When I think of my home state of Kansas, I think of a place where people are friendly, work hard, and moreover believe in the Christian values that this great nation was founded upon. I have always thought that the Kansas designation as part of the Bible belt was a badge of honor that many of the blue states just don’t often understand. However, there has been for some time a pestilence walking the flatlands of Kansas, a scourge that brings only pain and sorrow to all that find themselves within its path. I am talking about the members of the Westboro Baptist Church. The Westboro Baptist Church which comprises the immediate family of Fred Phelps and is based out of Topeka Kansas has made it their mission to spread a twisted religious philosophy of God’s damnation on the world one protest at a time.

    I ran across the Phelps clan a few years ago when they were protesting a church I was attending in Wichita Kansas. I had never heard of the group before and I suddenly found myself within swinging distance without any context of who I was dealing with. I assumed from their colorful “GOD HATES FAGS” signs that they were a pro-homosexual advocacy group possibly angry about a bible lesson on Sodom and Gomorrah that they might have heard at the church that did not fit their lifestyle. I later found that the Westboro Baptist Church was a small, crazy, dysfunctional family group turned cult that liked to travel to the funerals of dead soldiers to tell their families that their child was in hell due to the evils of homosexuality. These acts of lunacy and open displays of pure hate earned the Westboro Baptist Church the designation as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, a designation that these folks have worked hard to earn.

Some might ask the question, why give this group any recognition? Is it not recognition that they seek? Is this not why this group will protest any event that brings more than three people together? I have thought hard about this because there are some valid truths to these questions.  However, I think silence can also be construed as a validation. Silence can also be seen as a weakness. It seems to me that many in Kansas have been using silence as the weapon of choice against Fred Phelps and family for far too long. Like disregarding a cancerous tumor in the hopes that it will die off by itself, the death of the entire body is the most likely result. The reality is that the tumor must be removed and this is always bloody work. Listening to the boastful exclamations of Fred Phelps when he says that his cult group has performed 30,000 protests in the last seventeen years with no signs of slowing down brings me to a reality that this group has to be dealt with.

What do I mean by that? Aren’t the Phelps group afforded the same free speech rights that I have to disseminate this article? The ACLU who always jumps to the aid of those who would undermine this country says so. In reality, the ACLU’s aid to the Phelps clan, which is part of the selective aid the organization gives those that they wish to assist, reflects only the anti-American agenda of the ACLU, not the championing of free speech. The reasons the Phelps congregation has no legal right to vomit their hatred of America upon military families in mourning is that hate speech has no protection under the constitution. The October 31, 2007 civil ruling against the group which amounted to the original sum of $11 million in damages is an example of the courts ability to distinguish free speech from the willful intention to inflict emotional distress on the families of fallen American soldiers. Now that was a happy day.

For Kansas, the Phelps cult makes our progressive state appear mindless, backward, and racist. Those who would like to continue the stereo types often identified with small rural states simply need to inject the Phelps cult into the debate. For Christians in general, The Westboro Baptist Church is a blight on the name of true religion. When Christians tackle the true social issues that face this country they must not only battle the secular liberal opposition that is always prevalent but also the damage to the credibility of Christian values itself brought forth by the evil labors of the Westboro Baptist Church. Lastly, the war effort itself is undermined by the treasonous acts of protests by this group. While legislation has been adopted to raise the penalties for funereal protests, this is only a mild rebuke compared to past war time legislation toward treasonous acts. It is in this arena that I believe that further action should be explored.

For the past 3 days I have been trying to come up with a topic to write about this week, but I keep coming up with the same answer - nothing. Which incidentally is pretty much the same answer Mrs. Clinton comes up with to most every question she’s asked in an interview.

For example, when she was asked today by ABC’s George Stephanopoulos how she would deal with the threat of Iran’s nuclear weapons, she said that we would have to sit down and come to an agreement with them, but then she said “we don’t even know who is running Iran.” Speak for yourself, Mrs. Clinton. And what could you possibly offer Iran to stop their nuclear weapons program? I can think of only one thing. If they agree to end their nuclear ambitions, we will agree not to turn their country into a glass parking lot. I don’t think that’s exactly what Mrs. Clinton has in mind, if anything.

Then a black woman in the studio audience asked her what she would do for black people if elected. Well first of all, the question is ridiculous and self-centered. The president’s job is to serve all of the American people equally without regard for race. But Clinton went off on a rant about people living in poverty all over the world, and again never even attempted to answer the question. I think she made some reference to her husband’s administration.

When Bill O’Reiley asked her if she knew where the al Qaeda leadership command was based, she stumbled for words at first, then came up with Pakistan. So far so good. But then Bill asked her “where in Pakistan?” and her answer was “all over the place.” She frankly didn’t know where the al Qaeda command and control was until O’Reiley told her it was in Bajaur, an area in the Punjar province. I don’t expect many Americans to know this, but for Pete’s sake - this woman is running for president of the United States. She should know that.

Just like her Democrat opponent, Barack Obama, when asked about the high cost of gas, she has no real answer other than the usual guesses about solutions dealing with taxes. Of course the answer, obvious to anyone other than liberals, is increased domestic drilling and refining, something that never occurs to Democrats.

When asked about Iraq, Clinton seems to think that most of the trouble is being caused by the American troops, so her answer is to get the Americans out of Iraq and that will solve the problem. This is frightening.

I have been getting the impression that Mrs. Clinton really knows very little about the world we live in and the enemy we are facing. She has been so busy fighting her war on the healthcare system that she has totally ignored the war on terror - the real threat to our country, other than liberalism.

But that isn’t what I intended to write about this week. Everyone else is doing that and I’m pretty fed up with the whole negative process of political campaigning. My guess is that you are too. I think there are other things to talk about that need attention, but are being ignored. Anyway, who among us would even consider voting for Obama or Clinton? Now, if only I could come up with some reasons to vote for John McCain, other than to keep the other two out of the White House. That too seems to be a lost cause, but just that one reason alone should be enough to drive everyone to the polls on election day.

I heard that President Bush requested $20 million to give to Poland for their military, so I thought I’d write about the European Defense Shield and our part in it. My first thought was - we don’t have an extra $20 million laying around to give away to Poland. The only way to do that is to take it from the money Congress intends to spend on special interest pork this year. But we don’t have money for that either. Not that it matters to Congress; they just borrow it from Communist China and charge it to our children and grandchildren.

In researching this issue I discovered that Poland had requested the handout of our taxpayers’ money in exchange for placing anti-missile defense installations in their country to defend against missile attacks from Iran and Syria. It just strikes me as a little odd that we should have to pay Poland for the privilege of defending them from attacks. Shouldn’t they be paying us for the service?

Vladimir Putin is not too enthused about the idea of having western missiles so close to his Russian border, even if they are only defensive ground-to-air missiles. He has threatened to target Poland with his nuclear missiles if the installations are built. He threatens the same with Georgia where other anti-missile defenses are planned. Putin doesn’t accept that these missile installations are intended to protect Europe from Islamic missile attacks. Rather, he sees them as a threat to his country, or does he?

Putin may be looking beyond the present state of the world. Russia has not only been returning to its former communist roots under Putin, but also has been increasingly allying itself with radical Islamic countries and factions - like Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, and Hamas. If a major war breaks out, it makes perfect sense that Putin would not want Europe protected by an anti-missile defense system, and he is willing to put his nuclear missiles where his mouth is.

But I didn’t want to write about that either since I just didn’t know much about it. So then I thought I would write something about the current airline crisis. Every week we are seeing more airlines going out of business or merging with other airlines. The prime reason is the cost of fuel, which is driving the airlines into bankruptcy.

In just the past month, Aloha, American Trans Air, Skibus, Skyway and Frontier airlines have all gone into bankruptcy or out of business. Continental may be looking for a new partner after talks with United failed to produce any partnership results. Without real progress in domestic oil production, our airlines are going to look like our phone companies with only two or three serving the whole country.

Since Congress continues to block any progress in domestic oil production, the airlines have found one way to reduce their fuel costs slightly. They are flying slower. Yep, lifting the pilot’s foot off the throttle a little to save gas. By flying slower, this adds a few minutes to the flight time but the airlines say it is saving them millions of dollars in fuel costs.

But this is only helping a little, not solving the problem. Airline experts say that if the cost of aviation fuel is not brought down soon, only the rich will be able to afford to fly, before long. Those holiday trips to visit relatives for the average working American will be gone. And you can just forget about driving instead of flying, you won’t be able to afford that either.

Perhaps the only affordable transportation will be by train, which is what commodity producers are using more and more these days to avoid the higher costs of trucking, due to excessive fuel prices. Meanwhile, long distance truckers are losing their trucks and their jobs while their ability to compete with rail shipping declines. Aviation fuel costs must be effecting the air shipping business too. Have you noticed how UPS has been running ads pushing “UPS Ground shipping?” My guess is they are using trains, not trucks.

Because of Democrat policies on energy, the airline industry is collapsing and will take with it the aircraft manufacturing industry and the tourist industry. The long distance trucking industry is collapsing and taking with it the truck manufacturing industry. Many more Americans will lose their jobs as the trickle down effect takes hold and the American economy goes into the tank.

What is the Democrats’ answer to all this? Biofuels. Yes, by using our food for fuel, we can then place the same burdens on the food industry and bring on a global food crisis to accompany their global warming crisis. The real crisis in America today is the liberal, Marxist, Democrat Party which will be well positioned to offer us all government support when everything falls apart and no one can earn a living any longer.

To do that, they will have to take what money is left from the rich to redistribute to the poor until that money runs out and the rich no longer have a financial sake in the country. By that time Russia will have returned to total communism and we will be just like them. We can all then get together in love and peace, hug, and sing Kumbaya together while waiting for government to serve us our next meal. At last, paradise right here on Earth will have come.

But I don’t want to write about that either, so I guess I just don’t have anything to offer this week. I might as well just run for president like the others do, who have nothing to offer our country.

America, the once Christian principled light of the world, is losing its prominence because of its appalling top political leadership, who are failing the Bible test. The outlook for a return to our once enviable thriving society, with godly traditional values, shows few signs of reoccurring. Many of these politicians are leading the nation further down the seedy and slippery slope to immorality and economic failure.

In the big picture, Americans have been overtaxed, seen their nation’s prosperity wasted away and witnessed the middle class employment opportunities of our next generation of workers shipped off shore due to these politicians’ pacts and deals. Some of the nations they have relinquished our jobs to despise us and have godless ideologies. At a terrible cost to American workers in places like Flint, Lansing, Detroit, Saginaw and countless other manufacturing communities dotted across America, our politicians’ foreign cooperative chump deals have empowered competing nations with a new and undeserved prominence at American workers’ expense. As America staggers backwards, these competitors are replacing our world eminence by becoming the new world order.

Most importantly, America’s political leaders have ignored or redefined for political purposes the strong Christian values that America is based upon. These politicians spend an inordinate amount of time and expense running for office. Many are career politicians who profess to be pro-family Christians at election time as they cater to Washington’s multi-national lobbyists and support immoral, ungodly and anti-family issues like abortion and homosexuality.

We have all heard the presidential candidates debate the central issues ranging from the Iraq War, the economy, immigration, Homeland Security, universal health care, education and energy. We have also heard them explain in a very careful way their positions on faith and the moral issues like abortion and same-sex marriage. Voters must take a closer look at the rhetoric, stands and career records of the candidates relative to faith and especially observe the candidates’ positions on such pinnacle faith issues.

WITH understandable reluctance, Prime Minister John Howard recently donned the political hair-shirt of a carbon trading system.

On the same day, NASA chief Michael Griffin commented in a US radio interview that "I am not sure that it is fair to say that (global warming) is a problem that we must wrestle with".

NASA is an agency that knows a thing or two about climate change. As Griffin added: "We study global climate change, that is in our authorisation, we think we do it rather well.

"I'm proud of that, but NASA is not an agency chartered to, quote, battle climate change."

Such a clear statement that science accomplishment should carry primacy over policy advice is both welcome and overdue.

Nonetheless, there is something worrying about one of Griffin's other statements, which said that "I have no doubt . . . that a trend of global warming exists".

Griffin seems to be referring to human-caused global warming, but irrespective of that his opinion is unsupported by the evidence.

The salient facts are these. First, the accepted global average temperature statistics used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change show that no ground-based warming has occurred since 1998. Oddly, this eight-year-long temperature stasis has occurred despite an increase over the same period of 15 parts per million (or 4 per cent) in atmospheric CO2.

Second, lower atmosphere satellite-based temperature measurements, if corrected for non-greenhouse influences such as El Nino events and large volcanic eruptions, show little if any global warming since 1979, a period over which atmospheric CO2 has increased by 55 ppm (17 per cent).

Third, there are strong indications from solar studies that Earth's current temperature stasis will be followed by climatic cooling over the next few decades.

No one can deny that in recent years the need to “save the planet” from global warming has become one of the most pervasive issues of our time. As Tony Blair’s chief scientific adviser, Sir David King, claimed in 2004, it poses “a far greater threat to the world than international terrorism”, warning that by the end of this century the only habitable continent left will be Antarctica.

Inevitably, many people have been bemused by this somewhat one-sided debate, imagining that if so many experts are agreed, then there must be something in it. But if we set the story of how this fear was promoted in the context of other scares before it, the parallels which emerge might leave any honest believer in global warming feeling uncomfortable.

The story of how the panic over climate change was pushed to the top of the international agenda falls into five main stages. Stage one came in the 1970s when many scientists expressed alarm over what they saw as a disastrous change in the earth’s climate. Their fear was not of warming but global cooling, of “a new Ice Age”.

For three decades, after a sharp rise in the interwar years up to 1940, global temperatures had been falling. The one thing certain about climate is that it is always changing. Since we began to emerge from the last Ice Age 20,000 years ago, temperatures have been th