Democrats are up in arms about the Mark Foley scandal, demanding the resignation of House Speaker Dennis Hastert. While there is no question that the actions of Foley were reprehensible, many Dems are seeking to widen the scope of guilt and shame to include other individuals, who may or may not have been aware of the depth to which Foley had sunk. What becomes evident in this is the pure politicism of the situation: because Foley is a Republican, it is indicative of the "culture of corruption" that has been brought to Capitol Hill by all Republicans. If Foley had been a Democrat, would we see the same response?

Not likely, according to many conservative pundits, as well as the factual history of Democrats dealing with skeletons in their own closet. Ann Coulter has a great column this week, detailing some of the shenanigans of Democratic congressman Gerry Studds in 1983, and the Democratic response to it. Front Page Magazine has a piece by Andrew Walden detailing other notable Democrats engaging in equally nefarious activities as that of Mark Foley, and the Democrats predictable non-response to these actions. So, history shows that if the perpetrator is a Republican, many Democrats behave quite differently than if he was one of their own.

What does this tell us? It tells us that this is really a political ploy to take over the House of Representatives by the Democrats. And it also shows that many Democrats routinely write new rules for each situation as they deem fit, rather than the accepted method of one standard for all. If that's not the case, then why are they calling for Hastert to resign? For one thing, all the facts are not in, and many Democrats have already tried and convicted him. If Hastert were a Democrat, such calls would likely be deemed unfair, and you would hear statements like "innocent until proven guilty."

We've seen it before by Dems in other situations. Affirmative Action and Hate Speech legislation are both supported by them, even though they are obvious attempts to write new rules for special situations, and to apply different standards to individuals based on class, ethnicity or perceived motivation. The attempt to frame each argument through the prism of their ideology creates situations where decisions are not made on the basis of right or wrong, but whether the decision will result in the desired conclusion. In addition, this situation shows show that many Democrats routinely engage in "soft bigotry" -- they decry judging entire groups of people by the actions of a few, except when the perpetrators are Republicans, or any person or group with whom they disagree with. Then they will tar the entire group because of the actions of one or a few people -- if that's not bigotry, what is? Think of this every time you hear a Democrat make the statement "culture of corruption" in regards to this particular situation.

I will say again that Foley's actions were reprehensible. If the facts show that Dennis Hastert was complicit in covering up the situation, then such attempts to widen the scope of guilt would be justifiable. But, many Democrats are jumping the gun and trying to convince the public to make a decision based on their framing of the issue, before the facts are in. And that is also reprehensible.

With election day only 10 days away, the Stem Cell Research debate has resurfaced in the news. A few months ago, President Bush vetoed a bill that would have allowed federal funding for stem cell research. Now, Michael J. Fox has ignited the debate in a Missouri TV ad, and is supporting the candidacy of Clair McCaskill for the United States Senate. McCaskill supports federal funding of this research. The ultimate goal in of all of this is to eventually overturn Bush's veto on federal funding for stem cell research by working to elect Senators who support this issue.

I do not have a problem with stem cell research, and it would not bother me if my tax dollars were used to fund this research, especially if it saves lives. But that is not really the point here. There are many Americans who feel that this research is morally wrong, and the destruction of human embryos for scientific purposes is murder. I can understand their position and do not believe they are trying to take away the hope of a better life for Michael J. Fox and others. Only they can set their own moral compass, and if they feel such research is wrong then they have every right to that belief.

What bothers me is that if the government authorized federal funding for stem cell research, it would mean that those who felt it was morally wrong would be forced to contribute their tax dollars to the process. This is a fundamental issue to many Americans. To some, it would be state sanctioned murder that they would knowingly be paying for. Now, as I said before, these are not my beliefs. They are the beliefs, though, of a lot of Americans who are basically good and decent people and would be forced to subsidize this process. And they would forevermore have to live with that on their conscience.

Stem cell research can be conducted in private labs and institutions. And anyone who wants to pay to subsidize the process is free to do so. But supporters of federal funding for this research want to take this a step further. They want to take tax dollars which come from all Americans and use this money to fund the research. In other words, it's not enough to use their own money. They want to use other people's money. And if you don't agree to let them use other people's money, then they call you the bad guy. That's what bothers me the most about this issue -- forcing all Americans to subscribe to their view, to the point of forcing them to subsidize the process.

I hope stem cell research yields some results that help people such as Michael J. Fox. But I don't want someone being forced to pay for it against their will.

Cindy Sheehan has been in the news lately, so to honor her contributions to the national dialogue, I would like to present the following video parody.

Barack Obama is a U.S. Senator for the state of Illinois, and today it seems that many in that particular state aren't buying the hype. The Chicago Tribune, the paper of record for most Illinoisians, published 8 letters in its "Voice of the people" section about Obama, and only one of them was favorable.

Some choice quotes include:

"Obama, who appears to be a very nice man, has left no footprints in the sand other than a platitude filled speech at the 2004 Democratic Convention plus two forgettable books."
-Lawrence Stack, Lake Forest

"...what has he done in his short term as senator that indicates he should be president other than not have any skeletons in his closet...?"
-Cindy Cikkubs, Libertyville

"The Democrats have nothing positive to offer, so parading a photogenic senator with a resonant speaking voice is a smokescreen to hide that party's bankruptcy."
-Dennis Kostrzewski, Crystal Lake

"His ability to deliver a utopian vision, like so many socialists, is hardly a qualification to be president --that is unless you're a Democrat."
-Cedra Crenshaw, Bolingbrook

John Kerry and the Dixie Chicks have a lot in common: they both make stupid statements, then blame the people who are indignant about their remarks. The Dixie Chicks' brouhaha is well known by now. If you haven't heard Kerry's remarks, here's what he said: "You know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq." (Michelle Malkin has video here, and has asked us to spread it around.)

The only soldier that I personally know who has fought in Iraq is a cousin through marriage. His family is particularly well off; they have a million dollar home and live in an affluent section of town. His mother is a liberal activist who routinely protests our involvement in the war. His father is also liberal, but less vocal about his political leanings. He is well educated and has had the opportunity to chart whatever course in life he desired. Yet, despite all of this, he volunteered for the military and in addition, volunteered to go to Iraq not once, not twice, but three times. He has so far completed three tours of duty in Iraq, and, although I can't speak for him, I have little doubt he will volunteer to return yet again.

It is with this knowledge that I am offended by John Kerry's remark. Yet John Kerry seems to think I have no right to be offended by his statement. His "apology" is a statement calling critical reaction to his words a "Republican distortion." He further adds: "I'm sick and tired of these despicable Republican attacks that always seem to come from those who never can be found to serve in war, but love to attack those who did." Of course, I have never served in Iraq, but nonetheless, I reserve the right to be offended by his statement. I need no Republican "distortion" of truth to be so offended. His statement says it all, and needs no further filtering by any media. I can make up my own mind, and I have. John Kerry, you need to make a real apology.

In a press conference moments ago in Seattle, John Kerry said he's not going to let Republicans shift the topic from their own performance to his reprehensible comments from last night. "Shame on them, Shame on them," he said in his statement. Well, he can't hide behind this false apology. He said what he said, and cannot himself shift the topic away from it. His failure is to not understand why we are indignant. Like those he criticizes, he also voted to authorize this war, and he can't hide from that either. Shame on you, John Kerry.

Previous: John Kerry: The Undistorted Truth