1. Appear to force Biden to gracefully bow out of the running
2. Generate publicity for Obama campaign
3. Throw McCain strategist's off trail of actual Obama pick
4. Usher in real VP pick:  Hillary Clinton 

You live in a red county in a red state.  You are intellectually secure in your conservative values.  You are all races.  You are intelligent, open-minded, and investigate the facts -- even to the point of closely inspecting your church’s financial statement before you joined.  But have you checked out where your hard-earned legal fees are going?

Take a look at the stats below (courtesy of OpenSecrets.org, a product of Center for Responsive Politics).  Odds are if your friendly neighborhood law firm is politically active, or such is the case with your firm’s parent organization, your legal fees are supporting the Democratic Party and the message of special interest groups like MoveOn.org.

Lawyers/Law Firms:
Long-Term Contribution Trends 
 

Election Cycle	Rank†	Total Contributions	Contributions from Individuals	Contributions from PACs	Soft Money Contributions	Donations to Democrats	Donations to Republicans	% to Dems	% to Repubs
2006*	1	$121,298,780	$106,303,569	$14,995,211	N/A	$85,457,563	$34,447,101	70%	28%
2004*	2	$183,988,149	$172,049,701	$11,938,448	N/A	$137,072,634	$46,103,492	75%	25%
2002	1	$95,553,742	$63,884,114	$9,999,358	$21,670,270	$70,821,467	$24,518,041	74%	26%
2000	1	$113,553,374	$82,720,862	$9,566,331	$21,266,181	$78,426,011	$34,434,633	69%	30%
1998	1	$60,462,250	$44,853,479	$7,886,660	$7,722,111	$43,726,359	$16,501,894	72%	27%
1996	1	$77,390,903	$59,279,869	$7,836,941	$10,274,093	$53,961,138	$23,170,715	70%	30%
1994	1	$49,389,515	$39,326,845	$6,787,904	$3,274,766	$36,658,397	$12,651,540	74%	26%
1992	1	$57,151,188	$47,428,859	$6,805,394	$2,916,935	$41,134,595	$15,881,857	72%	28%
1990	1	$24,986,617	$20,099,649	$4,886,968	N/A	$17,201,310	$7,780,182	69%	31%
Total	1	$783,774,518	$635,946,947	$80,703,215	$67,124,356	$564,459,474	$215,489,455	72%	27%

What can you do?

Before hiring an attorney, research his/her firm's political fundraising activities on sites like www.opensecrets.org and www.campaignmoney.com.  Research campaign contributors according to the firm in which you desire to contract, according to your prospective firm's parent company, or enter relevant attorney names.  Review results, voice concerns, and forward findings to others.

You make every effort possible to not support liberal causes.  Don't allow your legal fees to be the exception to the rule. 

†[The above] numbers show how the industry ranks in total campaign giving as compared to more than 80 other industries. Rankings are shown only for industries (such as the Automotive industry) -- not for widely encompassing "sectors" (such as Transportation) or more detailed "categories" (like car dealers).

*These figures do not include donations of "Levin" funds to state and local party committees. Levin funds were created by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002.

METHODOLOGY: The numbers on this page are based on contributions of $200 or more from PACs and individuals to federal candidates and from PAC, soft money and individual donors to political parties, as reported to the Federal Election Commission. While election cycles are shown in charts as 1996, 1998, 2000 etc. they actually represent two-year periods. For example, the 2002 election cycle runs from January 1, 2001 to December 31, 2002.  Data for the current election cycle were released by the Federal Election Commission on Monday, June 04, 2007.

NOTE: Soft money contributions to the national parties were not publicly disclosed until the 1991-92 election cycle, and were banned by the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act following the 2002 elections.
Source:  www.OpenSecrets.org (Center for Responsive Politics, 09.28.07)

My response to Felicia Curran’s blog (www.elderadvocacyblog.com) in which she notes:
“These private investment companies [that have purchased nursing homes] are even more profit-driven than the large publicly traded corporations that sold them the nursing homes.” 

Note:  Ms. Curran is an attorney with Boxer and Gerson, Oakland, CA.  The “Boxer” in the firm’s name pertains to Stewart Boxer, husband of Senator Barbara Boxer.  Senator Boxer, along with other prominent Democrats, has been the recipient of campaign contributions from Milberg, Weiss et al.  Milberg Weiss is the law firm on the legal ropes as a result of several of its attorneys being named as defendants in the USPIS/IRS case involving alleged illegal kick-backs to lead plaintiffs in class-action lawsuits.

9/25/07

Dear Ms. Curran:

I had to laugh at the irony in your blog.  We the people are to be shocked that nursing home corporations are interested in making a profit -- as if law firms are not interested in pursuing the same objective -- often at the expense of innocent elderly shareholders named as defendants in class action lawsuits of the type devised by unscrupulous law firms.

Also, it's no wonder that privatized nursing homes have to lay off medical workers to remain competitive, since medical care facilities have to set aside "rainy day" big bucks for insurance and legal fees pertaining to frivolous malpractice lawsuits.

You should create a unique blog like "Attorneys for Tort Reform".  I believe that would be interesting and more beneficial to the elderly in the long run.

Sincerely,

GrandView

cc: http://grandview.townhall.com

Many political pundits in the media will be surprised when they witness Duncan Hunter’s strong finish in the upcoming Iowa straw poll. So-called news analysts often relegate Hunter to “Tier II “ candidate status because they don’t understand conservative voters’ anger regarding 8 years of Clinton -- and 8 years of watered-down conservatism under George W. Bush.

Conservatives do not want 4 years of “conservative-light” under Giuliani or McCain. Romney came across as literally shaky on the abortion issue during last Sunday’s Republican debate. Huckabee, Paul, Brownback and the rest of the field lack the “gravitas” factor – and won’t be able to stand up to the likely Democratic presidential nominee, Hillary Clinton.

I believe the majority of conservatives in Iowa will cast their vote for Duncan Hunter, because the more they hear him speak, the more they will like him. They will realize his integrity and his love for America; they will know they can count on him to stand tough against America’s enemies.

Voters will begin to study his consistently conservative 26-year congressional record and learn about his previous military leadership (during the Vietnam War Duncan Hunter proudly served in the 173^rd Airborne Brigade and the 75^th Army Rangers).

When Hunter finishes strong in the Iowa straw poll and states’ caucuses and primaries to come, his campaign will gain momentum. If he garners his party’s presidential nomination and selects an excellent vice presidential running mate, he will win the White House. That will be good news, not just for conservatives, but for all Americans.

President Hunter. I like the sound of that.

Published 8/5/07 as a response to a Politico.com Article concerning Boehner's Leadership of the minority party within U.S. House of Congress:

Representative Boehner's leadership is definitely questionable.

The GOP leadership has been wandering in the wilderness, now, for almost 20 years. You'd think they would have seen what made the Reagan era so successful and bottled some of the Gipper's formula for years to come. But along come so-called leaders like Trent Lott and Boehner who, in the majority, decide its time to strike a conciliatory tone towards the minority party.

The GOP determined senators like Snowe and Collins are better than having Democrats fill their respective seats -- and where did that get them? Continual slaps in the face from Snowe and Collins who wouldn't know integrity if it was a sign glued to their faces.

Along comes W. who decides to be a bigger spender than Clinton. Along come Republican legislators who can't help but get in trouble with the law. And after the 2006 congressional election debacle, who did the GOP return to power? The same party leadership who drove them into the ground. There is an obvious disconnect between GOP leadership and the voters who elected them.

Look at major conservative blogs like Townhall and Politico. Are the prominent blogs those of Joe and Jane Citizen? No, the spotlight is on main figures of  the conservative media. Townhall even divides its blogs according to "the Townhall blogs" and "your blogs" -- "your blogs" being like the kids relegated to the ping-pong table at the annual Thanksgiving dinner. We should feed them, but they don't need to mingle with the adults. Usually when emailing prominent conservative talk-show hosts, emailers never receive even an automated reply stating their opinions were worth at least one cent.

Conservative middle class voters--blue collar workers, middle managers, NASCAR fans, Sunday School teachers, etc. -- have one outlet -- the voting booth. Their opportunity to have an impact on public policy only comes around about as often as Halley's Comet. Even then, the outcome is not in their favor, because their man or woman will often lose to a Democrat or a so-called "moderate" Republican (see Snowe/Collins) who never can seem to vote with their party when it counts.

On the rare occasion when they are able to send conservatives to office, they expect them to fight like Coeburn of Oklahoma for every inch of turf they can get, because they don't know when they'll have the opportunity again. When their officials' votes are illegally shut out they expect their legislators to fight, fight, fight for Justice -- like Blunt -- and not to say "let bygones be bygones" or admininster discipline via worthless words in the Congressional record -- as if people like Murtha care if Boehner enters "he was mean, blah blah blah". If one has ever seen and listened to Murtha on the ABSCAM video (see YouTube), one would know how little he cares whether he trampled over the Constitution, or House rules, etc.

I watched live C-Span the other day while Sennsenbrenner was continuallry over-ridden by Bull-Dog Murtha as Sennesenbrenner doggedly attempted to have the previous night's vote recorded. Where were Sennsenbrenner's allies Friday morning? To wait until Saturday morning, as Boehner did, to enter arguments into the history books is weak and ineffective.

Boehner and the GOP leadership should be flooding YouTube and other media outlets with video after video regarding Democrats' actions this past week in Congress. But, sadly, that is not being done. Where is the fight for the people?  I think Boehner sees himself as a great spokesperson for rational discourse. Meanwhile the silenced majority in his party would rather see him roll up his sleeves and fight.

Roy Blunt hears the people and fights for justice. I believe Boehner merely fights for his image. Who knows? The Republican leadership seems light-years away.

See http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0807/5252.html

Published, 8/5/07, as a response to a mainewebreport.com article (concerning Senator Collins' voting "perfect" voting record):

 

Great voting record Senator Collins.

But where is the outrage from you and the other senator from Maine over Democrats' actions in the House this past week?

Yes, of course, the House is a separate body from the august Senate, however your outrage should be over the opposition's stealing an important vote -- on live (C-SPAN) television, no less -- and thus negating legitimate representation as defined and mandated by the Constitution.

You, as citizens, were not heard Thursday night (that is, unless you elected Democrats to represent your respective districts).

If you and senator Snowe are really Democrats I can understand your silence. After all you really didn't care when Clinton lied before a grand jury. But if you are truly Republicans you will make known -- loudly and continually -- your opposition to the actions of Pelosi, Murtha, Hoyer, and McNultey. You should be asking that they be censured and/or resign.

But alas, I know you won't. You probably have a round of golf scheduled with each of them this week -- and true opposition would make for awkward conversation at the 19th hole.

See http://www.mainewebreport.com/2007/08/02/maine-senate-race-working-hard-or-hardly-working/

 

Armani-crats Burn the Reichstag

Excellent summation Mr. Delay. If the Dems can't defeat their enemies legally, they'll simply burn them down. If you don't believe me ask the would-be minority leaders of the DNC. I hope minorities, seniors, union workers, the impoverished, the ill, the uneducated, the disenfranchised, the young, the illegals, and the rest of the Rainbow Coalition were paying attention to what happened last night. Hope they remember last night when they go to the polls and reflect on how little the Dems really care about their rights.

 8/3/07

When do Leahy and Specter do the work, respectively, of Vermont and Pennsylvania?  Why do the voters of these two great states continue to return these two to DC?

Every other day they appear, courtesy of CSPAN, squawking over witnesses seated miles lower than the senators lofty perches.  Leahy and Specter undoubtedly hope their tirades will be aired on prime-time network television in their continued effort to dismantle the Bush White House.

How many hours have they devoted to hearings asking innane questions such as "how often did you use this email address?"  How many hours have they devoted to reviewing staff notes prior to hearings, and to meeting with witnesses and others outside the committee room/

Where was their zealous pursuit of justice when Clinton lied before the grand jury?   Specter, a Republican, and lover of limelight no matter which party is in power, actually criticized Republicans for their role in impeaching then President Clinton.

I hope the good citizens of Pennyslvania and Vermont will count the cost of supporting two grandstanding senators, come to their senses, and replace them with legislators who are impassioned about serving on their behalf.

 

8/2/07

    Congresswoman Diana DeGette (D – Colorado) entertained callers’ questions yesterday morning on C-Span’s Washington Journal concerning the Children's Health and Medicare Protection (CHAMP) Act of 2007. The bill, supported by Democrats, and passed late last night, will reauthorize the State Children's Health Insurance Program [SCHIP]).

    Conservative callers to the program rightfully objected to certain elements of this legislation – namely the enormous increase in cost to the American taxpayer, the extension to middle class families earning over $80,000, availability of coverage to children of illegal aliens, etc.

    Of course, Ms. DeGette had an answer for every objection – the bottom line being “these are children we’re talking about”. As one caller pointed out, however, medical benefits under SCHIP would cover “kids” up to 25 years old. No, Ms. DeGette informed the caller, the bill only covers “kids” up to 21 years old.

    Despite Ms. DeGette’s defense of CHAMP-SCHIP legislation, I found what she omitted to be of greater interest. The following is what Ms. DeGette did not discuss:

1. Her efforts to lift the White House ban on stem cell research

2. Her support for abortion (yes she is sponsored by EMILY’s List) results in the death of thousands of children every year.

3. Democrats’ consistent anti-God, anti-family legislation weakens the American family.

4. Democrats’ elimination of the Tobacco industry would be healthier for Americans than their taxing Big Tobacco as a means of increasing government revenue; if they truly believe tobacco kills, they should ban it.

5. Democrats’ anti-business legislation reduces jobs in this country – thus expanding poverty.

6. Her 2006 political campaign (source: www.opensecrets.org and Center for Responsive Politics) was funded, by and large, by businesses

-- 54.1% contributors were PACS

-- 67.9% of PAC contributors were businesses

7. Ms. DeGette is married to Lino Lipinsky De Orlov, an attorney with McKenna, Long, and Aldridge (a relationship which benefits Ms. Lipinsky financially – see www.opensecrets.org).  Mr. Lipinsky is licensed to practice law in Colorado and DC.

From McKenna, Long, and Aldridge’s website (source: www.mckennalong.com):

“PUBLIC HEALTH AND PHARMACEUTICAL COMPLIANCE: DESCRIPTION

McKenna Long & Aldridge has one of the broadest, most experienced practices in the area of public health procurement, federal health care programs, biodefense and the marketing and sales practices of pharmaceuticals, biotechs and medical suppliers. Our practice focuses on laws and regulations affecting the types of relationships with the federal government…”

 

    I appreciate CNBC’s basically asking guest financial analysts if they benefit personally from the investments they are recommending. It would behoove CSPAN/Washington Journal hosts and callers to take a similar approach when it comes to elected officials and the legislation they support.

 

7/17/07

Dear Mr. Chertoff:

Please overlook our combined efforts to bring down the Bush Administration. Also, would you mind fixing–and paying for–our water problem in Bethel? It rained over 5 inches in two hours you know.

Thanks so much.

Love ya, mean it,

Senators Snowe and Collins
Maine

 

Clint Eastwood is not an historian, put he plays one in Hollywood.

Here is what I learned from the film: 1. War is brutal and ugly; 2. Soldiers don't fight for their country -- they fight for their buddies; 3. The United States troops stormed a sulfur-smelling island for no apparent reason during World War II; 4. The enemy of the United States were unmanned guns firing from hidden bunkers; 5. Asian soldiers who dared to show their faces at night--probably in defense of the sulfur-smelling island--were brutally killed by U.S. soldiers; 6. White folks who drove Ira Hayes to drink were ultimately responsible for his death; 7. Mostly, only greedy white men wanted war.

What Eastwood omitted: 1 The defeat of the Axis powers of World War II liberated millions of people all over the world who had been enslaved by Fascist tyrants; 2. Soldiers have fought for their countries AND their buddies; 3. A few years prior to the battle for Iwo Jima there was a horrific crime--Pearl Harbor--committed by Japanese forces; 4A. The U.S. soldiers on Iwo Jima were fighting Japanese soldiers who had been ordered by their commanders to defend every inch of land to the death -- even though, by this stage of the war, the Japanese military leaders knew their defeat was inevitable; 4B. Japanese soldiers brutally tortured and murdered American prisoners of war (Ref. Bataan Death March); 4C. The revolution (crimes) of the junior Japanese officers within their military, prior to World War II, went unchecked by senior Japanese officers and other government officials. The pride of the junior officers led to the deaths of thousands of soldiers, American and Japanese, and several thousand Japanese civilians; 5. While the movie showed U.S. soldiers being killed (or showed their corpses as a result of suicide), it never showed the images of Japanese soldiers actually killing or torturing Americans; 6. The life and death of Ira Hayes entailed more than racist comments and the bond drive depicted in the film. Haye's love for the Marines and his suffering from post-traumatic stress syndrome were not fully conveyed by Eastwood; 7. Largely as a result of the bombing of Pearl Harbor December 7, 1941, the majority of Americans favored FDR's declaration of war.

Aside from the cinematography, and largely because of the above omissions, this film was disappointing. In retrospect, I discovered I could have turned the sound off and still ascertained the plot and tone; thus, the movie's dialog was nonessential.

The film as a whole reminded me of the old Soviet Union propaganda sculptures: Massive gray images of history as it should be interpreted -- not as it was.

Eastwood did get the "war-is-ugly" part right. But when filmmakers of his ilk leave out the facts of war, Posterity misses key opportunities to avoid it.

                                      

Copy of letter to www.MaineWebReport.com Re: Tourism Director Stepping Down:

Conservative tourists should boycott Maine until the state can determine if it wants liberal Democrats or conservative Republicans in the US Senate. The current Snowe/Collins arrangement in the US Senate just ain’t cutting it.

Obviously not a proponent of the liberal agenda, I believe, however, that conservatives can better strategize with true Democrats in power — much easier to count the votes.

Snowe and Collins, without a national mandate, and without apology, continually undercut what could have been a glorious, powerful, dare I say “compassionate” conservative agenda for the past six years and then some (remember the Senate sell-out to Bill Clinton).

What a waste — to have a Republican majority in the House, Senate, and White House, to see what great potential was squandered, because of the selfishness of a handful of spineless ne’er-do-wells.

And voters responded in November 2006: Throw the spineless party out. Elect people who believe in something — be it liberal or conservative. Witness the exit of Lincoln Chafee and other Republican fence riders.

Snowe and Collins, not content with contributing to one of the worst election disasters in the history of the Republican Party, are now prepared to undercut our military, their party, the presidential election of 2008, and, most importantly, the security of our nation; all because their desire to remain in power supersedes what could be a bright future for America and the rest of the world.

Hang in there conservatives. We are witnessing the last gasp of the Woodstock Generation. If we can hold tight for the next couple of years, usher out folks like Snowe and Collins, we will win in Iraq, the Middle East, and at home.

If we fail to fight the good fight, we can look forward to increased global terrorism, the death of entrepreneurial dreams, and ultimately the death of all things great and noble in our country.

I’m doing my small part by boycotting Maine. I’ll rejoin the state’s marketplace when wolves punch in as wolves, and sheep dogs resume their watch.

2 January, 2007

Dear Mr. Nichol,

I was deeply troubled when I read your December email to the William and Mary community recalling your fondness for the Wren Chapel Yule Log ceremony.

The Yule Log is offensive to me for the following reasons;

1. It is associated with ancient Norse religious observances to which I refuse conformity. Your hosting the Yule service at Wren only underscored the event’s religious significance.
2. The cutting of the Yule Log in Scandinavia, and other parts of the world, involves cutting green wood – a detriment to the environment. This maiming not only damages the plant from which the log is cut, but negatively impacts the shelter and nutrition of neighboring woodland creatures.
3. I feel silly for even having to mention this, but the burning of the log and other wood associated with the ceremony pollutes the air we and other creatures breathe. We share this planet, not only with other humans, but with all living organisms.
4. The word Yule reminds me of the late actor Yul Brynner – a bald man. When I see you endorsing the burning of the Yule Log, I feel as if you are implying it is no crime to burn bald men. Being bald myself, that scares me.

I respectfully request you cease endorsement of the Yule Log service; and ban William and Mary faculty, staff, and student body from resuming this barbaric and inhumane religious Wren Chapel observance.

I realize only I and a few others feel as I do; but seeing your swift action in removing the Cross from Wren Chapel, I discern you possess the boldness and fortitude to elevate the concerns of the minority above those of the majority, and implement appropriate corrective measures.

 

I recently made the mistake of replying to an undergrad’s poetic intra-collegiate email. The emailer’s Buddhist proverb, distributed to hundreds of students, reminded others:

The thought manifests the word;
The word manifests as the deed;
The deed develops into habit;
And habit hardens into character;
So watch the thought and its ways with care,
And let it spring from love
Born out of concern for all beings...
As the shadow follows the body,
As we think so we become.

My “reply all” response, to be answered by any student at the above church-affiliated institution, raised the questions: Is love truly born of concern for all things? Could not one argue that Marx, Hitler, and Kevorkian demonstrated concern for all beings—yet their concern for all did not result in love for all? My questions, I hoped, implied that one could have a concern for all things, yet demonstrate a perversion of love -- love, defined and exemplified by Christ in the Bible.

While I anticipated a modicum of intellectual debate on the matter, my questions, sadly, drew no valuable responses from students. In fact, only four undergraduates replied. Two of the respondents resented my comparing Marx to Hitler as a misguided champion of concern. One reminded me the above was attributed to Buddha—and this fact would help me appreciate the proverb. A fourth provided a kind of exegetical instruction illustrating Buddha’s emphasis on a love “that is” as opposed to a love “which is”.

Let’s suppose all the above students are correct:

• Marx should not be grouped with Hitler;
• Attributing authorship to Buddha clarifies the quote;
• My interpretation of the proverb was completely incorrect.

Even with my intellectual strike-out, I still received no answer to my question concerning the origin of love. This led me to a next round of ponderings. Why did I receive no adequate response to the challenge? Perhaps this was because my questions were emailed to a small student population. Or, some students never read my note -- emailed shortly before Thanksgiving. Folks read it, perhaps, but were not challenged to answer because of countervailing demands and the fact my questions were not compelling, or the answer was obvious.

But, even assuming, highly conservatively, my challenge was read by only 100 students, I would think at least one student would have responded with a logical well-developed argument positing Christ as the origin of love; and, as a corollary, declaring that “love born of concern for all beings” would never be found in any verse in the Bible.

While I miss the debates that never were, my extra-curricular project underscored the fact that we Bible-believing church youth leaders must move beyond topics such as dating, sex, and alcohol. Leaders must balance “fun night”, and “mission trips” with basic Bible lessons, if the Church is to equip young people with the full armor of Christ.

Jesus’ “Great Commission” (Matthew 28:19-20) is weakened today by would-be disciples who refuse to teach comprehensive apologetics. Church leaders, must, like Jesus at the mount, address Christ’s followers in classroom-type settings. We must teach the Bible, define Christianity, and test young people via written exams and oral debate to determine defense-of-faith skill levels. Obviously church-administered tests would not carry the weight of school exams; however, they would provide a means of determining students’ comprehension of apologetics, and the church’s effectiveness in teaching the subject.

Teachers of apologetics must not only instruct in the classroom, but like Jesus, move students to the mission field, work alongside the harvesters, delegate leadership responsibilities, prepare others for a life of dependency upon Christ, and develop skills in defending faith. Equipped students will be more than conveyors of knowledge. They will be able to adhere to Peter’s Christ-inspired dictum: “…[S]et apart Christ as Lord…give an answer to everyone who asks you to give a reason for the hope that you have.” (1 Peter 3:15) The hope we have? See origin of Love.

It should come as no surprise that public educators today present an over-simplified Thanksgiving story of white man’s greed. With God and Church removed from the discussion, the story of the Pilgrims becomes nothing more than the story of an unjustified land grab.

With the elimination from the classroom of objective truth, and the lack of oversight from informed parents, I believe this is an excellent time to be an unconscionably fantastic (as in fantasy) teacher in the public school system. It’s a great time to teach, as does Professor Toni Morrison, that Bill Clinton was America’s first black president. It’s a wonderful time to teach the theory of evolution without the word “theory”. Unscrupulous teachers should take advantage of the opportunity to teach the success of communism over capitalism; the wisdom of Tolerance versus the parochialism of Christianity.

To objective, thinking teachers/professors, I present the following challenge. Post this version of Thanksgiving next year in your classroom, in an email to students, or within a school website, and see if any students or parents question the historicity of the account.

The Pilgrims were an intolerant, wealthy, racist religious sect who persecuted the diverse poor peoples of Europe. Having achieved their objective in Europe--to imprison, torture, and steal from the continent’s socially disadvantaged--the Pilgrims sought to transfer their myopic religion to the New World (Plymouth Rock)—and replenish their bank accounts in the process.

Once arrived, the Pilgrims encountered Native Americans, exchangers of fantasy for Truth, and unified as one body politic throughout North America. The Native Americans were a peace-loving, vegetarian society who never hurt one another, nor members of other tribes, nor even the smallest of animals.

The Pilgrims refused all dialogue with Native Americans. Conversely, without warning, they stole the rich farmland of the Native Americans, their spices, cattle, and oil rights -- all things they would never have been able to gain via peaceful methods. Though they were small in number, and beset by disease and famine, the Pilgrims were somehow able to overtake the Native Americans with business trickery, poison whiskey, and military assaults. Limited in scope in terms of geography and natural resources, North America presented the Pilgrims with little alternative but to wage terrorist-type war on the unsuspecting Native Americans.

Once the Pilgrims conquered the Native Americans, they opened banks, formed the Republican Party, and gave thanks to one another. They called the day Thanksgiving.

My prediction, sadly, is that you, independent thinking teacher, will receive little feedback at all from students or parents. Let me know if you do. You’re welcome to email student/parent responses to grandview45@yahoo.com.