out the way they have if the roles were reversed. And that troubles me.

I hope that Rose enjoyed having an outlet for his apparent lifelong bitterness toward Duke. He couldn't beat them on the court, and he wasn't even considered as a potential recruit there. It must have killed him to see the Blue Devils succeed year in and year out, winning all of those games and hauling in the hardware. Four NCAA Championships, 11 Final Fours (tied for second most in history), 12 ACC regular season titles, and 13 ACC championships, not to mention the many All-Americans and the times they were honored for having the nation's highest graduation rate. The accolades are many, and deservedly so.

Since neither the media nor ESPN are going to give Rose what he deserves, I suppose that I will have to take comfort in something else. Duke beating Michigan yesterday was a good start. I know that somewhere, wherever he was, Rose was seething as he watched the Wolverines' comeback effort fall short. If Duke goes on to win another national title, then he'll be seething even more. That's why I'll be rooting hard for the Blue Devils, and looking forward to Nolan Smith, Kyrie Irving, and the rest of Duke's black players telling Rose to stick his comments where they belong. Given the state of our society, they're apparently the only ones who can.

Pro-Abortion to Pro-Life: The Journey of Dr. Bernard Nathanson

Happy St. Patrick's Day to all of you! As I considered what I would write about today, I decided to devote this blog post to the good people of Ireland, a country where the evil act of abortion remains illegal. The timing is perfect not only because of the Irish holiday, but also for the recent death of a pro-life icon.

Most of you, perhaps even all of you, did not hear anything about the demise of Dr. Bernard Nathanson. He died in New York just a couple of weeks ago at age 84, after a prolonged battle with cancer. Despite his long, illustrious career in the field of medicine, the liberal media ignored the story of his death and subsequent funeral mass at St. Patrick's Cathedral in New York City.

You see, to the left, Dr. Nathanson was the ultimate traitor. He was Brutus, Judas Iscariot, and Benedict Arnold all rolled into one. Why? Because he went from being one of the most renowned abortion doctors in America to becoming a staunch pro-life advocate. His credibility as a physician helped him exert enormous influence in the abortion debate that has raged in our country for decades now, and the feminist, pro-abortion liberals hated him for it.

Throughout the 1970's, Dr. Nathanson operated what was considered the nation's busiest abortion facility, located in his native New York City. By 1979, the statistics they accumulated were staggering. Dr. Nathanson had presided over 60,000 abortions as director of the facility, almost 7,000 per year. He instructed practitioners in the performance of 15,000 others, and carried out another 5,000 abortions himself. One of those was on his own child, which he executed after impregnating his girlfriend.

But as that decade wore on, Dr. Nathanson began to undergo a conversion. What sparked it, he said, was viewing ultra-sound images from the new technology that had been developed. He came to realize that what he viewed as a "thing" inside a woman's womb really was a human being. The more he realized it, the more guilt he felt over the evil he had done. Finally, the guilt overwhelmed him to the point that he switched sides and left the facility.

It was then that Dr. Nathanson began to expose the horrors of abortion and the deceptive, dishonest beginnings of the abortion movement. He himself had been a co-founder of the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws (NARAL), and spearheaded the initiative to change public opinion on the issue. To gain sympathy for their movement, he admitted that he lied about the numbers of women who died from illegal abortions at that time, inflating the numbers from a few hundred to well over 10,000. He even outlined all of this in a book, Aborting America, which he co-authored with Richard Ostling of Time magazine.

But Aborting America was just the beginning. Dr. Nathanson went on to produce the 1985 film The Silent Scream, which showed sonogram images of children in the womb shrinking back from abortionists' instruments. Later, he would produce another documentary, titled Eclipse, which displayed and explained various abortion procedures in graphic detail. There can be no denying that both films had a significant impact on the abortion debate, because it was impossible for detractors to dismiss his pro-life witness as one-sided propaganda. How could they when Dr. Nathanson had such a high standing among abortion supporters for so long?

In his 1996 autobiography, The Hand of God, Dr. Nathanson lamented the role he had played, saying, "I am one of those who helped usher in this barbaric age." In addressing whether we could ever revert back to the way things were, he said, "Abortion is now a monster so unimaginably gargantuan that even to think of stuffing it back in its cage...is ludicrous beyond words. Yet that is our charge---a Herculean endeavor."

That same year, he converted from being what he described as a "Jewish atheist" to a devout Roman Catholic, receiving his sacraments from none other than Cardinal John O'Connor, then Archbishop of New York. Becoming a Catholic gave him a sense of peace, and the comfort of knowing that he was forgiven for his past sins. Catholic leaders would come to label him as a pro-life prophet who foretold the coming of the culture of death, noting that the legalization of abortion was just the tip the iceberg.

Let us honor the memory of Dr. Nathanson and never fail to acknowledge the massive role he played in exposing the truth about abortion. Though I lament his passing, it is a comfort to know that there are so many others following in his footsteps and fighting the battle for our unborn children. Just the other day, I wrote a blog post about Fr. Frank Pavone, President of Priests for Life, who traveled to Canada to rescue Baby Joseph from being murdered. He is one of many heroes stationed on the front lines in this ongoing war.

Despite our culture of death and the sense of hopelessness associated with it, I remain optimistic about society's chances of setting this right. As long as we continue to fight the good fight, there is always hope of accomplishing, as Dr. Nathanson put it, the Herculean endeavor of stuffing the monster back in its cage. Next time though, we'll be sure to throw away the key.

High Noon Showdown Looming on Budget Bill

This week in Washington, it's the same old routine. Another day, another vote to approve a "Continuing Resolution" (CR) to fund the government for another few weeks. Such nonsense is necessary because the Democrats never approved a budget for the 2011 fiscal year, so our country now needs to pay as we go.

Congress approved a CR to avoid a government shutdown in the first week of March, slashing $4 billion from discretionary spending in the process. Now they're hoping to fund the government for another three weeks and slash an additional $6 billion. This piecemeal approach has conservative groups fuming and Tea Party candidates clamoring for a full-scale strategy to solve the country's fiscal woes.

The original plan in the House was to approve a spending plan for the rest of FY 2011 that contained $100 billion in spending cuts. The final bill was trimmed down to $61 billion, and that in and of itself infuriated some of the more conservative members of Congress. Michele Bachmann, for one, actually voted against it.

The Democrats in the Senate made a counter offer to cut $6 billion, which along with the $4 billion that was already being cut in the CR, totalled $10 billion in cuts. That left a ridiculous rift of $50 billion between the two proposals, causing each side to label the other's proposal as a "non-starter."

While the clock ticks, more money is needed to fund the government, hence the need for another CR. But Speaker Boehner is close to having a revolt on his hands, and one can only wonder if a government shutdown can ultimately be avoided.

The way I see it, you have three distinct camps. First, you have the liberal Democrats who want to borrow, borrow, borrow and spend, spend, spend. They are obviously deaf, dumb, and blind as they apparently are still unaware of the resounding message sent by the American people last November. You think maybe the voters were trying to tell our leaders to cut spending? Sure seemed that way to me. But some of these politicians are so firmly entrenched in their districts that the other side has no hope of ever unseating them, and that leads to an unrelenting arrogance that makes them actually think that they know what's best for the people of our country, even if the people tell them to do the opposite.

Second, you have the conservative faction, comprised mainly of Tea Party candidates. They are frustrated because they did hear the message of the people last November. They ran for office to carry out the people's wishes. Now though, they are seeing firsthand how difficult it is to do that in Washington's burdensome bureaucracy. Most of them went along with the first CR, but many of them are ready to vote against the second one. Even if the second one passes (and early indications are that it will), there is a real possibility that at some point, and sooner rather than later, the conservatives will ban together and hold their ground, even if it results in total gridlock.

Finally, you have those in the middle who are trying to satisfy both ends of the spectrum and broker an agreement. But their job is a difficult one, and it remains to be seen whether it can actually be done. When you're $50 billion apart, where do you even begin to negotiate?

Of course, it would be nice to have a President in office who actually demonstrates leadership and was willing to step up and take the bull by the horns in this crucial matter. But unfortunately, that is not the case. Instead, we have Barack Obama, a man who has chosen the approach of "strategic disengagement" instead. He's just going to stand back and let the chips fall where they may, and worry only about his chances for re-election in 2012. I'm so glad that he has his priorities straight.

Some in Congress still continue to insist that cutting discretionary spending is insignificant and that it should just be left alone. But the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) just released a report showing that this claim is undeniably false. The CBO said that if discretionary spending is cut even by 1% each year over the next decade, the country will save $1.8 trillion. Insignificant? I think not.

What's clear to me is that there are still too many people in Washington who just don't get it. But it should come as no surprise because massive changes rarely occur overnight. The mid-term elections were a major step in the right direction, but not enough to solve the problem just yet. It will take at least until 2012 to reach that point.

The Tea Party continues to take aim at moderate Republicans like Olympia Snowe of Maine, and will be mounting major challenges to claim even more congressional seats next year. Many Democrats are quaking in their boots as well, especially after saying good-bye to several of their colleagues after last year's shellacking.

I predict that if this absurd charade of "Continuing Resolutions" goes on and on, then the people will eventually get fed up. If another year passes and little progress is made, then the voters will once again remove those leaders who are not serious about balancing the budget and reducing our debt. There will be another shellacking in 2012, and maybe after that we'll finally reach a point where our government can accomplish what is needed to restore fiscal sanity. Until then, we may just have to count the days.

Hero Priest Saves Baby Joseph While Liberal Media Ignores Story

Two weeks ago I wrote a blog post about Joseph Maracchli, aka "Baby Joseph," an infant with a rare neurological disease who is on life support at London Health Services Centre in London, Ontario. Due to the horrors of socialized medicine, a death panel decided that their resources would best be allocated elsewhere and basically ordered Joseph's family to take him off life support.

Joseph's parents failed in their attempt to transfer him to a hospital in Michigan, and soon it was looking as if all hope was lost. But that is when Fr. Frank Pavone, President of Priests for Life, stepped in and saved the day. After round-the-clock negotiations with the Canadian government throughout the past two weeks, Fr. Pavone made the trip to Canada last night to transfer Baby Joseph to SSM Cardinal Glennon Children's Medical Center in St. Louis, Missouri.  Baby Joseph and his father, Moe Maracchli, were flown there with Father Pavone on a specially equipped air ambulance provided by Michigan-based Kalitta Charters, and sponsored and paid for by the New York City-based Priests for Life.

Fr. Pavone has a long history of saving children. He has been one of the most widely recognized leaders of the pro-life movement in America for the past two decades. I heard him speak at a lecture on the campus of Seton Hall University in the mid-90's, and I can still recall how dynamic he was. Never before had I heard someone articulate the Catholic Church's position on abortion so clearly. He was able to contrast it with other moral social issues, like capital punishment, and even the members of the audience who were anti-life were incapable of refuting his arguments.

Fr. Pavone has led many a peaceful protest and prayer service outside of abortion clinics, and has convinced countless pregnant women to reconsider their decision to end their child's life. He has helped them get counseling, healthcare, and for those mothers who wish to do so, facilitated the process of placing children up for adoption through Catholic Social Services.

For the many lives he has saved over the course of his storied career, Fr. Pavone deserves the Presidential Medal of Freedom. But given the anti-Catholic bias that is so prevalent in our media and throughout our country, chances are that he won't. Don't believe that there is a Catholic bias? Just take a look at the news stories being reported today.

Only one news network, Fox News, picked up this story and reported it on their website today. All the others, CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC...you could search their websites high and low and not find a trace of it anywhere. I know because I tried to do just that. What did I see instead? Stories of how Sarah Palin ignored the advice of one of her superiors at Fox News, how a politician issued a "warning" (the exact word CNN used) that Palin could win the GOP nomination in 2012, and another story that conveyed outrage over a woman being denied an abortion because her uterus was already crushing her child.

Nah. No bias there, right? A Catholic priest performs an act of heroism, rescuing an infant at the eleventh hour right before the big bad "healthcare allocation officials" can take him off life support, and the liberal media blatantly ignores it. Instead they'd rather focus their attention on generating negative publicity for Sarah Palin and helping advance the agenda of Planned Parenthood and the anti-life movement.

Did the media ignore the stories of Catholics being sexually abused by priests when they were minors? I am the first one to admit that the Church has made mistakes in handling the pedophilia crisis, and I don't fault the media for reporting it. But the fact is that the liberal media did everything they could to spin it in a way so as to make the Church look more like an agent of Satan than the House of God. Yet when a priest goes above and beyond to save an infant's life, they pretend as if it never happened.

I salute Fr. Pavone and consider him to be a hero among heroes. I will be following very closely what transpires with Baby Joseph during his hospital stay in St. Louis, and like so many others, I am hoping and praying for a miracle. Thank God for Priests for life, and for a priest like Fr. Pavone. For him, it's another day, another child's life saved.

Victory in Wisconsin Means the Union Era is Over

Yesterday, Wisconsin lawmakers dealt a fatal blow to unions by stripping them of nearly all of their collective bargaining rights. The vote ended a stalemate that had continued for weeks after Democrats undermined the democratic process by fleeing the state and preventing a quorum in the Senate. Governor Scott Walker gave them every chance to return and debate the bill, but their refusal to do so ultimately forced his hand. Republicans thus removed all spending measures from Walker's collective bargaining legislation and voted to approve it without Democrats present. It then went to the Assembly, where it passed by a vote of 53-42.

As you might guess, union members are up in arms over the fact that the legislation passed. They've called the process underhanded, illegal, and "grossly undemocratic." Governor Walker has been labeled a liar, and lawsuits have been filed claiming that the open meetings law was violated. Moreover, union leaders have called it an assault on the rights of the people of Wisconsin.

I find it all quite laughable. "Grossly undemocratic?" What can be more undemocratic than a group of lawmakers fleeing their state, hiding out in hotels, and thus preventing the work of the legislature from getting done? Were they not elected to do a job? Do they not get paid for doing that job? What would happen if someone in another profession decided to flee their state in order to neglect their duties? Would that job be waiting for them when they return if they were gone for weeks at a time?

If the shoe was on the other foot and Republican lawmakers fled a state legislature in order to prevent a liberal agenda from moving forward, then the response in the media would be quite different. They'd be depicted as villains and labeled un-American. But we certainly haven't seen that with regard to the Democratic state senators from Wisconsin.

I love the game that the unions have played with their language, claiming that the rights of the "people" are being violated. Who are these "people?" They certainly can't be talking about the majority of voters, you know, the ones who elected Walker and Republican legislators to move this agenda forward. Unions want us to think that an assault on the rights of public employees is an assault on the rights of every American. But they're losing that battle quite decisively.

Polls conducted by liberal institutions like the New York Times have supposedly shown that the public sides with unions in this on-going battle. But further scrutiny has revealed the unquestionable bias inherent in these polls, as a significant percentage of participants either lived in union households or had family members who belonged to a public employee union.

The polls conducted by Quinnipiac and Rutgers-Eagleton here in New Jersey have overwhelmingly shown that the majority of voters do not support the unions. The average citizen is not sympathetic to union workers and is not buying into their alarmist tactics. Whether it's the police officers and firefighters claiming that public safety will be compromised, teachers warning us that the quality of our children's education will be severely damaged, or other unions crying about how the increase in pension and benefits contributions will have a devastating impact on their members' ability to feed their families, very few want to hear it.

With the anti-union legislation in Wisconsin being passed, how will it impact public opinion? Will more voters now be sympathetic to the unions? Is Walker going to be considered a hero or a villain? Will other states follow suit?

Idaho recently became the first state to phase out teacher tenure, and Ohio is on the verge of unveiling what Governor Kasich is calling a model package of reforms for dealing with the state's budget deficit. Included in this package will be several anti-union measures, and I see Ohio as being the next big battleground state in the war against lavish spending on benefits for public workers.

At home here in New Jersey, Governor Christie is gearing up for his own conflict, and has already more or less said that there is nothing for the unions to discuss with him. He's prepared to introduce legislation to force state employees to pay 30 percent of their health care costs, arguing that unions took the same routes when seeking increases in the past. Of course, the CWA and NJEA have rejected his claims as false, and the battle goes on.

I predict that Governor Walker will come out smelling like a rose when all is said and done. Wisconsin voters are smart enough to know that it was the Democratic lawmakers' breach of justice that forced things to get done the way they were done. Also, once they see how these measures cut the budget deficit and put the state on the road back to fiscal health, they'll forget all about this hullabaloo.

I feel very strongly that history is unfolding before our very eyes. We're witnessing a turning point in our society, one in which the pendulum is beginning to swing away from the power that unions have wielded for the past 50 years.

Given the state of the global economy, as well as the long period of recovery that lies ahead, I don't see things ever returning to the way they once were for public employees. Our lives have changed, not temporarily, but permanently. Such is the effect of the worst financial crisis since The Great Depression.

As with anything else in life, you always have a choice. If public workers don't like the changes coming down the pike, they can always quit their jobs and go into another line of work. In life, there are no guarantees, and those who say that they entered the public sector expecting great benefits and job security for life entered for the wrong reasons. You can't go into anything headlong expecting that things will always be the same, whether it's accepting a job offer, moving into a new neighborhood, or getting married. Life changes, and you have to change along with it.

As far as I'm concerned, public employees need to do their part to help us solve the financial crisis, whether it's accepting pay cuts, increasing contributions to healthcare premiums and pensions, surrendering their collective bargaining rights, or all of the above. If they truly entered their line of work to be a public servant, then let them show their commitment and dedication by making the sacrifices public servants are expected to make.

Trump Card

Ever since Donald Trump announced that he was considering running for President in 2012, there has been a media firestorm of speculation regarding whether he will run and what his chances of winning might be. Bill O'Reilly more or less dismissed The Donald as a serious candidate, as did well-respected conservative journalist Charles Krauthammer. Just this past Sunday, Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN) jumped on the bandwagon as well. Alexander was discussing the pool of potential 2012 presidential contenders on CNN's "State of the Union" when he told CNN’s Candy Crowley that there's “always someone like Donald Trump who has absolutely no chance of winning,” and that Trump is “famous for being famous."

Now, Trump is starting to hit back at his critics, which you knew had to come sooner or later. He said that Alexander should “stop trying to get free publicity on the back of Donald Trump." He then continued his verbal assault by saying, “Sen. Lamar Alexander, who I do not know and have heard very little about over the years, perhaps because of a certain ineffectiveness, has recently stolen my line, word for word, about [Texas Rep.] Ron Paul, by stating that ‘Donald Trump has absolutely no chance of winning’ in a Presidential contest."

Wow. In just one sentence, Trump labeled Alexander as ineffective, a virtual unknown, and a plagiarist. Nice going, Donald.

I agree with the senator from Tennessee that Trump is "famous for being famous." That fame can be just as much a curse as it is a blessing for Trump if he throws his hat into the ring, because for every American that loves him for his entrepeneurship, confidence, and the fact that he rose from a humble background to become a real estate tycoon, there is another American who hates him for his arrogance, endless quest for publicity and power, and that infamous hairstyle of his.

Right now though, The Donald is focused on the latest season of "Celebrity Apprentice," and has said that he will not make a decision on his candidacy until June. I hope that he runs, because I believe he has a lot to add to the field, even if his chances of winning are slim to none. Let's take a look at his platform, especially focusing on what foreign policy would like in a Trump administration.

Mr. Trump has said over and over again that he does not trust China. He does not view them as our friend, and is one-hundred percent convinced that they are taking advantage of us. He believes that they manipulate their own currency, though they deny the allegations over and over again. What's really scary is that they continue to purchase our debt, and that if America ever reaches a point where we can't pay them back, then we will be at their mercy. Thus Trump, like the Tea Party, is a huge advocate of cutting spending and balancing the budget so that we don't have to continue borrowing. He has even come out and said that he would impose huge tariffs on Chinese exports to the USA.

Trump has spoken out against Pakistan as well, citing that they gladly accept our aid but will not deliver Osama bin Laden to us. Of course, Pakistan denies that they know where the Al-Qaeda leader is hiding out and insists that they are doing everything they can to find him. But Trump isn't buying it, and irrefutable proof has surfaced that Pakistani intelligence services are in bed with the terrorists. Thus he would withhold aid from Pakistan unless they cooperated fully.

Trump has lashed out against OPEC, and with good reason. When oil peaked at $147 a barrel in the summer of 2008, its member countries were in their glory. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad even stated that oil had yet to find its true value, predicting that it would rise to $200 a barrel. But soon oil prices began to slip, and eventually they bottomed out at under $60 a barrel by November. OPEC leaders gathered and decided to cut production, claiming that they needed to boost prices back up to a level that was fair. These are the type of games that anger Trump. OPEC didn't look to increase the supply when the price of oil was skyrocketing and American citizens were feeling the pinch, despite pleas from our government. Thus Trump is focused on energy independence so that America can once and for all escape the hold that OPEC has on us.

All of his other views seem to be in line with the classic conservative political philosophy. Trump is pro-life, pro-capital punishment, and against amnesty for illegal immigrants. He supports the current stand that governors have taken against labor unions, and is all for school choice. Most of all, he favors a much smaller government, claiming that government scrutiny is the greatest threat to the American dream.

I have to say that I am not so quick to dismiss his chances of winning the presidency. O'Reilly, Krauthammer, and Alexander may want to take a glance at the most recent Newsweek/Daily Beast poll numbers. Trump was just two percentage points behind President Obama in a hypothetical head-to-head ballot, 43 to 41, and well within the poll’s sampling error of plus or minus 3.5 percent.

I'm sure that many people will argue that Trump is only doing this for publicity, or that he's simply the most power-hungry person on the face of the earth. While I can't deny that The Donald is a publicity hound who loves being in charge, I do believe that he is a patriotic American who is genuinely concerned about the direction of our country. I hear the sincerity in his words, and I empathize with them because I feel the same way that he does.

That is why I hope he launches a bid for the White House, because even if he can't win the primary, he's sure to leave his mark on the rest of the field. No one else is talking about getting tough with China by hitting them with tariffs. No one else has suggested withholding aid from Pakistan until they deliver bin Laden's head on a platter. No one else has lashed out at OPEC as strongly as he has, or stated so clearly that America needs to regain its standing as the world's dominant superpower. Trump has been very effective in articulating his foreign policy, and has made it clear that no other candidate would be as firm in dealing with the countries that are playing us like a fiddle.

If he runs, and if he gains enough support to show that his message is resonating with voters, it could be a game-changer. Think about it. The candidate who ultimately wins the GOP nomination will then have to give serious consideration to some of Trump's positions in order to gain those votes.Whoever that person is may then have to toughen their stance on foreign policy, knowing that this is what conservative voters want. Trump is a smart man, and he knows that even if he can't win, he can have a lot of influence on the future GOP candidate as well as the outcome of the election. For this wildcard contender to roll the dice, the potential reward is well worth the risk.

When It Comes to Fighting Radical Islam, Peter is King

U.S. Rep. Peter King (R-NY),  House Homeland Security Committee Chairman, is scheduled to oversee congressional hearings beginning this week on "the radicalization of American Muslims." Kudos to King for having the courage to convene these hearings despite being accused of unfairly targeting Islam.

As you might expect, hundreds of protesters gathered in the wind-driven rain yesterday on the streets of New York City to protest the hearings. They even had a guest speaker, and I'll bet that even if you weren't aware of the rally, you could make an educated guess as to who the speaker was. It was none other than Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the cleric defending construction of a mosque near Ground Zero. Needless to say, he proclaimed over and over again that Islam is not the enemy. Rather, it's extremism.

We hear this argument time and time again from the Muslim community and those who defend Muslims in this on-going battle. "We're not your enemy. Stop targeting us unfairly. Go after the extremists, not us."

But the argument is invalid as far as I'm concerned. If they were undeniably on our side, fighting the battle with us, cooperating with authorities, and publicly denouncing Muslim extremism, then radical Islam would cease to exist. Instead, they take to the streets and complain about being "unfairly targeted." What they're really saying is, "Leave us alone and go fight your own battles."

Rooting out Al-Qaeda and the Taliban has been an exercise in frustration because of the lack of cooperation we receive from the so-called "moderate Muslims" in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Even the countries of the Middle East who pretend to be our allies (e.g., Saudi Arabia) funnel money to terrorists through underground channels.

Of course, the Obama administration felt the need to launch a pre-emptive strike by sending Deputy National Security Adviser Denis McDonough to give a speech at a Muslim community center in Virginia over the weekend. "We have a choice," McDonough said. "We can choose to send a message to certain Americans that they are somehow 'less American' because of their faith or how they look; that we see their entire community as a potential threat ... Or, we can make another choice. We can send the message that we're all Americans."

If American Muslims were more cooperative in fighting the extremism at their own mosques, if their imams issued decrees against terrorists instead of protesting against our own government for holding hearings on radical Islam, then I might buy into Mr. McDonough's argument. Until then, I refuse to do so.

Investigating radical Islam has been likened to investigating the Italian Mafia or the Russian Mob. I don't remember Italian-Americans (like myself) protesting against our government for wiring pizzerias and Italian restaurants that they suspected as being fronts for Mafia operations. Do you see any Russians protesting about the way our law enforcement authorities investigate the Russian Mob? Moreover, several popes have issued official statements decrying the activities of the Mafia and calling for the Italian government to root it out once and for all. Where are all the imams taking a similar stand against Muslim extremism? They're nowhere to be found.

Muslims will say that not all terrorist acts are committed by Muslims, and they will continually point to Timothy McVeigh as their prime example. But I am sick of hearing the McVeigh argument, because it is absolutely, unequivocally, one-hundred percent wrong.

When he carried out the Oklahoma City bombing, McVeigh operated as a lone wolf, not as a part of an intricate, widespread terror network. There's a very good reason for that. Because no such network exists in Christianity, or Buddhism, or Hinduism, or any other organized religion. Only Islam has a network of terrorists that extends from the Middle East to northern Africa to Somalia to Afghanistan and Pakistan to Indonesia to the Philippines to several sleeper cells in Europe and North America.

To say that congressional hearings on the radicalization of American Muslims is unjust is to ignore reality. Targeting Islam is not religious discrimination. Rather, it is rational, prudent, and necessary given the fact that only Islam has such a vast terror network that carries out heinous, murderous acts against innocents.

The real question we should be asking is, "Why are the so-called moderate Muslims not being more helpful to America in the battle against extremism?" Though no one in our government will come out and say it, I think the answer is pretty clear.

Muslims have come to America in the interest of escaping their oppressive regimes, earning wealth, and spreading Islam. The majority of them have no interest in becoming true Americans and adopting the Western way of life for the simple reason that they HATE America. They use our country and the freedom it provides them to meet their objectives, whatever they may be. But they despise our country for "occupying" their lands and consistently giving Israel our undying support.

How many times have we had to veto a U.N. resolution that looks to punish or at least condemn Israel? The paper tiger we refer to as the United Nations is obviously more concerned with Israel building apartments than with Iran building nuclear weapons. But let's face it. We're outnumbered on the global stage in fighting this battle, and without our help, Israel would have no chance.

And so the Muslims view our country as the one roadblock to destroying Israel once and for all. If we stood back and let them do it, then the Muslims would jump at the chance to annihilate the Israeli people. But we don't, and even with a president who seems more sympathetic toward Muslims than all of his predecessors combined, we won't. Thus Muslims continue to view the United States as their mortal enemy, and I don't see how that can ever change.

King's hearings are a step in the right direction to dealing with the problem of Muslim extremism. But we're a long ways away from winning this conflict, which is more ideological than anything else. In fact, I don't know that we can ever win it except maybe in our own country. Muslims the world over will hate America as long as we back Israel. But we can prevent that from happening here if we set aside the politically correct nonsense and do what needs to be done. Call radical Islam what it is: radical Islam. Call Muslim terrorists what they are: Muslim terrorists. Identify your enemies. That's the first step, and it's a step that the Obama administration is regrettably unwilling to take.

And so we can only count on our Republican leaders in the House to confront the problem head on. I know that they will do what needs to be done in order to ensure the safety of our citizens from acts of terrorism. But as Speaker Boehner has said time and again, they only control one-half of one-third of the U.S. government. Unless that changes in 2012, we won't be able to go much further than the hearings that will take place this week.

To those American Muslims who would disagree with my views expressed in this blog, I challenge you to prove me wrong. Show us that you are serious about fighting extremism. Stand with us. Have your imams speak out against Al Qaeda and the terrorist attacks they carry out. Cooperate with our authorities as we investigate your mosques. Show us that you have nothing to hide. Stop protesting in the streets and start doing your part to make sure our country is secure. If you don't, then you've already proven me right in my assertions.

BYU and Rutgers Prove that Chasm Between Private and Public is Widening

Higher education made national headlines this week, and it had nothing to do with academics, research, or nutty professors sounding off. Rather, two unique situations grabbed the media's undivided attention. One occurred at my alma mater, Rutgers University, while the other one unfolded at Brigham Young University. What's really interesting is that the two stories are in such stark contrast to one another that it's hard to imagine how wide the rift between them might be.

Let's start with BYU. The Mormon institution located in Provo, Utah is well known for having a strict honor code that all students must agree to abide by after being admitted. The list of requirements is long: modest, neat and clean dress and grooming; abstinence from alcohol, tobacco or illegal substances; any physical intimacy that exhibits homosexual feelings; prohibiting members of the opposite sex from going in one's bedroom areas; and regular participation in church services, be they in the Mormon or another religious faith, are all just some of the components.

A sophomore named Brandon Davies was found to have broken the code by having sexual relations with his girlfriend, and a probe is underway that could result in Davies being expelled from the university. This sort of thing happens all the time at BYU, and normally it wouldn't be a story worthy of national attention. But this time it's different, because Davies is a star player on the Cougars' basketball team.

For those not aware, BYU is having a dream season in NCAA Basketball. Their star player, Jimmer Fredette, is the leading scorer in all of Division I and a strong candidate for National Player of the Year. They finished in first place in their conference, and are currently ranked third in the entire country. Many experts believed that they had an excellent shot at earning a number one seed in the NCAA Tournament and making the Final Four. If they achieved it, it would be the first time ever in the history of the school.

But now, the dream season is becoming a nightmare. Davies has been suspended from the team for violating the honor code. In their first game without him, the Cougars got crushed 82-64 by a New Mexico team that was only 6-8 in conference play. Not a good sign of things to come as BYU prepares for the Big Dance.

Let's face it. Suspending a student for an act that is considered permissive and even routine in today's society seems to be a foreign concept to many. It's certainly foreign to the liberal press, and probably considered risible by the majority of Americans as well.

But that is why I can only applaud both Brandon Davies and BYU. First, let's be clear on something. No one ratted him out. Davies came forth himself and admitted to the violation. He could have chosen to hide it and remain eligible to play basketball through the NCAA Tournament. But he took the high road, choosing instead to come clean and maintain his moral integrity. Those who like to vilify college athletes should take a long, hard look at what this young man did and realize that painting Division-I athletes with the same broad brush is ignorant and unfair.

Kudos to Brigham Young as well for not giving Davies special treatment. They have dealt with the matter as if he were any other student, imposing the same sanctions and administering the same investigation that will culminate with a final judgment on whether he gets to remain at BYU. Again, let those who wrongly assume that all universities give preferential treatment to star athletes take notice and give BYU its due.

Meanwhile, thousands of miles away on the East Coast, Rutgers University took a major step in the opposite direction. They announced that starting this fall, Rutgers University will allow male and female students to live in the same dormitory room for the first time in a pilot program designed to make the New Brunswick campus more welcoming to gay students.

The pilot program will allow gay, lesbian and transgender students to choose either male or female roommates. Heterosexual students will also be permitted to live in co-ed rooms with their boyfriends, girlfriends or platonic friends of the opposite sex. The new option — called gender-neutral housing — was created at the request of gay, lesbian and transgender students who objected to Rutgers rules that require undergraduates to choose roommates of the same sex.

Wow. That's all I can say. Wow. Do you think we have a dichotomy in the American higher education system? To think that there are private schools like BYU where students agree to an honor code and get suspended for having sex with their boyfriends or girlfriends, yet public universities like Rutgers actually create situations to facilitate pre-marital sex, is mind boggling to me.

Needless to say, I am outraged by the situation at my alma mater and extremely disappointed that Rutgers would even consider taking this step. I understand the separation between Church and State, and I know that not everyone shares my religious and moral beliefs. But let's throw religion out of the equation for a second and refer to a little something we call common sense.

By allowing co-ed dorm rooms, Rutgers will be creating an atmosphere where there is a greater risk to the welfare of the students. First, the likelihood of female students getting pregnant will increase. As much as we all love children, this may not be the best thing for someone who is attending school, not yet married, and not gainfully employed.

Second, it will make the dormitories more conducive to spreading sexually transmitted diseases. Isn't this already a big enough problem on college campuses?

Next, it will give rise to situations where rape, sexual assault, or violence against women might take place. How did anyone on the administration at Rutgers miss this one?

Yes, I know that all of these things already happen on campus. But Rutgers is essentially saying, "Students are going to do what they're going to do, so what's the difference if we make it even easier for them to do it." By caving in to the demands of gay and transgender students, the administration has opened a Pandora's box that will ultimately compromise the physical, mental, and emotional well-being of the student body.

Overall, the point I'm trying to drive home is this. When we look around at what's happening in our country, it is quite evident that the gap between Church and State is widening. Institutions like BYU continue to cling to codes that uphold moral standards and religious beliefs, while public universities like Rutgers drift further and further away from anything that even remotely resembles a moral code. But unfortunately, this is what happens when society distances itself from God. It's a sad sight, especially for someone like me who can only stand by and idly watch while his alma mater takes a huge step in the wrong direction.

If one day God provides me with the gift of a baby girl, I can all but assure you that her college choices will be narrowed to a select few. When she turns 18 and graduates high school, she'd only be attending a public college like Rutgers if it were over my dead body. No thanks. I'll send her to BYU instead.

Alito Gets It Right, While the Others Just Don't Get It

Yesterday was a dark day in American history, as the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 8-1 in favor of Westboro Baptist Church's rights to protest at the funerals of American soldiers. They will thus be allowed to continue to wield their signs saying "Thank God for IEDS" and "God Hates America." They'll continue to chant, "God hates America, God hates fags, Your soldiers come home in body bags." And now, no one will be able to stop them.

Only one justice, Samuel Alito, showed some common sense in deciding this case. I've always been a huge fan of Justice Alito, and how could I not be? He's conservative. He's Catholic. He's Italian-American. He's even from New Jersey. And now, he has made a bold stand and shown great courage by being the lone dissenter in the case against Westboro Baptist. "In order to have a society in which public issues can be openly and vigorously debated," wrote Alito, "it is not necessary to allow the brutalization of innocent victims."

This case basically came down to freedom of speech versus the privacy rights of grieving families. In the end, the Court ruled overwhelmingly in favor of freedom of speech. As the father of a fallen Marine and plaintiff in the case, Albert Snyder, said, "We found out today that we can no longer bury our dead in this country with dignity. What is this country coming to?" He also added that the eight justices who ruled against him lacked the common sense that God gave a goat. I can't say that I disagree with him.

We all understand that there's a fine line between free speech and hate speech. But while I'm not a legal scholar by any means, I can't help but think that the court missed some key points.

Let me start by saying that anyone who thinks the protests of WBC shouldn't be categorized as hate speech are absolutely, undeniably incorrect. If you think the families they target are chosen at random, then think again. On the surface, you may think that they just travel around the country indiscriminately to make broad, general statements against America and its military. But that's not how it works.

In reality, they specifically target families that are Catholic. As usual, the liberal media does not report this fact, since they only get worked up about bias against other minority groups such as blacks, Hispanics, Muslims, and Jews. Thankfully, the fair and balanced Fox News Channel has revealed the tactics of the WBC by monitoring their website and other activities.

Their protestors have been recorded shouting, "Make those Catholic brats wear iron-clad underwear." They have worn the Catholic flag around their waists and ankles in a sign of complete disrespect. But somehow and some way, the Supreme Court didn't categorize this as hate speech. I wonder what might have happened if WBC was targeting blacks or Muslims instead.

I also for the life of me cannot understand the reasoning behind the decision. The majority argued that our nation has chosen the course "to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate." How would they be stifling public debate if they didn't allow protests at funerals?

Let me put it this way. The high court has recognized the state's interest in protecting people from unwanted protests or communications while in their homes. OK, great. Now why can't we extend that protection to grieving families at wakes and funerals?

Megyn Kelly, a legal expert on the Fox News Channel, argued that a decision against WBC might in the future prevent pro-life organizations from protesting at abortion clinics. Again, I cannot understand the rationale here. A decision in this case did not have to prevent protests at abortion clinics, state legislatures, the White House, or any location other than a Church during a time when a family is grieving. That is all the Supreme Court needed to do.

But they failed miserably in their obligation to administer justice, and now families who mourn fallen soldiers will have to suffer the consequences. Not only did WBC win the case, but they also managed to garner tons of national publicity. They even gloated about it after the fact.

Two months ago, I wrote a blog post on WBC and the upcoming Supreme Court decision. I suggested we pray that the high court do the right thing and stop these protests. I said that maybe one day, people could protest outside the church of these kooks and hold signs that said, "Thank God for the Supreme Court." Now, that is unfortunately not going to happen.

So where do we go from here? All we can do as Americans is stand together and unite against the brutal tactics of WBC. Hundreds of people have volunteered in the past to form a human shield around the protesters so that the mourners would not even be able to see them. Hundreds, even thousands more should step forth and aid in that task. We need bagpipers and drummers to march in the funeral processions and drown out the chanting and shouting of the WBC members. We need states to adopt more stringent rules regarding the proximity of the protests to the Church where the funeral is taking place. Now that the high court has made it clear that we can't take away their rights to protest, let's put as much distance between the protesters and the families as we can.

It's often been said that sometimes life imitates art. Well, many a film has been made and many a book has been written where the bad guys win in the end. Yesterday that very script played out on the national stage in our great country, and it's enough to cause even the most loyal Americans to lose faith in our system. But as Christ once said, and as Sean Hannity says on a daily basis during his television program, "Let not your heart be troubled." Justice may not always be done in this world, but rest assured that it will be done in the next.