Vote Republican or Suborn Socialism -- Your Choice

         Some ask, do we want to see Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) become Speaker of the House next year?  If not, they say, we must all vote Republican.

 
         They’re correct, of course.  The problem is, there is a great deal more to this problem than just Nancy Pelosi.  As Minority Leader, she’s but the most obvious of the potential problems awaiting a liberal takeover of the House.

 
         As a start, let's just talk about those Members of Congress who actually attend socialist meetings -- Nancy Pelosi is but one -- and identify some of those who would be in major leadership positions if the Democrats win the House in November.

 
         Over the past few years, the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), and its arm in Congress, the Congressional Progressive Caucus, have sometimes bragged publicly that they have the same agenda.  What the DSA admits, but the Progressive Caucus has not outwardly disclosed yet, is that their socialist goals include the downfall of our capitalist form of government and much stronger federal government controls on the American people.

 
         With the help of House Minority leader Nancy Pelosi, Progressive Caucus socialists cover most major House committees and many of them are "ranking minority members" -- which means they would chair the committee if the Democrats win a majority in the House in November.

 
         For instance, picture that idiot from Detroit, John Conyers (D-MI), as chairman of the Judiciary Committee, or the contentious Henry Waxman (D-CA) as chairman of the Committee on Government Reform.  Anyone watching any of the hearings over the past few years knows both of them wander between dangerous and useless.

 
         Socialist sympathizer Charlie Rangel (D-NY) would get the chairmanship of the powerful Ways and Means Committee and Maxine Waters (D-CA) would chair the subcommittee on Domestic and International Monetary Policy.  What new fiscal hell would they initiate?

 
         Barney Frank (D-Mass), whose friend and roommate ran a homosexual outcall prostitution service out of Frank's home, would chair the House Financial Services Committee.  But wait!  Major Owens -- famous for his many one hour diatribes about how so many thousands of slaves were tossed overboard when the slave ships were bringing them here that the sharks still today follow the ships’ paths looking for more -- might chair the Workforce Protection Subcommittee.  Or, picture Jerry Nadler (D-NY) trying to chair either the House Judiciary Committee or the House Transportation Committee.  He’s senior minority member on both.

 
         Bernie Sanders (I-VT), a card carrying socialist and founding member of the Progressive Caucus, is ranking minority member of the House Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit Committee and so would chair that.

 
         Progressive Caucus member Bernie Thompson (D-MS) is ranking minority member of the Committee on Homeland Security and so would get that.  Louise Slaughter (D-NY) is ranking minority member of the powerful Rules Committee, which could be interesting with her as chair.  Pete Stark (D-CA) would chair the Health Subcommittee of Ways and Means.  Nydia M. Velázquez (D-NY) would chair the House Small Business Committee.  Diane Watson (D-CA) would chair the Subcommittee on Energy & Resources.  Mel Watt (D-NC) would probably get the Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law.  Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii) is ranking minority member on the Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee so would get that.  Madeleine Bordallo, the Delegate from Guam, is ranking minority member on the Committee on Small Business’ Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform and Government Oversight and would become chair.  Sherrod Brown (D-OH) would chair the Energy and Commerce Health Subcommittee.  The chair of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure would go to Peter DeFazio (D-OR).  Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) would get the Committee on the Judiciary’s Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims, which would certainly become interesting.

 
         Lynn Woolsey (D-CA), the co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, would chair the House Subcommittee on Education Reform.  But she is  also a senior minority member of the House Committee on Science so might get that instead.  Co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, Barbara Lee (D-CA), might even get to chair a committee of some sort.

 
         And so it goes, right on down the line.  The cold hard fact we must remember this November is that there are 62 members of the Progressive Caucus in the House -- card carrying socialists, one and all.  That is, there are 61 Democrat-socialists and one independent-socialist in the House who outwardly align themselves with the domestic arm of the Socialist International.  Most of the group have been in Congress long enough to become ranking members on their respective committees.

 
         Which means that, if by some chance, Democrats win the House this November, Nancy Pelosi -- also a Progressive Caucus member -- becomes the first outwardly socialist Speaker of the House (and third in line for President of the United States) and her Progressive Caucus (socialist) members would be in place to chair many of the important House committees.  

 
         Can we allow that to happen?

 
         This means that if you vote for ANY House Democrat this year it is the same as putting these practicing socialists closer to controlling the whole of the United States House of Representatives.

 
         As can be seen, if we do not vote Republican, we will be suborning socialism.  So . . . now, who is going to pull which lever at the polling place next November?

 
         A few of the so-called Republicans running for Congress are not a whole lot better than the Democrats.  But, they are better, overall.  And, as a group, Republicans will be much easier for us to deal with.

 
-------------------

 
NOTE:  The Congressional Progressive Caucus web site is now located on the House computer system, but that is a relatively recent move.  Originally, the Progressive Caucus was started by Rep. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), a card-carrying Socialist Party member.  For many years, the Progressive Caucus web site was hosted by the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) / Socialists International web site.  Later, when I published that information, the Progressive Caucus attempted to disassociate itself from the most notorious of the socialist domestic and international organizations.  Really, though, they are all still joined and profess exactly the same platforms.

The links below are for those who wish to check my facts:

The Congressional Progressive Caucus can be found at:

http://bernie.house.gov/pc/

DSA is the largest US affiliate of the Socialist International, which is a worldwide organization of 140 socialist, social democratic and labor parties.  The SI has the distinction of being the largest political organization in the world, so they say:

http://www.dsausa.org/dsa.html

Liberal Media’s  Ongoing Quandry

 
Has anyone else noticed that the silent majority seems to be involved in a silent boycott of all the biased news outlets that have been attacking President Bush, our military and the nation's Christian heritage this past year?

 If we believe a 2004 report from the Audit Bureau of Circulations, which collects and monitors circulation data for newspapers and magazines, the liberal press is in deep doo-doo.  Some of the nation's largest daily newspapers reported steep circulation declines and overall circulation is down across the industry.  The top 20 papers are suffering the largest weekday and Sunday declines, among them the Los Angeles Times, the Chicago Tribune and the Washington Post.  Fancy that, eh.

 Two years ago, Newsday, Hoy, The Dallas Morning News and The Chicago Sun-Times were caught overstating their circulations by tens of thousands of copies each day.  The parent companies of these papers had to set aside over $130 million to reimburse advertisers.

 Even the liberal AP admitted it:  "Circulation declined at most major newspapers across the country in the last half year, the latest blow for an industry already rocked by a scandal involving circulation misstatements that has undermined the confidence of investors and advertisers."

 In 2004, the liberal L.A. Times reported a major loss in circulation numbers -- down by over 53,000 subscribers in just the first six months of that year and still declining.

 In November of 2004, The Washington Post's Executive Editor, Leonard Downie, Jr., met with hundreds of employees to outline new plans to combat ever-declining circulation.  The plans slowed the bleeding some but didn’t really help.

 As I repeatedly reported in other places, the newspaper industry has struggled for years with stagnant or decreasing readership levels.  Most liberal newspapers are losing money.  Many are almost bankrupt.  So, they inflate their actual sales numbers so they can charge advertisers more.  That keeps them in business for a few years longer.  Until they get caught, that is.

 The problem is, these companies are also lying to stockholders about the health of the corporation when they do that.  The Securities and Exchange Commission kind of frowns on that stuff.  Which means, these newspapers will soon see multi-million dollar fines -- some are quietly arguing their case for that already.  Then, they will realize much less income because they will be forced to lower advertising rates to where they should be, based on their actual circulation.  That will, of course, put them even deeper in the red.

 For those newspapers already running in the red, this means they will probably be going out of business soon.  Interestingly enough, this mostly seems to apply to the liberal rags.  Many conservative publications seem to be doing just fine.

 Of course, this is a natural shakeout.  Old Media -- the liberal contingent, anyway -- is no longer respected, or even believed, by what is approaching a majority in this country.  After all, this is the dawning of the age of the New Media, and a more honest and fact-based viewpoint.  The palpable liberal media bias so obvious in the last two presidential election cycles went far to show the American people just how completely twisted and out of touch Old Media really is.

 Unfortunately, though, Old Media is too stupid and/or bullheaded to realize they are stabbing themselves in the gut by being so blatantly biased.  They refuse to clean house and hire reporters to report the news instead of "journalists" who want to twist the news to the left.  Or, perhaps media corporation stockholders are willing to sacrifice their investments for the promotion of socialism.

 Anyway, we look for another major wave of lay-offs to begin at the larger newspapers starting by the end of this year.  By this time next year, there will be a few thousand well experienced liberal scribblers out of work and wandering the streets. (Unfortunately, some will then become teachers.)

 Those who can do straight reporting, and/or write from a conservative viewpoint, may be very much in demand.  As Old Media gives out one last gasp of reorganization to save their newspapers -- their publishing corporations -- their stockholders may very well demand that they dump the "journalists," try a round of honest "reporting" and perhaps tend towards a more conservative bent.  If not, the writing is on the wall for them all. Few will survive the next five years.

 Should we care?  Yes.  We still need local newspapers.

 But, after the way the mainstream liberal media trashed President Bush these past few years, I'll have to say that they deserve what they get.  Which, ultimately, could be bankruptcy.

Donald Lambro wrote a rather informative article in The Washington Times today that should interest most of us.[1]  I would like to add just a little “on the street” reporting flavor to it, though.

 
The Michigan Republican primary for the United States Senate seat now held by a lightweight Democrat is already a bit dicey with outside interference, to say the least!  We have a very popular black Detroit minister (Keith Butler) running against a hard-nosed law and order sheriff (Mike Bouchard).  Here’s the line to bet on, as I see it on the street:

Bouchard got the nod from RINOs like Sen. Elizabeth Dole and the National Republican Senatorial Committee -- and a few establishment RINOs around Michigan.  Because outsider RINOs are trying to steer the Republican primary election in Michigan, many of the state’s core Republicans are starting to become a bit ticked off.  It is possible that Bouchard can win the primary, but that would polarize an overwhelming number of urban Democrat voters around the state, who may otherwise not vote, to come out to vote and it is doubtful Bouchard will win in the general election.  Democrats, after all, will label Bouchard as a politician who wants more draconian laws and will put more people in jail.

Keith Butler was a very popular Detroit City Council member for many years.  He is a Jack Kemp style Republican and did many good things to boost the economy of the City while councilman.  Butler left that position of his own free will, to grow his church.  There is no way he would have ever been beaten in an election.  As Reverend Butler, he has a very large flock of inner-city folks.  His popular church has a reputation for not only training poor kids to be productive but also for getting adults jobs -- and off of welfare.  So, we see Keith Butler as being very well respected in two vastly different positions.

Bouchard will do well in the general election in northern areas where many people vote a straight ticket.  But, Bouchard will not do well at all in the urban areas where nearly half of the voters reside.  The race issue may tend to hurt Butler in some rural areas of the state, but Keith Butler will do quite well in all of the urban areas.  And, because Butler will draw heavily from the urban areas, Butler will also be capturing votes from the Democratic Party strongholds.

Sen. Debbie Stabenow is a lightweight of no account.  She will be supported by the unions, and other liberal voting blocks, simply because she is a Democrat.  If he runs a good, strong campaign, Keith Butler should be able to beat her easily.  The problem, however, is that the wayward RINOs will not help Butler because he is not a liberal in any sense of the imagination and is not likely to do their dance in Washington.

1. http://www.washtimes.com/national/20060715-114733-7797r.htm

Guns, Terrorists, Crime and The People

One result of the terrorist threats is a steady business in the gun shops.  Many thousands of Americans have been purchasing their first weapon, then wondering about all the little associated problems -- like, what to do with it.

That handgun is designed to kill people.  That's about it.  Other than acting as a paperweight in the "in box," there's not much else it can do effectively.

On the other hand, handguns have a lot in common with other tools, such as a chain saw or automobiles.  All can kill people when used improperly.  All require some specific knowledge to operate properly.  And, we should never allow kids access to any of them unless under strict supervision.

Some people teach kids to drive at a very young age -- I learned when I was twelve.  Even more Americans teach their children to shoot at a young age.  Personally, I helped teach some Cub Scouts and Boy Scouts a few decades ago.  The fact is, in many areas of the country, it is common to see young boys, not yet old enough to drive, carrying guns around.  We did, as kids.

Shooting should be a family affair.  Children need not learn to shoot with dad's 357 magnum, or even a 9mm.  The trusty 22 is available for that and I still own the original Ruger 22 semiautomatic handgun that was evidently designed with young kids in mind.  Still today, neighbor men borrow that Ruger to teach their sons and daughters to shoot safely.  My only requirement is that they also make care and cleaning of the pistol a part of that training.

It is not just our right to protect home and family, it is also our duty.  Police are spread thin in most communities and usually stay busy.  We are our own first line of defense.

Writing for the Wall Street Journal in "Only Guns Can Stop Terrorists," Professor John R. Lott, Jr. reported:  "States that pass concealed handgun laws experience drops in violent crimes, especially in multiple victim shootings -- the type of attack most associated with terrorism.  Bill Landes and I found that deaths and injuries from multiple-victim public shootings fell by 80% after states passed right-to-carry laws."[1]

In some areas of the country, some men sometimes openly carry handguns.  For many reasons, I prefer concealed carry, but that is my personal preference.  Nonetheless, those who carry openly make a very good point.  They want potential terrorists and other types of misbehaving cretins to know that any type of threatened violence will be met with immediate force.

The liberals, of course, get all bent out of shape about either open or concealed carry.  However, both are allowed in many areas of the country, so there is nothing the liberal gun grabbers can do about it -- other than whine.

John Lott reports a self-evident fact:  "It's harder to victimize armed citizens."  Now that more than 30 states issue concealed carry permits for almost anyone who wants one and takes the training, there are millions of good Americans who are often both armed and well trained.  Which means, there is also likely to be a number of good armed Americans able to respond in an emergency.  This could be a rather significant surprise, and deterrent, for a would-be terrorist.

The average citizen cannot do much of anything to stop the use of aircraft as bombs, of course.  Still, there are a number of other things we all can and should do -- such as pay attention to what is happening around us.  If something happens that is too unusual and out of place, call it in and let the armed men who also have badges investigate the situation.

Because, even though millions of good citizens may be armed today, they are also trained to understand that there are very few instances when they may actually legally use their weapons.  The protection of self, family and others nearby from instant harm is one instance.  But, that's about it.

Everything else is police work. And to initiate that, the legal weapon of choice is still the telephone.

So why are we walking around armed?  Because, as Professor John R. Lott, Jr. reported:  "States that pass concealed handgun laws experience drops in violent crimes, especially in multiple victim shootings."  As many studies show, when honest citizens, competent with weapons, are walking about armed, all of society benefits.  It is as simple as that.

About Our Gun Rights:

One useful fact all Americans should keep in mind is that they have no "right" to be protected by the police.  American police are reactive, not proactive.  They don't usually "prevent" crime.  They catch lawbreakers after they have committed a crime.

This was by design of the Founding Fathers.  Because, as we see today with the anti-terrorism laws, in order to "prevent" crime, police would need all sorts of obnoxious powers that would trample all over our rights of life, liberty and property.

Instead, Americans were intended to have the means of self defense.  Put another way, the Constitution does not grant the federal government the authority to restrict American citizens from keeping and bearing arms.  Rather, the Second Amendment clearly instructs those in government that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

James Madison wrote in The Federalist Papers #46:  "Americans have the right and advantage of being armed -- unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."

Thomas Jefferson also recognized the need for citizens to be armed:  "A strong body makes the mind strong.  As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun.  While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind.  Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind.  Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks."  (Encyclopedia of T. Jefferson, 318 [Foley, Ed., reissued 1967])

As late as the 1960s, members of Congress agreed that the American people have an inherent right to keep and bear arms.  Even the most liberal Democrats recognized that right: "Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms.  This is not to say that firearms should not be carefully used and that definite safety rules of precaution should not be taught and enforced.  But the right of the citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government and one more safeguard against a tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible."

That was Senator Hubert H. Humphrey, later to become Vice President under L.B. Johnson; quoted in a "Know Your Lawmakers" article in Guns Magazine, February 1960.

Even in the 1980s, Senators were grudgingly admitting that a private citizen has the right to own and carry firearms.  According to the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT), chairman, in the Report of the Subcommittee On The Constitution of the Committee On The Judiciary, United States Senate, 97th Congress, second session (February, 1982):  "The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner."

So, what happened?  If these Senators knew perfectly well that the American people have a Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms, why did they turn tail and allow all those unconstitutional gun control laws to be enacted?  Or, perhaps we should ask: Why is there no punishment for those lawmakers, judges and bureaucrats who knowingly and intentionally violate the Constitution?  Are they now above our Constitution?

Anyway, there is a very interesting story behind the federal gun control scheme.  Over the years, some have said that the federal gun control laws smelled a lot like the old Nazi gun control laws.  And, maybe they do.

Apparently, the U.S. Gun Control Act of 1968 has quite a lot in common with the Nazi Weapons Law of 1938.  One popular gun rights group looked up the old Nazi law and compared it with the U.S. Gun Control Act of 1968.  As they report:

"Members of Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO) consider 'gun control' to be an aggressive cancer.  JPFO has a cure, a way to destroy 'gun control'. JPFO has hard evidence that shows that the Nazi Weapons Law (March 18, 1938) is the source of the U.S. Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA '68).  Adolph Hitler signed the Nazi Weapons Law.  The Gestapo (Nazi National Secret Police) enforced it.  In 'Gun Control': Gateway to Tyranny we present the official German text of the Nazi Weapons Law and a side-by-side translation into English.  Even more deadly: a side-by-side, section-by-section comparison of the GCA '68 with the Nazi Weapons Law.  If you have this in your hands, no one can tell you that you're imagining things."

JPFO is hopping mad about this, as we all should be.  They present evidence and name the names of those in government who spearheaded this treacherous nonsense.  Some people named are still on Capitol Hill.

For a great outline of the story (and names), visit the JPFO web site.[2] If you are interested in Constitutional issues and your right as an American to keep and bear arms, you will find this page very interesting.

Then comes the problem: How do we correct it?

1. <http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=95001226>

2. <http://www.jpfo.org/GCA_68.htm>

One would think that "standing up for a stronger, more secure nation" would also include protecting our borders against the massive onslaught of illegal aliens and tons of illegal drugs entering with near impunity.  Unfortunately, that is not the case at all.

The federal government talks of terrorism.  Well, when American citizens are not able to walk the streets of major cities because gangs of illegal aliens, not police, control those streets, we class that as terrorism.

That came about, of course, because of the negligence of the central government.  Our country's borders have major holes through which thousands of illegal aliens walk daily.  The central government (Clinton, and now the Bush, administration) found it easier to bother all Americans with presenting documentation than to protect our borders.  The Clinton administration also insured that the government provides illegals free medical treatment, education and welfare -- at the expense of all legal American citizens.  Today, many illegal aliens attend universities for less money than American citizens are required to pay.  They are, of course, subsidized by the American taxpayer.

There was a time, back in my distant memory, that when a bureaucrat came upon illegal aliens they would have them apprehended and deported.  The same laws are still on the books.  But, apparently those laws no longer need to be obeyed by anyone.

Today, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has the responsibility for enforcing immigration laws in the nation's interior.  But, ICE only has 2,300 agents for interior enforcement.  Those agents are tasked with finding some 80,000 criminal aliens wandering our nation's streets, plus another 320,000 foreign nationals known as 'absconders' who fled after being ordered deported.  Unfortunately, there are no federal officials bothering to round up the other few million illegal immigrants permanently squatting here and sucking up our tax dollars in services.

According to authorities, over 1.2 million people attempt to cross U.S. borders illegally each year -- that they know about.  Many of them are OTMs (Other than Mexicans).  No one knows how many are potential terrorists, just that some are.

Mexican President Vicente Fox was no friend of the people of the United States.  He headed one of the most corrupt governments in the world and even his police and military are involved in smuggling illegal drugs into our country.  Will anything change in Mexico after the recent election?  That’s doubtful!  We can expect that Mexico will continue acting like a very bad neighbor.

Now comes the amnesty debate again -- albeit, under a new name.  Because they were able to violate our laws without getting caught, President Bush plans to reward a few million illegals with permission to stay here longer -- or maybe permanently.  Such action is very wrong.  It sends a signal to Americans, as well as all people of the world, that federal laws are arbitrary and capricious.  Because, when it becomes acceptable for one whole class of people to willfully violate our laws when they find it to their personal benefit, that same type of consideration must then be extended to everyone in this country, plus anyone else who can sneak in.

Illegal aliens are already a permanent underclass.  Out of the many millions illegally in this country, tens of thousands are packing our prisons, tens of thousands more are involved in organized drug crime and/or street gangs and a few million others are on welfare.  Yet another problem is that they do not even bother to learn our language and customs.  Worse yet, a large segment of that population is actually scheming to break off a chunk of our country for their own.

Why would we want to allow them to stay?

All illegals should be arrested and put in jail.  Or, there not being enough room in our prison system for all these lawbreakers, they should be shipped back to Southern Mexico, where it is a long walk back to the U.S. border.  After all, if American citizens are expected to obey federal law, most certainly all foreigners must.  Either that, or, we all get to violate federal laws with impunity.

Another problem is those in and out of government conspiring to help illegal aliens enter this country and function while here.  According to federal law, these people should also be arrested and imprisoned.  The law is clear on that, too. For instance:

18 USC 3 makes accessory after the fact a felony:  "Whoever, knowing that an offense against the United States has been committed, receives, relieves, comforts or assists the offender in order to hinder or prevent his apprehension, trial or punishment, is an accessory after the fact."

It stands to reason that aiding or employing an illegal alien would amount to comforting and assisting the offender and that not reporting the illegal alien would amount to aiding in the prevention of apprehension.  And so it is.

Because, now comes 18 USC 4, the misprision of felony law:  "Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both."

This could lead one to believe that everyone would be required under the law to turn in any illegal aliens, like pronto.  Else, one can get up to three years free room and board in the hoosegow.

Clearly, a great deal more needs to be done to protect our nation. Giving amnesty to flagrant lawbreakers does nothing to protect our national security.  It only compounds the problem.

      -- Doug Fiedor

Last month, CNN shouted yet another global warming warning: 

Study: Earth 'likely' hottest in 2,000 years

Panel: 'Warmth is unprecedented for at least the last 400 years

WASHINGTON (AP) -- It has been 2,000 years and possibly much longer since Earth has run such a fever.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/06/22/global.warming.ap/index.html

Can that be true?  I hate to be too inconvenient here, but let's get real.

Does this mean that the Biblical "War of Kings" started the global warming last time?  Maybe it was Abraham with that army of fast riding camels, eh?  Flatulence, it was, when his people went to get his captured nephew.  Or, perhaps it was those Roman Armies marching around the known world. . . .

Anyone want to know about the recent changes in weather here? Go to any rural coffee shop frequented by old farmers anywhere USA and ask.  They’ve got stories about weather changes.  Believe me, they’ve got stories!

Meanwhile, we have one set of scientists informing us that we are still coming out of the last ice age and another set of pseudo-scientists  complaining that man is causing global warming.  Worse, science editors in major media publish both stories without ever mentioning the inconsistency.  Is it any wonder that the American public is confused?