I saw this coming.  I was not surprised.  Anyone who has spent time on Townhall over the past two weeks had to have seen it, unless they were drinking their own Kool-Aid.  When the pundits and commentators on the right have to fight daily to rally the party faithful, the party's over.  And that's exactly what went wrong last night. 

In fact, I've said privately to people over the past few months that Republicans were going to have their a**es handed to them in November, and that they would deserve it.  I believed it then, and I believe it now.

Here's my take on things:

Everyone says that this election was about the war.  I don't buy it.  Oh, I do agree that a lot of people don't like our being in Iraq, and that the Bush administration's attitude about it seems to be to put its fingers in its ears and yell, "nah nah nah, I can't hear you," even when confronted with legitimate questions about the war, its program for success,  and a timetable for handing the country back to its people.  (This was exactly what people warned against 3+ years ago, was it not?)  But a number of things persuade me that that would not, in and of itself, have turned last night's election into the Rout of the Right that it was.

First, the American public in general is uncomfortable second-guessing the commander-in-chief and the military in general about military strategy.  They may not like the idea of a conflict, but they're willing to ride it out, at least up to a point. 

Secondly, as many commentators acknowledged last night, even a large number of Democrats and Democratic voters aren't willing to say that they want us "out of Iraq, now."  Most expressed a desire for oversight, real answers to genuine concerns, an admission that things are not going well, thank you very much, and a concrete plan - if not a specific timetable for departure.

Third - and this is the critical point in my view - those Americans who have despised the war in Iraq from the very beginning would have voted against it no matter what the President did or didn't say.

Fourth, yes, people do remember Vietnam, and there are enough historians among us to recall that we lost there because we lost our will.  Additionally, no one (except perhaps John Kerry) wants the troops currently in Iraq to be made to feel like those who served in Vietnam did for years - abandoned, maligned, unappreciated and discarded.

Nope - this election was about defection.  It was a system failure from within.  Conservative Republicans (fiscally and socially), Libertarians (like myself) who often vote Republican, and Independents of all stripes who do the same fled the Republicans in droves last night.  And for good reason.

Again, a lot of the talking heads last night focused on Congressional Repubs' rubberstamping the President's "see-no-problem, hear-no-problem" approach to Iraq.  But I do not think even that would have turned the party faithful against them, because privately (and this means locally, among their voters), many Congressional Republicans were deeply critical of the war.

But the Republicans were voted into office because their constituents believed in certain things, and sent them there to take care of those things.  What have the Republicans done over the past few years? 

• They did exactly nothing to resolve the looming catastrophe that is Social Security. 
• They did exactly nothing to address the problem of the "death tax." 
• They waffled and wobbled and caved on illegal immigration (another issue on which Bush has misstepped, and badly, with those who voted for him in 2000 and 2004).
• They stammered and stuttered and rallied to defend their own when one after another Republican was tainted by association with disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff
• And they spent like drunken sailors - government expenditures exploding under Republican control of the House and Senate in a way that would have made New Deal Democrats proud!  For this, we need Republican control???

And the Mark Foley scandal - I am sorry, folks - absolutely did them in.  This was the straw that broke the camel's back.

The Democrats' trumped up indignation and horror was admittedly specious and hypocritical, it's true.  (Had Foley been sending text messages to teenaged girls, the Dems' only concern would have been whether she could have had an abortion if they had sex and she got pregnant, and now-Speaker Pelosi can hardly profess to be appalled by Foley's conduct, given that the age of consent in D.C. in 16, and hailing as she does from the gay capital of the United States). 

But it wasn't just Foley's conduct, which many Republicans, Libertarians, Independents and more conservative Democrats found disgusting and abusive.  It was the fact that (whether Denny Hastert knew anything or not), we all know that plenty of Republicans knew about Foley's "orientation," his predilection for young teenaged boys, and his lascivious pursuit of them, and no one did anything.

The Democrats' reaction aside, the fact is, the Republicans profess to hold themselves to a higher standard.  More to the point, their voters hold them to a higher standard.

Right-wing commentators' and columnists' advocacy pieces over the past few weeks have amounted to, "Hold your nose and vote red."  (Thomas Sowell, as usual, said it best when he quipped, "Better a third-rate fireman than a first rate arsonist.") 

Not a good enough reason.  When confronted with endemic fiscal profligacy and irresponsibility, utter abandonment of the principles of limited government, widespread lack of concern over the country's porous borders and nose-thumbing and flagrant disregard for immigration laws, lobbyist improprieties, sexual immorality (and, frankly, predation), and good-ol'-boy-style coverups, a significant portion of Americans who have voted Republican for years either stayed home, or voted for someone else.

The Republicans came across as fat, lazy, unmotivated and corrupt.  Their own voters abandoned them, and the Democrats - with absolutely NOTHING to offer as an alternative - were able to capitalize on this wide and deep sentiment.

When the dust settles, and people start counting the votes, I think this will become crystal clear.

But there is another message here - and this one is for the Democrats:

The Democrats were put into office not so much by people who voted for them, as for people who voted against their opponents (and their opponents' party).  For this reason - and the reason that they ran with virtually no platform - Democrats would be fools to think that they've been sent to Congress with any sort of "mandate" - particularly anything that attempts top-down social engineering, increased taxation, tolerance for terrorists or runaway spending.

These, of course, are the things Democrats do best.  And no doubt they are already planning their legislative agendas, heady with victory.

This would be a mistake.

On FoxNews last night, Sheppard Smith remarked in a somewhat baffled tone that, based on the referenda and other ballot initiatives, America seems to remain a deeply conservative country, despite the overwhelming support for Democratic candidates last night. 

My take on the elections certainly explains this.  It's precisely because the voters' views have not changed that the election came out the way it did.  As many bloggers have said here, "I didn't leave the Republicans; they left me."

We not only have a divided Congress under Democratic control; we have a Congress with only the most tentative of support from the American public.  It will be interesting to see what the current Congress tries to do with that.

My sister wrote a response to Roger Friedman's article today on Fox411.  I thought it warranted publication in its own right.  Here it is:

Why is it that whenever a public figure speaks out on behalf of the rights
of the unborn, others almost cringe in anticipation of what it will do to
his or her popularity?  When we're talking about life or death of innocent
human beings, who cares what others think?  And frankly, kudos to those who
speak and let the chips fall where they may.  What that tells me is that
they stand for something -- that they have integrity -- and don't let the
subtle or not-so-subtle pressure of others silence them. 

So Michael J. Fox has Parkinson's.  I'm truly sorry about that, and I'll say
that I was a big fan of his as a teenager and young adult.  But the question
that I have yet to see asked of him, or the late Christopher Reeve, or any
other public proponent of embryonic stem cell research is:  why is their
life more valuable than that of the unborn human being?  Why should
scientists kill developing human beings in order to try to save those that
are already developed?  Does one have more intrinsic value over the other?
I'd like to have that question asked of Michael, and have the public hear
him respond that he believes that his life is more important than those of
the countless developing human beings that will be destroyed through
embryonic stem cell research.

We are all humans -- regardless of the stage of development.  And as soon as
society starts distinguishing between those that are more valuable versus
those that are less, we'll really have a life/death crisis on our hands.
Actually, that time has already arrived.  Why stop at embryos -- how about
the physically and mentally handicapped, the elderly, those with Alzheimer's
who are a nuisance to their caretakers.  Humans have no right to decide
who's worth saving and who's not.  That's not our decision to make.  And I'm
ashamed of those who publicly profess that they'd like to see others
destroyed so that they can have a chance at a better life.  What about those
who then have no life at all because of the decisions of other people??!!
Perhaps Michael would feel better if he had never been born -- if he had
been a donated embryo who had been destroyed to try to find a cure for what
ailed another.  At least he wouldn't have Parkinson's, would he?

There has been no scientific proof that I've seen or read about that states
that science has a better chance of finding cures using embryonic stem cells
versus adult stem cells.  Why can't we use those exclusively -- so no life
has to be destroyed -- in the name of research?

I applaud Patricia Heaton, and those like her, who do not place their
popularity or careers ahead of what they believe is right.  And to those who
scoff and say, "Well, let's see if she gets another script any time soon," I say,
grow up.

This article is absolutely infuriating.  So, if the United States decides to take measures to make it more difficult for anyone to enter our country illegally, that goes "against the spirit of understanding"?

Translation:  That goes against the spirit of your taking as many of the millions of our destitute population as we can persuade to cross the Rio Grande with this handy-dandy pamphlet.  (By the way, check out the well-endowed gringa in the purple jumpsuit on page 18 [titled, "You have rights."]  No wonder the Mexican men are crossing the border in droves.  Somebody better let the folks down south know that most of us up here don't look like that.)

And historically-challenged Mexican President Vincente Let-the-FOX-Guard-the-Henhouse, calls it "shameful" and compares it to the Berlin Wall?  Yo, Vince - the Berlin Wall was built to keep people IN. 

According to the article, Mexico intends to challenge the building of the fence at the United Nations.  Oooooh.  We're really scared now.  After all, the United Nations has a history of putting such teeth into its resolutions.

The fact that other countries even have the audacity to suggest that there is anything inappropriate about not allowing anyone to walk across the border is insanity.  Especially in this day and age.

If I hear one more song sung in praise of Madonna's "mothering," I am going to throw up. 

I do not challenge others' claims that her children are well-behaved (and here's hoping it stays that way when they hit sixteen, get their first foreign sedan, and join the ranks of Hollywood's de facto emancipated minors).

But why should pursing her lips while talking about manners, and adopting "little brown babies" (to paraphrase Agatha Christie) give Madonna a pass while she pumps her anti-Christian pro-promiscuity filth into the culture at a record-breaking rate?  Her latest concert tour mocks the Crucifixion (wherein she plays the Christ figure), and her past forays into music and literature have included the exploration of bondage, sado-masochism, and orgies.  But hey - she, famously, doesn't let her children watch television.

This makes her a paragon of motherhood?  She's far more like Marie Antoinette than the real madonna.  Everyone else's children can suffocate in the cesspool she cr*ps into everyday, while hers are protected.

Excuse me if I don't applaud.

And no, I am not talking about the football team.

Here's a win for school choice, courtesy of the Ohio Supreme Court.

Will we see this one up at the U.S. Supreme Court?

... "they may be crooks, liars, degenerates, weaklings and thieves, but they're our crooks, liars, degenerates, weaklings and thieves."

Linda Chavez' "defense" (if you want to call it that) of voting Republican, is by far the worst:

"I'm angry at Republicans for abandoning their principles. This Republican president, aided and abetted by Congress, has increased federal spending at a reckless rate, even when the costs of the war in Iraq are taken out of the equation. I'm embarrassed by the scandals that have plagued some Republicans and by the abject failure of the leadership to do anything meaningful on lobbying reform. I'm sickened by the cronyism that protected former Congressman Mark Foley and put children at risk. I'm disappointed that after years of claiming to be the party of colorblind equal opportunity, Republicans have actually expanded racial preferences in federal programs. I'm disheartened by the demagoguery on immigration and the refusal to do the one thing guaranteed to stop illegal immigration, namely, enact a broad guest worker program."

Is this the best we can do?

To my way of thinking, the only reason to vote Republican is the one advanced by Michael Medved today - the possibility of John Paul Stevens stepping down.  And I said that myself days ago.

I think that the things that Rush Limbaugh allegedly said (I didn't listen to the broadcast)about Michael J. Fox yesterday ridiculous.  For heaven's sake, why do you want to deflect attention away from the core issue by a specious attack on the veracity of symptoms of an illness everyone knows he has?  And anyone who has seen someone with Parkinson's knows what those symptoms look like.  Why assume he is "acting"?

And none of that is the point. Yes, Mr. Fox has Parkinson's.  Yes, it is a grievous disease.  And yes, we want to find a cure.  Having said that, I think that people opposing embryonic stem cell research are dropping the ball on this one.

Focusing on Mr. Fox's legitimate suffering, and his sincere desire to find a cure for himself and everyone else with this disease obscures what price we ought - and ought not - be willing to pay for such a cure (assuming we can find one, and I believe that we can).

To my way of thinking, the ad should be rewritten so that the following words came out of Mr. Fox's mouth, instead of what he says pursuant to the actual script of the commercial:

    "Hi.  I'm Michael J. Fox.  I suffer from Parkinson's Disease, a crippling, disabling and degenerative disease that has no known cure.  I want a cure.  And I think that hundreds - even thousands, or tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands - of human beings should be destroyed so that we can find a cure.  Don't you?"

Stop film.  Start voiceover: "Wait -- is that what Mr. Fox really wants?  Yes.  Because embryonic stem cell research requires the creation and destruction of separate and distinct human beings.  Each and every one.  Every embryo has a sex, and a complete and distinct DNA, just like the rest of us.  Every single human being on the planet begins life as an embryo."
 
"Mr. Fox and others who advocate for embryonic stem cell research argue that these embryos aren't human beings.  That is scientifically untrue.  They argue that those embryos will die anyway.  Every single one of us will die, anyway, eventually.  The same arguments that apply to human embryos can be used to apply to old humans, disabled humans, terminally ill humans, and humans on death row."

"We want a cure for Mr. Fox, too.  But creating and destroying human beings - even to make life better for other human beings, is wrong."

And that is the point.

... for more anti-corporate hysteria.

Townhall columnist Paul Driessen wrote yesterday that the same folks who blather on and on about global warming ignore the benefits that fossil fuels could bring to third world countries.  This sort of apparent hypocrisy is hardly news.  DDT would save lives from malaria, but who really cares?  The posturing about global warming is exactly like the complaints about outsourcing, and third world economic development, and a whole host of other things that would (and DO) bring legitimate benefits to impoverished nations.

When I hear people complaining about the impact that so-called "outsourcing" has on U.S. jobs, I ask them, "Are you opposed to improving the working conditions and contributing to the economic development of third world nations?"  because inevitably, the complainants are the same people who profess to want "world peace" and to "end poverty in our lifetime."

Similarly, I attended a workshop two years ago on (which is to say, opposing) globalization.  Most of the speakers there complained of the paternalistic attitude of "first world" nations wanting to sell Coca-Cola, and t-shirts, and technology for building roads, and arms, to third world nations.

After a few of these speeches, I asked, "But if these indigenous peoples have decided that they WANT Coca-Cola, and something other than mud paths through the Amazon, and ammunition to defend themselves, is it not just as paternalistic to tell them we won't trade with them, because it makes us feel better knowing that they're out there somewhere acting as our conscience-assuaging third world zoo?"

The room fell silent.  And at least one brave soul had the courage to admit, "My goodness, I never thought of it that way!" 

Nope.  Because autonomy and self-sufficiency are NOT part of the plan.

I referred to this attitude as "apparent hypocrisy" above, for a reason.  Well-meaning corporate executives, some right-wing politicians, and much of the American public in general all labor under the completely false belief that "if only" the Left would see how much wealth and job creation, social improvement, and alleviation of suffering corporations bring about, they would change their tune.

This could not be less true.

Since the turn of the twentieth century, there has been a deliberate and insidious campaign among left-wing legal scholars to demonize corporations and use them as instruments of wealth confiscation and redistribution.  Some went so far as to admit that government control over the means of production would never take place through the legislative process, and so the next best thing was to use the courts, and the tort system.

Corporations are tolerated by the Left only to the extent that they are willing to accept guilt for making a profit, lay back and let themselves be used as social insurers.  They are not opposed by the Left because they do not create wealth, they are opposed because they DO.

Several of the commentators for Driessen's piece acknowledged, in essence, that the Left's very existence is utterly dependent upon people who are utterly dependent.  Bingo.

Ayn Rand had it right back in the 1940s.  It would really be something if all of the American corporations just closed up shop here and went someplace else.  Then what would the liberals spend?  What do you have when you have a government that wants to tax businesses that don't exist?  If you want to know, you need only look at sub-Saharan Africa.

Here is another of my common retorts to the pro-big-government-anti-big-business crowd: "It's baffling to me that you all don't trust big business, which is run by people with money.  But you have a faith approaching religious zeal for big government, which is run by people with money and guns."

I haven't heard a satisfactory answer to that one yet.

Here is my take on the whole "personally opposed" schtick.  Along with a dash of ire thrown in for the claim that conservatives are "immoral" unless they themselves adopt the babies.  I posted this as a comment on Looking Left's blog.....

As an attorney (and a pro-life individual) I get weary reading about all the people who are "personally opposed" to abortion, but don't want it criminalized or regulated.  As if there aren't laws criminalizing or regulating any other matters affecting human health and life.

You cannot have it both ways.  You cannot claim the moral high ground by being "personally opposed" to something that you claim in the same breath everyone else should be able to do.  (In fact, if one considers some of the other positions held by more extreme left-wing groups, it becomes clear that they are NOT just "personally opposed" to things that they feel everyone else should be able to do.  Many of them are "personally opposed" to eating meat.  Wearing leather.  Smoking cigarettes. Hunting.  Driving cars.  And they don't want any of the rest of us doing those things, either.  Presumably because of some high moral principle they adhere to, and, sadly, typically involving the protection of life other than human.)

All kinds of conduct is criminalized or regulated because of the impact it has on others, regardless of how inconvenient it might be to the people affected.  Furthermore, there is morality in defending certain conduct and condemning other conduct, and it does not depend on personally stepping in and solving the problem yourself.

The fact that some pro-life advocates cannot agree on how far into pregnancy certain types of abortion should take place is only further proof that it should, as a general principle, be prohibited, period. 

By way of example, our legal system doesn't say that you can bludgeon your aging grandmother with a sledgehammer, but only if she's over 85 years old.  It says you cannot do it at all.  What if that's inconvenient?  What if she's suffering from Alzeimer's?  What if you just cannot afford to support her anymore? 

The classic left response to this is that a human being at the fetal stage of development (as opposed to infancy, toddlerhood, childhood, adolescence, adulthood, etc.) does not have the same rights as their 85 year old granny.

That only begs the question.  How is it an argument to say that an unborn SHOULDN'T have any rights, because they DON'T have any rights?

It isn't, of course.  And if someone claims that, then they aren't really "personally opposed" to abortion at all.  Furthermore, such an position is based on thirty years of pro-abortion propaganda and bad science.  A human being is a human being.  That's a designation of species.  Everything else is just developmental.

And how does it sound for someone to claim, "I'm personally opposed to bludgeoning old ladies with sledgehammers, but I certainly don't want the government coming in and deciding when MY granny is past her prime."  What - in other words, YOU want to have that right yourself?  Again, so much for personal opposition.

Finally, if I defend, on principle, your demented granny's objective (as opposed to subjective) value as a human being, and her inalienable right to exist whether she's convenient to you or not, my position is not made "immoral" or otherwise undercut simply because I can't or don't show up at your house and offer to take care of her myself.

That is a classic straw man argument, and it's staggering how many people buy it.

In fact, it's really characteristic of the way many so-called liberals view morality - always at a distance, and rarely close up.  It isn't a matter of how you live your life, but what you profess to believe about the world at large.  Stealing someone's husband away?  Don't criticize me!  Who are you to judge?  And anyway, I'm adopting orphans from foreign countries and running around clamoring for world peace and an end to poverty.

Morality, like charity, begins at home. 

As if we need any further reason to keep our children away from popular media.

According to a story on FoxNews.com today, Cornell University researcher Michael Waldman, Ph.D. has recently released a study demonstrating a possible connection between the increased time that toddlers now spend in front of TV, videos and computer screens, and the explosion of diagnosed cases of autism over the past two decades.

It's interesting to read about Waldman's efforts to screen for other variables that could have produced the same results - increased incidences of autism in communities with higher-than-average cable TV/video watching time.  But one of the statements in the article that I found most compelling was this one:

"It occurred to Cornell University management professor Michael Waldman, PhD, that the increase in autism cases came at the same time as increased opportunities for very young children to watch TV. Could it be, he wondered, that the explosion in children's TV programming, DVDs, VCRs, and video/computer games is behind the explosion in autism diagnoses?  Waldman asked his colleagues in the medical world to look at the issue. Nobody would."

Waldman is a business researcher.  This, some may say, will discredit his work in this area.  Perhaps.  But I find it gratifying that someone is willing to conduct research on this topic.

When I was a child, my mother used to tell us that watching television "rots your brain."  She was certainly neither a medical nor a social science researcher; just a mom like so many millions of others with good common sense and gut instincts.

And now it appears she may have been right.

More from The Chronicle of Higher Education ...

Human Rights Watch has issued a report exposing Iran's manipulation and exploitation of college students, listing those students who were barred from higher education because of their political activism and beliefs, as well as those who were required to sign statements swearing to particular belief systems and promising to adhere to particular "political and ideological regulations."

So, here's an interesting thought.  The Columbia University students here safe in their little democratic cocoons can storm the stage and prevent the Minutemen from speaking:

        "This is not an issue of free speech," they said. 

Nope, because no one gets to speak but them.  And ...

        "We are proud to send the message to the country that racist and fascist groups are not welcome at Columbia or in New York City."

And what are the Minutemen advocating?  Keeping illegal immigrants from entering the United States by patrolling the border, capturing them, and sending them back.

I guess racist and fascist groups are welcome at Harvard, however.  When former Iranian president Mohammad Khatami spoke at Harvard in September, and made the following justification about the execution of homosexuals in Iran, he was met with a peaceful silence:

"In many Islamic countries homosexual relationships as well as non-consensual heterosexual relationships have been punishable...There are also others, there are others in the world that have similar views namely important sects of Christianity...So yes you are correct homosexual activity is a crime in Islam...And crimes are punishable...The fact that could crimes be punished by execution is debatable...And that we must differentiate between punishment and violence."

Isn't that amazing?  Argue that illegal immigrants should be returned to their home countries, and you're a "racist" and a "fascist" who deserves being shouted and stormed off the stage.  But if you represent a regime that executes homosexuals and deprives students of an education because of their political views, you get deference and civility.

Is this what "tolerance" and "diversity" mean?

I realize, of course, that the same students who prevented the Minutemen from speaking were not at Harvard.  My point is that students in this country don't know how good they have it.  And they would find out in a big hurry if they lived in Iran.

The Chronicle of Higher Education has a story this week on a report issued by the Institute for Jewish and Community Research which exposes the left-wing bias of university faculty that, the report drafters conclude, "puts them at odds with the beliefs of most Americans on national and international issues."  The report accuses the American professoriate of "groupthink," according to the Chronicle, and says that unlike most Americans, university professors "blame America for world problems" and "regard American foreign policy as "suspect."

Since this article in the Chronicle is for subscribers only, here are some of the highlights:

1.  Professors are three times as likely to call themselves "liberal" as "conservative."

2.  In the 2004 presidential election, 72 percent of those surveyed voted for John Kerry.

3.  Almost one-third of professors cite the United States as among the top two greatest threats to international stability -- more than cited Iran, China, or Iraq.

4.  Over half (54%) say U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East is partially responsible for the growth of Islamic militancy.

And the big killer, in my view:

5.  In general, professors are critical of American business and foreign policy and are skeptical of capitalism

This is hardly news for those of us who have been in academia for some time.   But it is nevertheless appalling.  Not only does the American professoriate pooh-pooh the very political system that offers them the freedom to criticize, but it also deeply resents the economic system that pays them to do so!

 In his column today, Larry Elder highlights the absurd differences in the treatment Mel Gibson received (a public flaying) for his asinine and drunken comments, and that which Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad received (fawning and bootlicking) at the hands of Mike Wallace from 60 Minutes.  Despite public rants about "wiping Israel off the map" and loud protests that the Holocaust never happened, Iran's fearless leader doesn't get cast as an anti-Semite.  Instead, Wallace praised and complimented Ahmedinejad as being "smart," "savvy," "self-assured" and "rational."  (Thanks to Jeff Jacoby for these quotes.)

"Rational"???  Who is this guy kidding?

Elder asks, quite sensibly, who is the real anti-Semite?  And he wonders why no one else is asking that question.

But it's not really about being anti-Semitic, of course.  On the surface, it's just about vanity.  Mike Wallace wants to be the guy who gets the interview with the nutcase everyone's talking about.  And if that means he fawns and grovels and throws softballs and avoid inflammatory questions (and preposterous answers) well, then, so be it.

But at its essence, what this is about is not so much vanity as it is fear.  No one in the mainstream media (or American intelligentsia) takes Mahmoud Ahmedinejad seriously, because none of them believe in the god he is talking about.  They don't fear Ahmedinejad, and they don't resent him, because they don't believe in an Allah who promises suicide bombers 72 virgins in paradise.  So they treat the Iranian president's ravings as those of a lunatic.  (An understandable reaction religiously speaking, I suppose, if stupid politically, given Ahmedinejad's control of weaponry and nuclear technology.)

But the MSM and the American Left (which includes much of the arts and entertainment and intelligentsia) hate Israel and they hate people like Mel Gibson, not because they are anti-Semitic per se, but because they are afraid of the God that those people represent.  The Judeo-Christian God and His emissary in the Christian faith, Jesus Christ, do strike desperate fear into their hearts.  They hate both, and will do everything in their power to discredit them, and to humiliate everyone who purports to follow them.

All of this is largely because the tenets of the Judeo-Christian faith call for things like personal responsibility, selflessness, sexual restraint, piety, marital fidelity, parental responsibility.  Mike Wallace and his ilk feel they have nothing to fear from Allah and Islam, which is so far from their sphere of understanding that they feel confortable treating it as absurd.  But the requirements demanded by Judaism or Christianity?  Well, that's another thing altogether.

Will someone tell me why the "winner" of this disgusting contest is getting American dollars?

I've got a new blog available on Townhall.com.  Welcome!  I hope to have some posts of interests up here soon.