Tackling the Warren Court's Worst Decision Ever???

Why is it that the same Democratic party that celebrates the right kill babies is the same party that forced innocent and vulnerable black families to pick cotton in unspeakable conditions to enrich white families? (its not a low blow; its true)

Is this a party that we can trust- Hillary (The Socialist Queen), Mr. GQ Obama, The Ambulance Chaser John Edwards, Bill "The Chinaman" Richardson, Kennedy "The Keeper of the Poor"??? Aren't these the elitist liberals that tell us they cry for the poor, vulnerable, and innocent of our nation???

Yet--with feet, hands, fingernails, a heart, nose and mouth, little baby girls and boys are forced to endure the "sucking of their brains out" compliments of the LSDers (liberal socialist democrats) above who claim to love the poor, innocent, and the most vulnerable of us all.

So awful is the abortion procedure, that even the FCC will not allow documentaries, commercials, etc...to run on American airwaves showing the images. Do you suppose that killing live babies is just a little too disturbing for even liberals to witness? Such commercials might actually force liberals to seek treatment for mental and emotional disorders, if they witnessed their handiwork policies in action.

Why do liberals use euphemisms like:

• fetus - when we have a baby
• family planning - when an innocent todler faces death
• reproductive rights - when she chooses to be promiscuous

These sterile terms license promisuous women to eliminate life without having to think to greatly about what they are doing. Sterile, deceitful terms; thats the method used to sear a liberal's conscience from the ghastly deed.

Now with Alito and Roberts helping uphold a "partial birth abortion ban", liberals have gone verbally wild. Salivating wildly, Mr. "G.Q." Obama and "The Socialist Queen" Hillary have come out swinging demanding more abortions be allowed to take place in the final trimester of a pregnancy. Such a procedure entails the following:

Pulling a baby from mommy's uterus to puncture and crush her skull.

Oh Happy Days - the Donkeys (the dem's) reminisce about the good old days when a baby was pulled from a mommy's uterus so to have her skull punctured. Of course, even better if the procedure didn't work. The doctor would have the tortured baby placed on a cold table in a dark room allowing the baby to simply die with no food, water, or attention in the hospital.

This is women's rights? Family planning? (Next time don't call child protective services on a mommy when a child gets a spanking for acting like a brat- right?)

And the cruel Roberts court would dare keep this murder procedure illegal? What kind of an insensitive oager and male chauvenist is the Roberts fellow who dares to violate a woman's right to torture unborns?

If you didn't know it before, Liberals are a bad idea for you, your community, and our nation.

Abortion Ruling & Minnesota Supreme Court?

The Minnesota Supreme Court Overturns Convictions of Pro-Lifers Who Held Graphic Signs
Chicago's Thomas More Society Wins a Unanimous Ruling in Favor of Protestors Arrested for Standing on Overpass with Graphic Abortion Sign
Contact: Tom Brejcha, Thomas More Society, 312-782-1680, cell 312-590-3408; Drew Schadegg, TC Public Relations, 312-422-1333
MINNEAPOLIS, July 17 /Christian Newswire/ -- On Thursday, July 12, the Minnesota Supreme Court handed down an important ruling, reversing the criminal convictions of pro-life protesters Ron Rudnick and Luke Otterstad for displaying large signs on an overpass on two occasions in the Twin Cities suburb of Anoka, Minnesota just weeks before the 2004 national elections. One sign displayed a large color photo of the aborted infant, "Baby Malachi," while next to it was a large handwritten sign that branded a local Congressional candidate as "pro-abortion."
On both occasions the pro-lifers were arrested and jailed by Anoka police, who also took their signs. Charges of "criminal nuisance" and a violation of Anoka's sign ordinance were upheld by a trial judge. Stiff fines and prison sentences were imposed. Chicago's Thomas More Society was asked to help and underwrote an appeal, but appellate Judges upheld both convictions.
Thomas More Society reassembled its team of appellate specialists – the team that won Joe Scheidler's RICO case twice in the U.S. Supreme Court. Against "impossible" odds, Minnesota's Supreme Court allowed a further appeal. Oral arguments were held last November, and last week when a four Justice plurality ruled that the prosecution hadn't proven the signs a criminal "nuisance" or that Anoka's sign ordinance even applied. Two other Justices agreed with Justice Alan Page, former NFL star, who wrote in his concurrence that defendants' First Amendment rights were violated as the prosecution had been "content-based" – aimed at the pro-life message.
Tom Brejcha, chief counsel of the Thomas More Society states, "Graphic photos are controversial even among pro-lifers. We urge that they be used prudently and sparingly – with warning signs wherever possible. But our society has to confront the brutal, bloody realities of this murderous atrocity, as mere abstract rhetoric too often fails to trigger the deep, visceral reaction needed to overcome contemporary America's bland indifference to this carnage."
The Society's brief quoted George Orwell, who wrote that:
"In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible. Things like the continuation of British rule in India, [and] the Russian purges and deportations...can indeed be defended, but only by argument, which are too brutal for most people to face…Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness…Such phraseology is needed if one wants to name things without calling up mental pictures of them…A mass of Latin words falls upon the facts like soft snow, blurring the outlines and covering up all the details."
Brejcha adds, "As Orwell's quotation demonstrates, it is impossible to convey certain messages, including the message that pro-lifers Rudnick and Otterstad sought to convey – with all its emotional content – without the use of graphic anti-abortion images. The First Amendment protects political speech that is annoying and even offensive, including speech that stirs people to anger or produces deeply unsettling effects. Those who disagree with a speaker's message must not suppress or criminalize it, but answer it with more speech."
Brejcha's co-counsel were Chuck Shreffler of Mohrman & Kaardal, of Minneapolis, who was also affiliated with Alliance Defense Fund, and Alan Untereiner and Dan Walfish of Robbins, Russell, Englert, Orseck & Untereiner, of Washington, D.C.
To view a video of the oral arguments go here.
To view the opinion go here.
Issuers of press releases and not Earned Media™ are solely responsible for the accuracy of the content. Terms and conditions, including restrictions on redistribution, apply.
Copyright © 2007 Earned Media™. All Rights Reserved.

Turning East Toward Persia

John Wayne would've done it...Steve McQueen would have done it...Clint Eastwood would have said, "Make my day" and then done it...

This may not be the movies. But the tragedy unfolding for a beleagured President Bush is nothing short of a debacle requiring a leading actor to take charge. Our heroes above would have created an out that would save honor and credibility.

The question is: Does the President have the courage to play the cards that would resurrect his presidency from the doghouse of LBJ to the status of war hero Eisenhower? .

First, the President must turn his eyes eastward. He should catalog the crimes publicly against humanity, America, Lebanon, Israel, and Iraq that Tehran's leader, Ahmadinejad, is responsible for. The catalog is to be made public in the following format.

What do you do with a world leader that:

• threatens dozens of times to "wipe Israel off the map"


• funnels IEDs, money, soldiers, & weapons into Iraq killing American soldiers and fostering much of the instability of Baghdad


• trains, funds, and sends out Hezbollah and Hamas militias to asymetrically attack innocent citizens across an entire region of the globe


• sent specifically planned milita to overthrow Lebanon's government in the summer of 2006


• is building nuclear weapons arsenal to dominate Arab Sunnis and the Middle East

You do what "the Duke" would have done. You take out the bad guy for his bad talk, bad actions, bad threat to an entire world. The reprecussions are minimal. The world hates you already. The Russians have already bailed on the relationship. The Chinese were never with you before. The weak-kneed Europeans are just- well- weak.

Ahmadinejad's Iran would have felt the full blow of American force. F-16s, para-military troopers, blitzkrieg attacks, and precision bombings for sure would have dropped on critical Iranian infrastructure and destroyed the nuclear capabilities of this wayward nation. The surgical strikes would have done their job to push back any nuclear program.


The hot-mouthed impetuous leader, Ahmadinejad, would be hunted down like a dog. For promoting Israel's destruction, Lebanon's destruction, Iraq's destablization, and for causing the direct murder of American soldiers in Iraq via IED's, ammunition, and soldiers directed by Iranian officials, the puppet international court would have its chance at him.

A weakened chaotic Iran will have little time nor resource to badger Iraq's fledgling democratic experiment any further. Malaki will have been bought a couple of years of precious time to fight for his Iraq without the Persians breathing down his neck. American soldiers will have exited the scene in Iraq (what we've all been waiting for except for an emergency contingency). Iran's WMD program will have been demolished. Bush's ratings will have soared as the patriotic war president takes down the venomous snake of Iran. The Europeans will take over the rebuilding in Iran after we finish demolition derby in and around Tehran. And Americans will not be left to pick up the pieces, thereby to be blamed.

Strategically, neither Sunni nor Shia will have any upper hand in Iraq or Iran because of the destruction in both countries; which is good for all of us. We will begin to fund both Iran and Iraq at equal strength for decades to come, reminiscent of Reagan's arming of Saddam in the eighties to counter Tehran.

And as artist, Rodney Atkins, sings in his newest song:

If you're goin' through hell keep on going... Don't slow down if you're scared... don't show it... You might get out before the devil even knows you're there

The Rewards of a Surge?

We are told that the risk to reward ratio is well worth sending 21,500 more American troops to stabilize Baghdad’s chaos. If Maliki’s government succeeds and stabilizes Iraq because of the additional soldiers, President Bush will have saved Baghdad, his legacy, and maybe even opened the door for further pre-emptive democratic global strikes in the Middle East.

The risk will have seemed to pay off, and the cost of sending extra American boys today will have been considered minimal in a “Baghdad Final Push”. For these reasons, the risk is well worth the reward in trying to prop up a fledgling government toward stability.

What happens, however, if Iraq collapses or is commandeered by the bad guys? Will the terrorists from Pakistan, Iran, Syria, Iran, and Al Qaeda chase us down in Omaha, Peoria, or Chicago looking to “destroy our way of life” after the last helicopter whirls out of Saigon/Baghdad?

On the contrary, the Shias, Sunnis, Persians, Kurds, and insurgents from Syria, Iran, Jordan etc…will be so enthralled in a bloodthirsty battle for Iraq and the Middle East, that there will be no time, desire, or effort to chase down the Yankees across the ocean.

Such a view, though, is not consensus in Washington. The positions of President Bush, John McCain and even Pat Buchanan are such that the bloodthirsty battle of Iraq will be waged against Americans across the globe and in on the homeland after an American withdrawal.

“If we fail in Iraq,” says the President, “western civilization hangs in the balance.”

Why does this President habitually overstate the case about the “grievous” effects upon western civilization and America? Will scaring American citizens force them to buy into his erred war strategies?

“It will be a catastrophe if we pull out of Iraq,” states Senator McCain. And of course, Pat Buchanan views a premature American pullout from Baghdad as utterly catastrophic for American prestige.

History, however, has much to say about the effects of previous modern day American pull-outs, cut and runs, and retreats across the globe. Apparently, American power, peace, and prosperity have never been greatly affected by previous American military blunders and redeployments.

Was it not Vietnam that fell to Ho Chi Minh? Yet, the Domino Theory never did materialize as was so feared and American lives on the homefront remain unchanged. Ho Chi Minh wanted neither capitalists nor Soviet Communists dictating the fate of Vietnam, as it turned out. Thus, neither superpower was able to dictate to Southeast Asia much of anything. The great tragedy was humanitarian for sure; not military. Pol Pot murdered 1 in 10 of his Cambodian citizens in the early 1970’s after American forces were pulled out of Vietnam. Laos faired not so well either.

Did not Truman’s War in Korea in the 1950’s prove to be a catastrophe? Eisenhower flexed wisdom and remarkable statesmanship. He extricated our boys from what he called, “a God-forsaken peninsula where we do not belong.” Yet, no American lost sleep or liberty when American soldiers were pulled back from the Yalu River.

In which of these cases, or any other, did American citizens find themselves losing sleep, losing business deals, or losing prosperity because the American military retreated from “foreign entanglements”?

Did Mao’s 1947 revolution of 700 million Chinese destroy America’s vital interests in 1947? Did the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 harm America’s sovereign interests? Did Vietnam and the “domino theory” vitally threaten America’s existence or super power status? The obvious answer in retrospect is no.

Whatever else we say about the massive military blunders of Truman, Dean Acheson, Johnson, John Foster Dulles, or Robert McNamara, the 20th century retreats of American soldiers again and again has never threatened America’s security or position as a superpower, much less its sovereignty.

On the other hand, senseless foreign policy “globetrotting interventionism” by do good “Mother Theresa” foreign policy presidents is a dangerous 20th century phenomena. Such meddling in the affairs of other nations is a losing proposition for our republic. In fact, fostering global democratic revolution is a dangerous wish. Yet, our “entanglement” foreign policies of “reshaping the Middle East” will always be destructive; not advantageous because it is not our land. How many centuries must we study, and how many presidents must we endure to learn this bitter history lesson?

President Bush has for sure overstated the repercussions about what a pullout of Iraq will mean. “If we bring our troops back home, the terrorists will follow us here”? (Where does he get this garbage?)

Quite the opposite will occur. An American redeployment will allow terrorist groups to camp out in Iraq to fight for their version of Iraq. Terrorists will take little time to plan, nor will they have purpose, to conduct relentless attacks on the American people on American soil. So preoccupied will Islamic forces be, both Shia and Sunni, with gaining power in Iraq, Lebanon, and other parts of the Middle East, that America will not be of central interest to any of the 1.2 billion Muslims, clerics, ayatollahs, mullahs, and the like. That is if American soldiers are withdrawn from Iraq and sensitive Islamic lands within the Middle East.

The “Great Satan” will be a distant memory once his footsteps are off of Middle East soil. Americans will be tucked safely behind American borders, while witnessing the Middle East insanity of fundamental Islam in a war to destroy its own children.

Perhaps returning to Reagan’s policies of arming both sides of the Islamic battles between 1980 to 1988 to maintain a balance of power will become popular again? After all, no American wants to see either Shia or Sunni achieve complete dominance in the Middle East. Furthermore, funding the selling of arms to all parties involved would ensure a relatively stable, though bloody, protracted conflict that involves no American men in a foreign land.

What matters to most Americans is that this bloody proxy battle in Iraq between Shias and Sunnis will not involve American men and the war will not be exported to our shores. Instead, terror will be focused on innocent civilians, both Shias and Sunnis, in the barbaric Middle East cultures of Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iran. Thus, it is not American citizens who will feel the brunt of a “broken Iraq”; but the citizens of the Middle East, as Colin Powell so predicted.

President Benjamin Harrison stated, “America has no mandate to police the globe.”

Yet, not many of Harrison’s White House descendants would buy the Harrison Doctrine.

In fact the likes of Teddy Roosevelt, Wilson, Truman, Johnson, Clinton, and Bush #43 are the liberal types that have gotten our republic into global trouble with their naïve foreign policies. With over 780 military bases in over 150 countries across the globe during the post-Soviet collapse, is it any wonder that America is perceived as an imperialist overlording nation in Arab lands with F-16's, runways, military bases, and secret deals with peculiar Arab governments?

And until Americans recognize that it is not our “freedoms and liberties” that are so despised by radical Muslims, but it is the very presence of our military bases and intelligence operations in the holy lands of Riyadh, Istanbul, Tel Aviv, and no fly zones covering Iraq since 1990 that are the target of hatred and destruction.

In fact, if we connect the bombings from Tanzania, the USS Cole, Nairobi, Riyadh, Lebanon, World Trade Center, and 9/11, all of these wicked attacks occurred after Iraq’s invasion, occupation, and economic sanctions of 1991. The American occupation of Muslim Holy lands since the fall of communism has been the primary reason 9/11 and other terror attacks have occurred.

America’s shift toward a “New World Order” under Bush #41 became the rallying cry of all Muslims. As the Soviets were driven back, Muslims plan to drive back the Americans using asymmetrical warfare until an American president clears the Holy Land of American military personnel.

The risk to send 21,500 more American troops may well be worth the costs since we are so far into the quick sand. But Iraq’s future is not as an American friend fighting terror, most likely. Iraq instead will be a land governed no differently than that of Syria, Iran, or Palestine in its days to come.

The People Have Spoken!

Compassionate conservative, uniter-not-a-divider, humble nation, pre-emptive strike, mission accomplished, Jack Abramoff, Iraq, hubris, budget deficits, voluntary war, Enron, the Bush Doctrine, WorldCom, no-bid contracts, amnesty, Tom Foley, WMD’s, stay-the-course, pork & barrel, arrogance, war on terror, out-of-control spending, no vetoes, “bring it on…”, broken borders, illegal aliens, neoconservatives, Cheney, Rumsfeld, global democratic revolution, axis of evil, regime change, Niger, State of Denial,,,,

What else needs to be said!

The American people, like a spurned lover, have spoken. Divorce papers were issued to President Bush and the Republicans. Republicans ran as conservatives and governed as liberals.

The result:

Landslide city of 34 house seats and a change of guard in both the Senate and House have cost Defense Secretary Rumsfeld his job. And President #43 has been forced to consult the “Father knows best” strategy with Bush #41. The upshot is? A new direction in Iraq is demanded by the American people.

But there exists an issue even more stinging for those of us who are traditional conservatives. For sure GW Bush ran as a low tax man and got his plan through the Congress. He got the Supreme Court nominees through as well and defended marriage as much as any president would do. But what else can conservatives who carried this cowboy into office applaud???

The cowboy pulled a hard left as LBJ did. Guns and butter was the theme. Like drunken sailors the Republicans grabbed power and outspent the previous 80 Congresses combined during the six years of Bush’s presidency. And where was the compassionate conservative? As the first president in over 100 years, he vetoed not one bill that crossed his desk!

Like all great liberals whose egos to save the world outweigh their common sense, Wilson, Roosevelt, and LBJ have new found company. Mount Spendmore not Mount Rushmore, will mark the newest member of the “compassionate liberal” club that weakens our great nation.


For sure, the sixth year is never an easy year for a sitting president. Reagan, Clinton, and Eisenhower each endured beatings of sorts. But the cowboy who coolly rode into Washington as an outsider, quickly learned how to spend like an Washington insider, and will be left to ride back to Texas as the ultimate disappointment.

300 Million Babies & Counting?

As America celebrations her 300 millionth lottery baby this past year, across the oceans in Europe celebration is not the mood. Heads of State across the EU are wringing their hands of the grim actuarial tables that face the “Old World”. Europeans are dying faster than they are birthing and have swung open the immigration door for all Muslims to enter. The results will not be promising:

Old Man Europe has lost three of its empires and tens of millions of the best and brightest boys through the hellish wars of the last 100 years. The hope of Europe’s future has been crushed on the wheels of war. Lost children, hopes crushed, and brokenness of spirit have permeated the Continent and has all but vanquished Europe’s traditions.

Europe has a sickness: dead man’s disease. All the qualities that make nations great are lacking on that continent:

-a lack of traditional family values
-a lack of faith in God
-a lack of pride in nation
-a lack of optimism about the future

Europe’s lacking stems from ghastly and unnecessary wars. But the cracks were not evident until the onset of post-modern French street marches of Jean Paul Sarte’s college kids of the 1960’s.

Rebellion to faith, family, birth rates, and optimism gave way to philosophic nihilism in Europe in the 1960’s forward. The only hope modern states of Europe had in perpetuating their traditions was to band together under one banner of laws and social conventions called the EU.

Is there irony? The EU was De Gaulle’s and Adaneur’s last ditch effort to bring peace to blood-stained Europe. It was also Europe’s last desperate attempt to jump start family, faith, and hope in creating a future for their children. What Adaneur of Germany and De Gaulle of France determined was to bind Europeans together so that war would not tear them apart again.

Institutions, however, don’t create families. What European leaders failed to recognize is that without faith, there is no perpetuation of family. European leaders have sterilized Paul, Jesus, Peter, Augustine, the monks, Charlemagne, Aquinas, Calvin, Luther, Barth, and Bonhoffer off their continent on their way to creating their union of states. These saints of old and the Messiah himself, provided the faith that gave life, virtue, hope, and purpose to Europe and family.

But what do we have now? Elevated are Rousseau’s contract, Hume’s skepticism, and a modern EU Constitution that eliminates God, the Christian heritage, and the light of truth that drives faith.

Enlightened Europeans have replaced churches with abortion clinics. Sterile needles for recreational highs and Euthanasia for unwanted parents are the banners of pride for Chirac’s prideful Europe. In the meantime, Mohammed’s children have embarked on a demographic invasion of Europe bringing Allah, the Koran, and a distaste for Europe with them.

Without the drive for strong marriage and family ties, Europe will not multiply and be fruitful. The cause of which can be traced to Europe’s suicidal wars that destroyed hundreds of millions of families. The gloom of war struck the hearts of Europe’s children like Macbeth’s tragedy.

With no Christian hope on an atheistic European continent, is there any reason husbands and wives would commit to bringing children into their world? The intellectual giants of Europe have answered: No!

Angry protests by Sarte’s college students across France, and Camus’ strange and meaningless works of fiction have mesmerized have brainwashed the boys and girls of Europe. Purpose and life’s meaning have been stripped from the land where Whitfield and Wesley captured the hearts of men.

And so the result is? “Old Man Europe” is orphaning his children in the glory of 20th century war. The children of Europe would rather cohabitate than marry. She will not don the wedding dress; he will bypass the groom’s attire. The steeples will ring empty. They will die the death of quiet desperation, barren, and no legacy worth telling.

As Europe’s children embrace slow death, European governments have swung their borders open. A new citizen in Europe must fill the slot of European jobs and family. Could cosmopolitan Europe now be importing millions of Islamic citizens from Asia, Africa, and the Middle East?

The results are nothing short of frightening. With Denmark, England, and France housing these new Islamic citizens in their democracies, politicians are accommodating Islamic citizens to get re-elected. So powerful is the Islamic voice in Europe today, that Europeans are finding it difficult to assimilate the Islamic population. Instead, in the vein of traditional Islamic influence, Europe is being overrun by Saladin’s people who want jobs. But they do not want to be classical Europeans.

Allah’s laws, culture, and hopes are clashing with “Old Europe”, the War on Terror, and western values. The 7/11 attacks, Spain’s train bombs, French street riots, Danish atrocities, and German underground plotters are all but tiny examples of an emboldened foreign population preparing to siege the gates of Vienna.

Revitalized Islamic citizens smell blood. The Old Man’s carcass is being circled by the vultures preying on the death of western tradition. Without apology, the force of Islamic immigration is bringing about a perceptible change of the guard in Europe. What the sword of Sulieman “The Great” could not do to overrun Europe, Europe’s own children did to itself in a suicide pact through continental warfare in the 20th century.

Today Europe’s Armada’s, Royal Navy’s, etc…have merged into some murky EU federation designed to strengthen the people of Europe. But military has little relevance in the war against abortion, Euthenasia, and the culture of death. This battle remains the domain of Christ, his church, and faith in God. But faith is rare commodity these days in Europe.

As Europe’s carcass is encircled by the birds of Islam and its borders being overrun by Saladin’s children, optimism has been replaced with an existential pessimism. King Ferdinand’s optimistic explorers of the future are nowhere to be found. England’s Royal Navy has conquered and receded. France’s 18th and 19th century glory has glimmered and burned to ashes. Holland, Portugal, Poland, and Sweden have had their fifteen minutes of fame as well. Wars of the 20th century have broken the back of Europe, depressed the family structure, and eliminated the births necessary to ward the end of traditional Europe.

Is it any wonder that the whole of Europe remains silent as the War on Terror marches on? Their war on terror began with Archduke Ferdinand’s assassination. And Hitler’s Nazi’s carried the final death blow. Millions were dead.

Is it any wonder that Europe’s policies and politicians so often diverge from America’s as the decades move away from WWII? America carries in its bosom optimism. With the “House of Europe” being silently sacked, “America Alone” stands again by itself to carry the values of the west and its Christian traditions to the next generation.

Liberals Eliminating Our Freedoms Again!

How crafty are liberals in Washington? While their pet open border amnesty bill was crashing to the ground, Pelosi, Reed, Kennedy, and the gang of big spenders flew an "energy bill" under the radar screen as Americans were watching the open border debate.

The "energy bill", so called by Washington insiders, mandates that all vehicles manufactured and sold in the United States must meet a minimum fuel standard of 35 mpg by 2020.

Sounds great--until you ask...

Since when did the Constitution grant Pelosi, Reed, Kennedy, etc...the king's scepter to invade your life to eliminate your freedom to choose the type of vehicle you can drive? I thought we elected these officials to Washington to fight the "war on terror", secure our borders, and to be fiscally responsible??? Oh-but then again, the Constitution has never stopped liberals from invading our lives, has it?

Is that the job of the Congress to tell private business and private citizens what kind of vehicles they are allowed to drive? The SUV, minivan, Ford Truck, and Hummer have been all but practically eliminated from the assembly line. The favorite vehicles for Americans to drive have just been given their death sentence by the imperial Congress.

Can you imagine what the American people's reaction in the 1830's to a Congressional mandate that large wagons were going to be outlawed because the strain was found to be too difficult on the horses?

Good ole' cowboys would have rustled up the 1830's paltry Sierra Club, the Tree Huggers Association, and the Global Warming crowd (if there were any of them oddballs)- hog tied them- rode them to Washington in the largest wagons possible. These conservative cowboys would then have barged into the representatives offices demanding to know who voted to eliminate the large wagons that were being used.

These cowboys would have then dropped these cooky environmentalists they drove to Washington into the offices of the liberals that were elected.

These American cowboys would have left one message for these liberal types attempting to restrict the freedom of the people: try enforcing your laws and see if you won't end up like King George III"s tarred and feathered tax collecting goons of the Revolutionary War--

Liberals are famous for ramming through legislation that is intended to help the citizens. Better gas mileage and less use of oil is no doubt the motive of "Nanny" Congress.

But what business is it of our elected officials in Washington to tell me what kind of car I should drive? If I want a 12 mile per gallon SUV crossing the country with a camper tied to the back for my family vacation, am I not wise enough to weigh the costs?

Detroit was in trouble before this legislation. These private businesses may well file bankruptcy because of the enormous R&D that will be employed to get larger vehicles to 35 mpg. It won't happen!

Lets be clear what liberals gleefully just did to us:

• liberals imposed their will on private business
• liberals eliminated our choices to buy the cars that we want to buy
• liberals hiked the R&D costs to build and purchase the next generation of trucks
• liberals may have sent the auto industry to its grave in America as result of its meddling

If liberals really cared about what American citizens paid at the gas pumps, liberals would do what conservatives have been fighting for. Liberals would bulldoze mother earth tree huggers and open up Anwar, the continental shelf of California, Florida, and the east coast. With greater supply of oil comes serious relief at the pump for all Americans.

Will liberals see the error of their ways? Not on your life- Liberals love tree huggers, the Sierra Club, PETA, and the global warming crowd more than the American family.

Liberals got their dream vote passed. Your freedoms have now been restricted, the auto business has now been commandeered, and Americans will pay again for liberal good intentions.