The Patriot Post Digest 08-46

[nChrist]

______________________________
The Patriot Post Digest 08-46
From The Federalist Patriot
______________________________

THE FOUNDATION

"Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism." --George Washington

PATRIOT PERSPECTIVE
Our sacred honor ... to support and defend

By Mark Alexander

In 1776, an extraordinary group of men signed a document that affirmed their God-given right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." By attaching their signatures to our great Declaration of Independence, they, in effect, were signing their potential death warrants.

Indeed, the last line of our Declaration reads, "For the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor."

Many of these men, and many of their countrymen, the first generation of American Patriots, would die fighting for American liberty.

A decade later, their liberty having been won at great cost, our Founders further codified their independence and interdependence by instituting yet another historic document, our Constitution.

The Constitution specifies in Article VI, clause 3:

"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution..."

Bound by Oath to support...

The Constitution also prescribes the following oath to be taken by the president-elect: "I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Preserve, protect and defend...

Commissioned and enlisted military personnel are also required by statute to "solemnly swear, that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same...", though the officer's oath doesn't include any provision that they obey orders.

Against all enemies, foreign and domestic...

Notably, all these oaths mandate the preservation, protection, support and defense of our Constitution as ratified, not the so-called "living constitution" as amended by judicial activists populating what Thomas Jefferson predicted would become "the despotic branch."

While uniformed Americans serving our nation defend our Constitution with their lives, most elected officials debase it with all manner of extra-constitutional empowerment of the central government, not the least of which is the forced redistribution of income to benefit their constituency groups which, in turn, dutifully re-elect them.

Military service personnel who violate the Constitution are remanded for courts-martial under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, while politicians who violate the Constitution are remanded for -- re-election.

On that note, the latest crop of Leftists on their way to Washington under the supervision of President-elect Barack Obama are destined to make a greater mockery of our Constitution than any administration in history. Clearly, Obama and his ilk have no history of honoring, or intention to honor, their oaths and, in fact, have no context for such honor.

A small cadre of liberals who believe themselves to be "patriots" have asked, "Can't I be a bona fide Patriot and support Barack Obama?"

In a word ... NO, unless in a state of solemn repentance.

[nChrist]

______________________________
The Patriot Post Digest 08-46
From The Federalist Patriot
______________________________

In the spirit of charity, perhaps Obama supporters, who self-identify as patriots, are just grossly misinformed about our Constitution, our history and their own civic duty. Of course, they would likewise be grossly deluded about their identity, but perhaps the delusion is temporary.

I would suggest that Obama "patriots" are nothing more than "sunshine patriots," as Thomas Paine wrote, who "will in crisis, shrink from the service of his country."

At its core, the word "patriot" has direct lineage to those who fought for American independence and established our constitutional republic. That lineage has descended most directly through our history with those who have been entrusted "to support and defend" our Constitution -- more specifically, those who have been faithful to, and have abided by, that oath. As previously noted, by "our Constitution," I am referring to the United States Constitution, not the adulterated vestigial remains that liberals call "the living constitution."

I have taken oaths five times in the service of our country. But I did not have to take any oath to understand my obligations as a citizen "to support and defend" our Constitution.

So, does the title of "Patriot" apply to an individual who votes for a man who has not honored his public oaths of office previously, and has given no indication he intends to "bear true faith and allegiance to the same" as president -- a man who subscribes to the errant notion of a "living constitution" which, in his own words, "breaks free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution"?

No authentic Patriot would support those who violate their sacred oaths.

Unfortunately, in this most recent election, we saw even a handful of flag-rank military officers who have no more reverence for their oaths than Obama. However, they are the exception, not the rule.

Obama's mantra, "change," is a euphemism for constitutional abrogation -- an incremental encroachment on liberty until, at last, liberty is lost.

Our nation's second president, John Adams, warned, "A Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever."

As for Obama's deception about his own patriotic pedigree, I commend the words of our nation's first president, George Washington: "Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism. ...[W]here is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation deserts the oaths...?"

Regarding the Presidential Oath of Office, Justice Joseph Story wrote: "The duty imposed upon him to take care, that the laws be faithfully executed, follows out the strong injunctions of his oath of office, that he will 'preserve, protect, and defend the constitution.' The great object of the executive department is to accomplish this purpose." He wrote further that if the president does not honor his oath, his office "will be utterly worthless for ... the protection of rights; for the happiness, or good order, or safety of the people."

Of course, Barack Obama proposes to further constrain the rights of the people by advancing centralized government control of the economy by way of regulation and forced income redistribution, all in the name of "happiness, good order, and safety of the people," but in direct violation of his oath.

[nChrist]

______________________________
The Patriot Post Digest 08-46
From The Federalist Patriot
______________________________

Quote of the week

"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free." --Ronald Reagan

Legacy of the American Revolution

"It should be the highest ambition of every American to extend his views beyond himself, and to bear in mind that his conduct will not only affect himself, his country, and his immediate posterity; but that its influence may be co-extensive with the world, and stamp political happiness or misery on ages yet unborn." --George Washington

GOVERNMENT & POLITICS
News from the Swamp: Committee assignments take shape on Capitol Hill

House and Senate Democrats are currently picking the committee leaders for the 111th Congress -- leaders who will wreak havoc on capitalism, liberty and common sense. Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) will remain as head of the Senate Banking Committee to maintain continuity during the financial crisis. After all, it only makes sense to keep Dodd there since he was such a large beneficiary of Fannie Mae's political contributions.

Russ Feingold (D-WI), the only senator to vote against the Patriot Act and an original opponent of the liberation of Iraq, is in line to become the head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee; the current chairman, Joe Biden, is heading to the White House. If Feingold does get the position, he could force Barack Obama's hand on withdrawing American troops from Iraq. He is also likely to spill a number of secret programs out into the open via attention-grabbing investigations into our nation's rendition and surveillance efforts.

In the House, it appears there will be a coup attempt by California Democrat Henry Waxman, who seeks to wrest control of the Energy and Commerce Committee from John Dingell (D-MI). Dingell, who was first elected to Congress in 1955, will become in February the longest-serving member in that body's history. He is a moderate on climate change, however, and some of his fellow liberals have accused him of being too cozy with Detroit when he should be putting the squeeze on the industry for the sake of the tree huggers. But Dingell's supporters believe they have the votes to hold off Waxman, an environmental extremist. Many see Speaker Nancy Pelosi's fingerprints on the effort to oust Dingell. She is close to Waxman, and she is a vocal proponent of all so-called "green" legislation.

It looks as though Joe Lieberman (I-CT) will remain chairman of the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee for the time being. He created enemies among his former fellow Democrats with his public support of John McCain. He met privately with Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) this week, and both men would say only that they would talk further and weigh options before making final decisions. The Democrats must win all three remaining contested Senate seats to reach a supermajority of 60 votes. Regardless of the outcome, however, they will need Lieberman, whose apostasy can apparently be overlooked if it helps the Democrats tighten their grip on power.

Republicans stand to lose some committee seats as well, thanks to the gains Democrats made last week. Reid is likely to follow the model for committee apportionment used during the 103rd Congress when the Democrats similarly held 57 seats in the Senate. The GOP is likely to incur its biggest losses in Appropriations, Budget, and Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.

Meanwhile, any hopes Hillary Clinton had to lead the renewed effort for health care reform were effectively dashed by Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA), chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. Kennedy considers himself a champion of health care, and he has no intention of ceding the issue to Clinton. She currently ranks eighth in seniority on the committee, and others on the committee are not keen on the idea of her leapfrogging senior colleagues to lead some special subcommittee or task force. Beyond all that, Obama is likely to run any health care reform drive from the White House, meaning that Clinton may be involved in the crafting of legislation, but she will not have the chance to lead, and likely fumble, a plan as she did in 1993. Hillary might take comfort, though, in the current Beltway buzz that Obama is considering her for the secretary of state post.

However Congress shapes up in the coming weeks, the denizens of the Swamp will have a long way to go before earning the respect of the American public. In a Rasmussen Reports survey taken after Election Day, 55 percent of those polled rated the job performance of Congress as poor. Only 11 percent said Congress was doing a good or excellent job. Republicans were more unsatisfied than Democrats -- 74 percent to 37 percent. A separate survey indicated an unfavorable rating of 42 for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and another 27 percent didn't even know who he is. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) earned a 53 percent unfavorable rating.

[nChrist]

______________________________
The Patriot Post Digest 08-46
From The Federalist Patriot
______________________________

Speaking of polls, Reaganism is not dead

The Patriot doesn't often report on polls as news items because of how they are used to sway rather than reflect public opinion. Regular readers will recall our term for this destructive influence: "pollaganda." However, an article by pollster Scott Rasmussen caught our attention because it announced that, despite the election results, Reaganism is not dead. "Barack Obama won the White House by campaigning against an unpopular incumbent in a time of economic anxiety and lingering foreign policy concerns. He offered voters an upbeat message, praised the nation as a land of opportunity, promised tax cuts to just about everyone, and overcame doubts about his experience with a strong performance in the presidential debates," Rasmussen wrote. "Does this sound familiar? It should."

Rasmussen further points out that Obama stole the tax issue from John McCain. Heading into the election, 31 percent of voters thought Obama would cut their taxes compared to only 11 percent for McCain. According to Rasmussen, "the candidate who most credibly promises the lowest level of taxes has won every presidential election in at least the last 40 years." Additionally, nearly 60 percent of those polled agreed with Ronald Reagan's maxim: "Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem." Obama may have used some aspects of Reaganism to win the White House, but we have little hope that Reagan's philosophy will find a place in the Obama administration.

The smell of change: For Obama, 2008 equals 1984

While President-elect Barack Obama hasn't yet established his Ministry of Truth, there are signs that he's going to rewrite history to suit his needs. Witness the scrubbing of his change.gov Web site, which last week had 25 different agenda items sought by the coming Obama administration. After controversy first erupted over the oxymoronic concept of mandatory volunteerism, the site originally changed its tune but then dropped the agenda items entirely, instead substituting a vanilla mission statement.

Obama plans to be aggressive in his use of executive orders, beginning by rescinding several signed by President George W. Bush which promote a socially conservative agenda, such as those dealing with embryonic stem cell research and abortion funding. Another Obama target is the Second Amendment. The Obama/Biden team vows to not only close so-called loopholes at gun shows and create other regulations such as trigger locks, but also to take guns "off the streets" by reinstating the grossly misnamed "assault weapons" ban. When was the last time readers saw anyone waltzing down the street with a semi-automatic black rifle looking to make trouble? And did Obama notice the Supreme Court decision in June that involved the Second Amendment? Indeed, he did. If fact, he supported the Court's Heller decision in favor of the right to bear arms, if only out of gross political expediency.

Obama's change.gov site originally had a full anti-gun agenda, but that was wiped away along with his other promises. What was posted previously was a claim to "favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners," but by making the gun of one's choice more difficult to acquire and use, the incoming Democrats are eroding the intent of the Founding Fathers, as well as the letter of the Constitution.

This week's 'Alpha Jackass' award

"Have you ever had any association with any person, group or business venture that could be used -- even unfairly -- to impugn or attack your character and qualifications for government service?" --page 7, question 61 of the questionnaire required of prospective Obama administration cabinet members

One among 63 intrusive questions that will serve only to drive qualified people away, this question stood out for two reasons: Obama himself has many troubling associations (though that didn't seem to matter to 66 million voters), and prospective cabinet members would have to answer, "Yes, I'm associated with Barack Obama."

Political analyst Rich Galen also observed, "If this were an incoming Republican Administration, I guarantee you the name 'McCarthy' would be on every front page in the nation in describing [this questionnaire]."

And speaking of guns, question 59 reads, "Do you or any members of your immediate family own a gun? If so, provide complete ownership and registration information. Has the registration ever lapsed? Please also describe how and by whom it is used and whether it has been the cause of any personal injuries or property damage."

Memo to Obama: Other than in the twisted world of Washington, DC, guns are not registered, nor should they be.

[nChrist]

______________________________
The Patriot Post Digest 08-46
From The Federalist Patriot
______________________________

Party Chairmanships up for grabs

Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean has announced that he is stepping down after one term and leaving no clues as to what his next move will be. Dean earned the respect of the permanent Demo political class in Washington the hard way -- by proving that his much-derided 50-state strategy was the key to success in two straight national elections. Dean had the support of the MoveOn.org and Daily Kos crowd gained from his own presidential run in 2004 and he used the so-called "netroots" to help him implement a plan to put volunteers on the ground in every state. It was an expensive proposition which helped to swing Congress into the Democrat fold in 2006 and the White House this year. The list of potential replacements is long -- former Gore campaign head Donna Brazile, Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) and Gov. Tim Kaine (D-VA) are just three names that have been mentioned so far.

Dean may be stepping down to avoid future public conflicts with incoming Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, who's made no secret of his dislike for the soon-to-be former DNC Chairman. Or maybe he just wants to go out while he's on top. Republican National Committee Chairman Mike Duncan, however, does not have that luxury. In fact, while Duncan has not announced his plans as RNC boss, much of the rest of the Committee and the Party wants him out in short order. Duncan presided over two consecutive embarrassing elections for the GOP, and now the biggest political parlor game in town is guessing just who might become the next leader. Newt Gingrich is a popular choice, but he is not personally campaigning for the job. He believes he can be more effective running American Solutions and the Center for Health Transformation. A campaign has also formed around former Maryland Lt. Governor Michael Steele, and Michigan GOP Chairman Saul Anuzis is actively campaigning for the position. Whoever ultimately gets the job will have the tremendous task of refocusing a leaderless party and working against stout Democrat majorities. Republicans take heart, though: You can't fall off the floor.

NATIONAL SECURITY
Warfront with Jihadistan: Testing the new guy

"I'm the only major candidate who opposed this war [in Iraq] from the beginning... As president I will end it... I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems... I will not weaponize space... I will slow our development of future combat systems... I will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons... I will not develop new nuclear weapons..." Unfortunately, those words are not a rehash of some 1980 Jimmy Carter campaign pledge, but straight from the mouth of the current president-elect, the man entrusted to defend our nation. Terrifying to reflect upon, they represent the views of a man totally detached from the political and military realities of the world and unable to see the shots already being fired across his bow by our enemies.

After months of falling violence, this week saw a sudden increase in bombings in Iraq, with dozens being killed and wounded. The violence comes as U.S. and Iraqi officials try to reach a final security agreement that would keep U.S. troops in Iraq until 2011, but that has drawn sharp criticism from the majority Shiite community.

Interestingly, Iran is also majority Shiite, and Obama, who has pushed for diplomatic talks with Iran, is blind if he doesn't think this increase in Iraq violence is a direct Iranian challenge to his incoming regime. As if to dare Obama to pull American troops out of Iraq, Iran, during war games near the Iraqi border this week, test-fired two new missiles capable of striking Israel.

Combined with Russia's announcement that it will deploy missiles near Kaliningrad to counter the U.S. missile defense system in Poland, and North Korea's declaration Wednesday that it won't allow inspectors to examine its nuclear complex, it is obvious that the world's thugs are testing Obama early -- just as his running mate Joe Biden predicted. They already think him a weakling, and given Obama's statements, they appear to be right. The Obama regime could be a direct threat to our country. Change we can believe in? How about change we can't survive?

Department of Military Readiness: Navy wins sonar battle

The United States Navy scored a victory this week in the U.S. Supreme Court in a battle against environmentalists and their accomplices in the Ninth Circuit Court. The question was whether the Navy could test sonar systems off the California coast in spite of alleged harm to whales and dolphins. The sonar is essential in detecting new "quiet" submarines deployed by China and North Korea. A district court in California had ruled that the Navy must cease such exercises in order to save the whales, and the Ninth Circuit Court agreed. The Bush administration had countered by exempting the Navy from the federal laws cited in the case, saying that national security trumped the whales. This week, the Supreme Court agreed. "We do not discount the importance of plaintiffs' ecological, scientific and recreational interests in marine mammals. Those interests, however, are plainly outweighed by the Navy's need to conduct realistic training exercises," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion. "We see no basis for jeopardizing national security."

Unfortunately, the decision could be rendered moot by the incoming Obama administration, which would likely stop the exercises.

[nChrist]

______________________________
The Patriot Post Digest 08-46
From The Federalist Patriot
______________________________

The Gray Lady undermines national security ... again

There they go again. The New York Times, continuing its policy of aiding and abetting this nation's enemies, on Monday published the latest classified anti-terrorist program to come to its attention. This revelation covers a secret order that authorized covert military action inside Syria, Pakistan and "elsewhere" (a quick look at the map to see what lies between Pakistan and Syria will discover "elsewhere"). Citing military and civilian sources, The Times reports that nearly a dozen such raids have been carried out since 2004. We can only imagine the gratitude felt by those brave special-ops soldiers carrying out these missions that their activities are public knowledge.

Freedom of the press is one of the most important rights enshrined in the Constitution. Its position as part of the First Amendment is no accident, indicating the importance the Founders gave to a press able to report freely and without fear on the activities of government. Even in wartime, the government should not censor the media unless truly extraordinary circumstances dictate otherwise. But there is also a reason for the government's classification of information, including this definition of Top Secret: "information of a highly sensitive nature, whose disclosure could result in grave danger to the national security of the United States." At what point does The Times consider that protecting our national security is more important than scoring political points against the Bush administration?

Profiles of valor: U.S. Army 1st Lt. Ashley Henderson Huff

In October, the Interior Ministry of the Kurdistan Regional Government honored a fallen American soldier with a statue at the opening of a police college in Erbil. U.S. Army 1st Lt. Ashley Henderson Huff of the 385th MP Battalion, based out of Fort Stewart, Georgia, was honored for her work toward establishing the new academy, which will accommodate up to 650 people. Huff had worked on behalf of Coalition Forces with the Interior Ministry to build the police academy, but she was killed by a suicide car bomber in Mosul in 2006. Interior Minister Sinjari said, "First Lieutenant Ashley Henderson Huff was a woman of courage and determination. We are honored to have worked with her. Her family and colleagues should be proud of what she did for her country and for the people of Iraq in the liberation of our country. Her statue will act not only as a remembrance of her but will also inspire our police cadets to live up to her standards of commitment and professionalism."

BUSINESS & ECONOMY
The slippery slope of bailouts

When governments attempt to "fix" economies by meddling with the free markets that power them, these would-be market-driven economies become political footballs. Economic decisions that would have been fairly and justly arbitrated by unbiased, natural laws of economics become decided on purely political grounds. Markets lose stability in direct proportion to the extent of such meddling. This is certainly the case with the government "fix" known as TARP, or Troubled Asset Relief Program. The bailout package was originally crafted to relieve banks so that they would remain solvent, preventing further meltdown of the U.S. economy. But with $700 billion up for grabs, TARP's original purpose was thrown under the bus in the gold rush that ensued. Now everyone wants in on the government's largess, and markets have reacted accordingly. And why not? Why shouldn't we all line up to "get ours" if the government is giving away "free" money? Sadly, this seems to be the new American corporate mindset.

Insurance giant AIG, for instance, is now slated to receive more than $150 billion in the largest single bailout allotment from TARP thus far. The government effectively nationalized AIG in the process, establishing a $40 billion stake in the world's largest insurer. Eager to get in on the TARP lottery, American Express -- that's right, the credit card company -- is apparently also now a "bank," having been so blessed by the Federal Reserve. Evidently unaware of AMEX's subtle approach, one draping the hat-in-hand recipient in "bank-like" trappings, U.S. automakers are pursuing more blunt-instrument strategies. Their game plan? Simply demand funds from Washington on the basis that, well, they need the cash, and everyone else seems to be getting an awful lot of it lately. Perfect.

The government has committed $290 billion so far without any oversight because Congress has yet to fill the positions it created. Somewhere in all of this thrash for cash is a lesson about the proper role of government in a free market economy. We just hope that this lesson hits home before The Great Depression, Part II does.

[nChrist]

______________________________
The Patriot Post Digest 08-46
From The Federalist Patriot
______________________________

The trouble at General Motors

General Motors is making noise about needing between $11 and $14 billion from the federal bailout of $700 billion in order to continue business, though it doesn't appear that Congress has the votes to approve extending the bailout to automakers. GM threatened to cease production by next summer unless help is forthcoming. Deutsche Bank Group, one of the world's leading financial service providers, this week downgraded GM's stock value to $0. Not that long ago, GM was the largest corporation in the world.

Most of the blame lies with the United Auto Workers Union for extorting outlandish benefits from GM (Ford and Chrysler suffer similar problems), though, granted, GM management bears blame for accepting those deals. Among the privileges given to union workers is what is known as a job bank, which requires GM to pay workers displaced by restructuring or technological progress nearly their entire salary, as well as benefits and pension. Health care is another ballooning expense. Workers can smoke while on the assembly line, yet some pay $0 deductibles at the doctor's office. In total, GM spends more on health care per vehicle than on steel. "The United Auto Workers have bled General Motors dry, leaving the company in a tattered state, and the union members extremely vulnerable," said Richard Berman, Executive Director for the Center for Union Facts. "It will be truly unfortunate if union demands over many years result in another bankruptcy or bailout."

CULTURE & POLICY
Around the nation: Proposition 8 under attack

California voters can't catch a break. They have voted, not once, but twice, to ban same-sex marriage in the Golden State. In 2000, voters approved Proposition 22 with nearly two-thirds of the vote only to have it overturned by the state Supreme Court in May, which stated that banning same-sex marriage violated the equal protection clause of the state constitution because it allowed a majority to take away rights intended for everyone. Last Tuesday, Californians approved Proposition 8, which amended the state constitution to define marriage as being between one man and one woman, but the issue is before the Court again after opponents sued. Opponents of Prop 8 are hoping the Court's original argument will still hold, but they are also hoping the court will decide that this matter should have gone not to the voters, but to the legislators.

Although Propositions 8 and 22 share the same wording, the critical difference is that Prop 22 was a statute, while Prop 8 is an actual part of the state constitution. While this sounds as if it may provide a measure of protection from the court's reach, it instead may be its undoing.

The case turns on whether Proposition 8 is determined to be a constitutional amendment or a constitutional revision. If it is an amendment, it needs a popular vote; if it is a revision, it would require two-thirds approval by the state legislature before it could be turned over to voters.

RINO Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger weighed in on the issue and is now for same-sex marriage, after he was against it. "It's unfortunate, obviously, but it's not the end," Schwarzenegger said of Prop 8's passage, advocating that the California Supreme Court overturn the will of the people once again. "I think that we will again maybe undo that, if the court is willing to do that, and then move forward from there and again lead in that area," Schwarzenegger said. This from the same guy who vetoed two separate bills in 2005 and 2007 that would have legalized same-sex marriage, saying at the time, "It would be wrong for the people to vote for something and for me to then overturn it."

[nChrist]

______________________________
The Patriot Post Digest 08-46
From The Federalist Patriot
______________________________

From the 'Non Compos Mentis' File

The 2008 election, it can be argued, was an election like no other. The biggest evidence of this may not be in Washington, DC, but in a small Oregon town. On 4 November, residents of Silverton, Oregon, elected the first openly transgender mayor in the country.

According to his constituents, Stu Rasmussen, who won by an impressive 13 points, has integrity, a handle on the issues, and a love of his town. Rasmussen is well known in Silverton -- in fact, he served as the town's mayor for two terms during the 1990s. But back then he didn't do it in heels.

Rasmussen now sports long red hair and breast implants, identifies as heterosexual and has a girlfriend. He says he has always been "transgender," but he went public only within the past few years, with an interesting explanation for doing so. "Some guys' mid-life crisis is motorcycles or sports cars or climbing mountains or trophy wives or whatever," he said. "I always wanted cleavage, so I went out and acquired some."

Faith and Family: Study links TV and teen pregnancy

For the first time, researchers have discovered a link between watching sexually charged television shows and teenage pregnancy rates. According to a new three-year national study conducted by the RAND Corporation, a non-profit research organization, adolescents who watch TV programming with sexual content are twice as likely to become pregnant or get someone pregnant over the next three years as those who watch few or no sex-filled programs.

"Watching this kind of sexual content on television is a powerful factor in increasing the likelihood of a teen pregnancy," said Anita Chandra, the study's lead researcher and a behavioral scientist at RAND. "We found a strong association." Few specific shows were named -- other than "Sex and the City," "Friends," and "That '70s Show" -- but Chandra indicated that others ran the gamut from dramas and comedies to reality shows and even cartoons.

While Chandra noted television is just one component of a total picture, stating, "We should also look at the roles that magazines, the Internet, and music play in teens' reproductive health," RAND recommended that parents "monitor their teens' TV viewing and provide education about the consequences of sex." Hmm... parents actually parenting. What a novel concept.

And last...

The Associated Press released a poll this week purporting to show that Americans are "willing to wait on tax cuts." If we didn't know better, we might think this was an effort to cover Barack Obama's rear as he prepares to break his campaign promise of a tax cut for 95 percent of Americans. But speaking of keeping the change, the Home Shopping Network has a dandy deal for the post-election festivities. Those Americans who actually bought Obama's campaign promises can now buy the "momentous" Barack Obama Change Collection. "Featuring a Washington Presidential Dollar, Kennedy Half Dollar, Illinois State Quarter and Hawaii State Quarter, each coin in this set holds a special connection to our 44th President and is exquisitely colorized with a unique and inspiring image of Barack Obama. It's the perfect way to commemorate a historic American event and the promise of change that comes with it!" Yes, they said "colorized." And as any savvy investor might ask, how much will that dollar, half dollar and two quarters set me back? A mere $24.95 (plus $8.95 shipping and handling). It's a fitting return on the investment for those who voted for Obama -- 1,700 percent in the hole.

*****

Veritas vos Liberabit -- Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus, et Fidelis! Mark Alexander, Publisher, for The Patriot's editors and staff.

(Please pray for our Patriot Armed Forces standing in harm's way around the world, and for their families -- especially families of those fallen Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen, who granted their lives in defense of American liberty.)