You call this a FAIRNESS Doctrine?!?

A Liberal is like a whiney little boy's Mom who harasses the football coach because her athletically inept son is not getting equal playtime in the games.

I hate to break it to you Mom, but he probably isn't getting equal playtime because he isn't as talented as the other players. It's not unfair, it's not unjust --it's reality --the kind of reality that scares Liberals to death.

Liberals know they cannot succeed in a truly free society, which is exactly why they continue to use cowardly tactics to silence their opposition.

I've experienced this oppression in my own life on many occasions. I was kicked off of campus for protesting a Liberal speaker. (Never mind it was a public event held outdoors.) I was fired from my campus newspaper because my "views didn't represent that of the school's." (Never mind it was a public school and an independent student paper.) Most recently, a local Liberal posse has argued that I shouldn't even be allowed to write for the Courier-Journal.

This type of oppression, disguised as "fairness," has occurred on a global scale as well; namely, in countries such as Cuba, China, and Soviet Russia.

But this time it is here, in the United States.

Liberals are hoping to use something called the "Fairness Doctrine" to put a government-mandated muzzle on the mouths of their opposition.

The Fairness Doctrine is supported by many big name Democrats such as Nancy Pelosi, Dianne Feinstein, John Kerry, Howard Dean, etc. What this legislation mandates is that radio stations be required to provide "equal airtime" to Liberal views every time a Conservative opens their mouth on air.

In relation to my original analogy, this doctrine is just another case of Liberals not being able to cope with a truly free marketplace of ideas and abilities. Liberals refuse to accept the truth: that Conservatives receive higher ratings and more airtime on talk radio simply because more people want to tune in and listen to them.

Liberals have a completely distorted view of freedom and the Fairness Doctrine is a perfect example of that.

True freedom, equality, and "fairness" would be permitting all Americans to communicate with out government restriction, not to restrict the First Amendment so that everyone's speech is equally suppressed.

John Kerry, while speaking on a New York talk show confirmed this Liberal distortion of liberty when he said, " I think the Fairness Doctrine ought to be there... conservatives got rid of the equal time requirements and the result is that they have been able to squeeze down and squeeze out opinion of opposing views and I think its been a very important transition in the imbalance of our public eye."

Fairness and balance should not be the concern. The concern should be equal oppurtunity, not equal outcome.

As William Maurer, an attorney with the Institute of Justice stated so well, "Even-handed freedom is better than even-handed oppression."

Smoking Ban more harmful than the smoke itself.

The smoking ban is more harmful to society than the smoke could ever be.

The ban is a complete and utter violation of our Constitution. Via the ban, our personal freedoms and individual property rights are being threatened --no wait-- being stolen from us. And because the majority of people dislike smoke, we are letting this violation of freedom happen right before our very eyes.

Can someone please remind me what the purpose of the Bill of Rights is again? Apparently I misunderstood.

Common sense should tell you that the "smoking issue" is a self correcting problem. Solved as simple as this: If you don't like smoke at a particular bar, then deny that bar of your business and give your dollars to a smoke free bar. After all, that's your right.

But no, that is too simple.

Instead, mommy and daddy, i.e. the government, pass this wreckless legislation. (A victory for the fascist liberals, the special interest groups, and the politicians looking to score political points).

The smoking ban offends me almost as much as the seat belt law --but that's another rant for another time.

Point blank: The smoking ban is one step closer to an authoritarian regime. It is detrimental to our city's economy and a major blow to it's citizens and their confidence in our constitution.

Modern education demeaning war heroes.

My four-year-old son, Jonathan, admires super heroes such as Darth Vader. Guns, swords, and things that detonate fascinate him. He talks of one day becoming a soldier because, as he brags, he "can aim good."

Jonathan starts public school this fall, and that scares me. It scares me because I worry that the political correctness of our public education system will rob him of, or rebuke him for, his boyish imagination.

Today's public schools teach that a true hero cannot be a man who sheds blood to achieve his purpose, even if that purpose is the protection of his country, or family.

Several schools have gone as far as to rename the classic children's game from Tug-o-War, to Tug-o-Peace. Instead of trying to pull the other team to your side, you try to help to them to other side.

It is supposedly too oafish and uncivilized to teach children that a warrior is someone to be praised and honored. That thinking is considered much too primitive for the twenty first century. In part, this is the reason behind the decline of classic literature in modern public schools. Classic literature is rampant with attitudes about the world that will send the post-modern intellectual running in disgust.

Because the concept of heroism asserts one man as better and stronger than another man, promotes military combat, and espouses the inevitable casualty of some men, modern liberal intellectuals snub the notion.

However, the truth of the matter is that sometimes words alone are not enough, and war heroes deserve our utmost respect. Dying in battle is noble, even when that death is caused by the mistake of your own side. The death of some is necessary for the security and freedom of many.

Modern day schools should be teaching children to understand such truths, and should encourage a young boy's virtuous dream of becoming a warrior.

After all, as George Washington understood, "There is nothing so likely to produce peace as to be well prepared to meet the enemy."

I'm not an Immigrant, I'm an American.

I find it ironic that on July 3rd, the day before we celebrate America's independence, I receive a letter in my mailbox from Congressman John Yarmuth. In it he was attempting to justify his support for amnesty by telling me we are a "nation of immigrants."

As a matter of fact, Congressman John Yarmuth, and every other person who uses the phrase, "nation of immigrants," as their validation for open borders, I am not an immigrant --I am an American.

To say we are a "nation of immigrants" is to say actual Americans have never existed.In effect, you are telling me that the illegal immigrants protesting on the streets of Los Angeles are more American than I, a natural born citizen of the United States.

Well, I'm telling you that my patriotism, in no way, lies in the pride of being an "immigrant." My patriotism lies in the fact that the first Americans fought with their lives to have a country of their own, a country free from tyranny.

We are not a "nation of immigrants"; we are a nation of pioneers, and conquerors. We are a nation of Americans, with sovereignty over ourselves, and the right to permit or not permit immigration.

It is completely illogical to use the "nation of immigrants" slogan as our guide to national policy. If you go back far enough, every nation could be labeled a "nation of immigrants." Does that mean that every nation should completely open their borders and all human beings should unite as citizens of the globe?

Our nation is being invaded and our sovereignty threatened. Yet, we cannot take a stand, we cannot enforce our laws. For, we have no real right to this land. If, after all, we are only a "nation of immigrants."

The political correctness of our society today is out of control. When it has come to the point that patriotism equals racism, something is awry.

Supreme Court ruling: Democracy at work

Get ready Louisvillians; this is our chance to test how far we have come, intellectually and ethically, in the past fifty years.

I am responding to the recent Supreme Court ruling that struck down JCPS's race based student assignment plan.Though I never lived during the time of segregated schools, bathrooms, and water fountains, I have read the history books and listened to the stories of my grandparents.

As a result of my youthful ignorance, I am certain that I take for granted the level of tolerance and diversity in our society today. Nonetheless, I can understand that at one time, forced integration was, sadly, necessary.

Yet, the wonderful thing about democracy is that when a particular policy extends itself too far in any direction, the people pull back on the reigns.And that is exactly what has happened in this case. I applaud Crystal Meredith for pulling back on the reigns of a policy that had gone too far.

Now it is our turn as individuals, without being forced by the government, but instead motivated by our own sense of moral responsibility, to maintain a diverse and tolerant community.

However, if re-segregation begins to occur, as many of the ruling's opponents believe it will, we can be certain that the people will, once again, pull back on the reigns.

Conservative; not to be confused with the GOP

There is a saying that goes, "A young conservative has no heart, and an old liberal has no brain." While I agree that the latter part of the phrase holds some truth, the former part I must argue.

As a twenty-year-old conservative activist, I have been the subject of much criticism and controversy over the past couple years because there is ignorance in our society as to what a conservative truly is. Many of my peers believe a conservative is one whom espouses more freedom for big corporations and elites, while espousing an individual's personal and moral freedom less.It disheartens me when the media, liberals, and uninformed citizens deduce my way of life -- my conservatism --to greed and religious fascism. The people of the United States, particularly the GOP, need to be taught or reminded what real conservatism represents.

Although I am a College Republican leader, I will confidently make the claim, though controversial, that Americans are ignorant to what true conservatism is because the term, conservative, is too closely associated with the Republican Party. This causes many to believe that a conservative and a Republican are one in the same.

However, today's GOP leaders have diluted the meaning of conservatism with their hypocrisy.Since Republicans gained control of the White House and Congress they have done anything but 'conserve.' The United States has experienced the biggest spending increases and expansion of entitlement programs since Lyndon B. Johnson. Also, the federalizing of education, the McCain-Fiengold restrictions on political speech, and most recently, Republican support for a bill that would grant amnesty to illegal immigrants: all of which is a far cry from the conservative principles that so many of these same Republican's campaigned on.

With the combination of our universities left-wing biases, and our supposedly "conservative" leaders being anything but conservative, it is no wonder young people today are liberal.I encourage all sincere conservatives to expose the politicians whom adopt the word conservative for their own political gain, and then degrade all that it stands for.

I encourage young people to study American history and read the works of great conservative thinkers such as Edmund Burke, Russell Kirk, and TS Eliot. It is necessary that the youth educate themselves on the proper meaning of conservatism, since it's teaching seems to be forbidden in the contemporary classroom.

In contradiction to the modern day stereotype, conservatism is actually a philosophy of the heart. It is rooted in the love and respect of individuality, opportunity, responsibility, and most of all, freedom.

So long as the GOP continues to lose sight of this, then the GOP, will indeed, continue to lose.