This Just In...

In a story I discussed while filling in for Mark Belling on Newstalk 1130 WISN today during the 3:00 hour, Milwaukee County Circuit Judge John Franke has ruled in favor of the city of Franklin’s lawsuit filed against registered sex offender Steve Hanke who moved into Franklin in June of 2007 in violation of the city’s ordinance that prohibits released sex offenders from living or congregating within 2000 feet of schools and other locations. Hanke moved into a home 600 feet from a Franklin middle school.

Hanke could now be forced to vacate the premises and face fines for every day he was in violation other ordinance. The ruling is significant, essentially upholding the Franklin ordinance’s constitutionality as well as other similar ordinances enacted around the state.

The background….

Franklin has become, over the past several years, the #1 crusader against sex offenders/sex predators and the #1 crusader in the state for protecting all children in all neighborhoods in Wisconsin from sex offender and sex predators.

A few years ago, busloads of Franklin residents stormed a public hearing at State Fair Park to protest a special state committee’s thought of building a facility in Franklin to house numerous sexually violent persons. Franklin was considered an ideal location, having the most open space in Milwaukee County.

The loud and strong stand by Franklin residents couldn’t be ignored. The special panel wrapped up its business without recommending any site in Milwaukee County for a sex predator house.

A flurry of activity ensued at the state Capitol. A key piece of legislation was approved and signed into law that killed funding for the facility for sexually violent persons and also disbanded the special committee assigned to find a location for the facility. Another bill signed into law makes first degree sexual assault of a child punishable by life in prison. Both bills were authored by state Senator Mary Lazich.

After sailing through the state Senate, a bill requiring that the worst sex offenders in the state be monitored by Global Positioning System or GPS was finally approved after much wrangling in the Assembly and signed into law.

Still, city of Franklin officials wanted to go even further. They were very worried that released sex offenders would be dumped in Franklin. Sparking that fear was the state allowing notorious offender Billy Lee Morford to travel back and forth between his northwest side Milwaukee home and Franklin for 18 months without properly notifying Franklin.

After numerous public hearings and through review, the Franklin Common Council late in 2006 approved an ordinance that was amended and finally put on the books in early 2007 that placed very strict limitations on where sexually violent persons on supervised release could live or congregate in Franklin.

Franklin’s ordinance states that no sexually violent person on supervised release may live within two thousand feet of places like schools, libraries, day care centers, parks, playgrounds, athletic fields, movie theatres, etc.

As of today, 35 municipalities from all parts of the state have contacted Franklin for information about their milestone ordinance and have either enacted similar ordinances or are considering passing such laws in their own communities.

The Franklin police have used the ordinance many times to successfully move sex offenders out of areas they weren’t supposed to be.

Here’s where the story gets controversial and important to every family in the entire state of Wisconsin.

Several months after the Franklin ordinance took effect, Steve Hanke moved into a home about 600 feet from a middle school in Franklin in clear violation of the Franklin ordinance.Hanke, who is in his mid-50's, bought the home in the 8200 block of S. 77^th Street five months after Franklin adopted its ordinance, in June of 2007.

Hanke refused to leave and Franklin took the necessary legal action to force him out. The city of Franklin filed a lawsuit to evict Hanke, a registered sex offender. Hanke was sentenced to nine years in prison in 1996 for second-degree sexual assault.

Hanke's attorney, Andrew Arena, made the incredibly insulting comment that Franklin residents were overreacting. "The sky is falling in Franklin," he said. "It's just ridiculous."

Why is this all so important?

The city of Franklin had a lot to lose if it did not prevail in this case. A ruling against the city would essentially nullify the Franklin’s tough restrictive ordinance that communities all across the state are using as a model to pass their own similar laws. If  Franklin lost this lawsuit, the teeth would have been taken right out of its ordinance and the fear that a facility to house numerous sexually violent persons could be built in Franklin would have started all over again.

Last fall, a court hearing on the matter was held before Judge John Franke. Franke is a very liberal judge with a history.

In June of 2003, Franke released one of Wisconsin’s most notorious predators, four-time-convicted child molester Billy Lee Morford, to a home reportedly less than a mile from two schools and a park. Morford was the first sexual predator given supervised release in the city of Milwaukee.

In 1997, Franke granted predator Shawn Schulpius supervised release, contingent on the creation of a plan for housing and monitoring him in Milwaukee. But for more than two years, officials could not find supervised housing for Schulpius in the city. In 2000, Franke reversed himself, saying Schulpius didn't deserve release after all.

So, you have the city of Franklin going to court to get Hanke out, claiming he’s violating a constitutional ordinance. A loss for Franklin in court would have been  a loss for the entire state, eliminating restrictive ordinances from the books in other municipalities, and opening the doors for sex offenders to live as close to innocent families and children to prey as they please.

In a conversation I had earlier this week with Franklin’s City Attorney Jesse Wesolowski, I said that I could envision Judge Franke issuing his decision on July 3^rd at 4:00 in the afternoon, and if so, that would be bad news. It didn’t turn out that way.

This is a huge victory for not just the city of Franklin, but the entire state of Wisconsin.  Ordinances that are in place right now to restrict where sex offenders can live or congregate in can remain in effect. Other cities, towns, and villages watching anxiously, waiting from the sidelines to see what would transpire can now move forward with their plans to adopt such ordinances.

Franklin actually has two ordinances that are very similar but deal with the same issue.

There’s an ordinance that deals with what Franklin City Attorney Jesse Wesolowksi described as a “public order.” This ordinance basically states that Franklin is taking these restrictive measures to protect its citizens, and then it also lists all the nuts and bolts, the details of the ordinance, the 2000 feet limits, and so on.

Then there’s the all-important zoning ordinance, and this is critical. This sealed the deal for a Franklin victory.

I’m told that it appears Judge Franke made his ruling based on Franklin’s zoning ordinance that includes all those nuts and bolts details, but was crafted and adopted based on statutes that allow municipalities like Franklin to pass laws that control its land use. This ordinance, that is almost identical to the 1^st ordinance except for some legal terminology, saved the day for Franklin.

Also, Hanke presented in court at least 9 arguments that questioned the legality and constitutionality. Judge Franke found nothing to support any of those arguments.Franke also ruled against Hanke’s motion that the claims made by the city of Franklin were invalid.

So, what does it all mean?

#1- Franklin’s tough ordinance is constitutional.

#2- Other ordinances in other communities are safely in place.

#3- Other municipalities considering adopting such ordinances can safely move forward.

#4-Does Hanke have to move? The judge has asked the city of Franklin to prepare a proposed order to have Hanke obey the ordinance;  in other words, to move from his current residence. 

#5- Hanke could be fined, anywhere from $1  to $2500 per day for every day he was in violation of the ordinance. Remember, he moved into his home in violation in June of 2007.The judge wants a hearing to determine what the specifics on fines will be.

I  have publicly criticized Judge Franke in the past and worried about how he would rule. He made the right decisions and deserves credit.

But there are other, bigger heroes, starting with the people of Franklin, the Franklin-based Citizens for a Safe Wisconsin, The Franklin Common Council and the Mayor, and especial Alderman Steve Olson, the architect of Franklin’s ordinance, and yes, state Senator Mary Lazich, who set the table for the creation of the Franklin ordinance through her collaboration with Citizens for a Safe Wisconsin to author anti-sex predator legislation that became law in Wisconsin.

The winners are every single child in the state of Wisconsin and their parents.

If you missed my discussion on the radio, the podcast is available on the Newstalk 1130 WISN website.

Reminder, I fill in for Mark Belling today on Newstalk1130 WISN from 3-6 pm.

1) Summerfest officials cave.

Let me get this straight. It’s ok for Stevie Wonder to conduct a mini-campaign rally for Barack Obama on the stage of the Marcus Ampitheater, but a vendor on the grounds can’t have a war game because it might be offensive? Summerfest Administration: wusses.



2) Jazz singer Rene Marie (who?)  was supposed to sing the national anthem at the Denver State of the City Address.  There should be no confusion because there is but ONE national anthem. Instead, Marie sang the Black national anthem. Nothing wrong with the song or the lyrics. But it’s NOT the true national anthem.

From the Denver Post:

"I pulled a switcheroonie on them," Marie said later. She explained that she decided months ago to switch the lyrics because she will no longer sing the national anthem. She said that she made the decision after a Russian broadcaster interviewed her and asked her what it was like to be an American.

At that moment, she said, she realized that as an African-American she at times feels like a foreigner in her home country.

"And I was going to correct her," Marie said. "And I realized I didn't feel like an American, and that bothered me a great deal."

If that’s the case and it’s so horrible here, maybe she should join the other celebrities who have threatened to leave the good ol’ US of A (Alec Baldwin) and get the hell out. That, of course, will never happen. Liberals can never be trusted to he held to what they say.


3) Reading, Writing, Arithmetic, and union rules.

A teacher’s union remains one of the biggest farces in America. If union leadership really cared about……….THE CHILDREN…… because after all, it’s all about……..THE CHILDREN…….then they wouldn’t be going to court to fight for this nonsense.

Teacher union priorities: Padding their wallets, and electing Democrats, The kids and their classroom performance are far down the list.

Prostitutes........demanding gas cards.

Dinesh D' Souza, an immigrant from India who is now a U.S. citizen, is author of the New York Times best-seller What’s So Great About America. A few years ago, he wrote a paper for the Heritage Foundation called What’s Great About America. For seven days, I'm posting, one each day, the qualities D'Souza listed in his paper. Here's #6.


Ideals and Interests

America has the kindest, gentlest foreign policy of any great power in world history. America’s enemies are likely to respond to this notion with sputtering outrage. Their view is that America’s influence has been, and continues to be, deeply destructive and wicked. Many European, Islamic, and Third World critics—as well as many American leftists—make the point that the United States uses the comforting language of morality while operating according to the ruthless norms of power politics. To these critics, America talks about democracy and human rights while supporting ruthless dictatorships around the world. In the 1980s, for example, the U.S. supported Anastasio Somoza in Nicaragua, the Shah of Iran, Augusto Pinochet in Chile, and Ferdinand Marcos in the Philippines. Today, America is allied with unelected regimes in the Muslim world such as Pervez Musharaff in Pakistan, Hosni Mubarak in Egypt, and the royal family in Saudi Arabia. Moreover, the critics charge that America’s actions abroad, such as in the Gulf War and Iraq, were not motivated by noble humanitarian ideals but by the crass desire to guarantee American access to oil.

These charges contain an element of truth. In his book White House Years, Henry Kissinger says that America has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests. It is indeed true that American foreign policy seeks to protect America’s self-interest, but what is wrong with this? All it means is that the American people have empowered their government to act on their behalf against their adversaries. They have not asked their government to remain neutral when their interests and, say, the interests of the Ethiopians come in conflict. It is unreasonable to ask a nation to ignore its own interests, because that is tantamount to asking a nation to ignore the welfare of its own people. Asked why he once supported the Taliban regime and then joined the American effort to oust it, General Musharaff of Pakistan coolly replied, “Because our national interest has changed.” When he said this, nobody thought to ask any further questions.

Critics of U.S. foreign policy judge it by a standard applied to no one else. They denounce America for protecting its self-interest while expecting other countries to protect theirs. Americans need not apologize for their country acting abroad in a way that is good for them. Why should it act in any other way? Indeed, Americans can feel immensely proud about how often their country has served them well while simultaneously promoting noble ideals and the welfare of others. So, yes, America did fight the Gulf War partly to protect its access to oil, but also to liberate Kuwait from Iraqi invasion. American interests did not taint American ideals; just the opposite is true: The ideals dignified the interests.

But what about the United States backing Latin American, Asian, and Middle Eastern dictators such as Somoza, Pinochet, Marcos, and the Shah? It should be noted that, in each of these cases, the United States eventually turned against these dictatorial regimes and actively aided in its ouster. In Chile and the Philippines, the outcomes were favorable: The Pinochet and Marcos regimes were replaced by democratic governments that have so far endured. In Nicaragua and Iran, however, one form of tyranny promptly gave way to another. Somoza was replaced by the Sandinistas, who suspended civil liberties and established a Marxist-style dictatorship, and the Shah of Iran was replaced by a harsh theocracy presided over by the Ayatollah Khomeini.

These outcomes help to highlight a crucial principle of foreign policy: the principle of the lesser evil. It means that one should not pursue a thing that seems good if it is likely to result in something worse. A second implication of this doctrine is that one is usually justified in allying with a bad guy in order to oppose a regime that is even more terrible. The classic example of this was in World War II. The United States allied with a very bad man, Josef Stalin, in order to defeat someone who posed an even greater threat at the time: Adolf Hitler. Once the principle of the lesser evil is taken into account, many of America’s alliances with tin-pot dictators become defensible. America allied with these regimes to win the Cold War. If one accepts what is today almost a universal consensus—that the Soviet Union was an “evil empire”—then the United States was right to attach more importance to the fact that Marcos and Pinochet were reliably anti-Soviet than to the fact that they were autocratic thugs.

None of this is to excuse the blunders and mistakes that have characterized U.S. foreign policy over the decades. Unlike the old colonial powers—the British and the French—the Americans seem to have little aptitude for the nuances of international politics. Part of the problem is America’s astonishing ignorance of the rest of the world. About this, the critics of the United States are correct. They have also played a constructive role in exposing America’s misdoings. Here each person can develop his own list: longstanding U.S. support for a Latin American despot, or the unjust internment of the Japanese–Americans during World War II, or America’s reluctance to impose sanctions on South Africa’s apartheid regime. There is ongoing debate over whether the United States was right to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

However one feels about these cases, let us concede to the critics that America is not always in the right. What the critics completely ignore, however, is the other side of the ledger. Twice in the 20th century, the United States saved the world: first from the Nazi threat, then from Soviet totalitarianism. After destroying Germany and Japan in World War II, America proceeded to rebuild both nations, and today they are close allies. Now the United States is helping Afghanistan and Iraq on the path to political stability and economic development. (What this tells us is that North Vietnam’s misfortune was to win the war against the United States. If it had lost, it wouldn’t be the impoverished country it is now, because America would have helped to rebuild it and to modernize it.)

Consider, too, how magnanimous the United States has been to the former Soviet Union since the Cold War. And even though the United States does not have a serious military rival in the world today, it has not acted in the manner of regimes that have historically occupied this enviable position. For the most part, America is an abstaining superpower: it shows no interest in conquering and subjugating the rest of the world. (Imagine how the Soviets would have acted if they had won the Cold War.) On occasion, the U.S. intervenes to overthrow a tyrannical regime or to halt massive human rights abuses in another country, but it never stays to rule that country. In Grenada and Haiti and Bosnia, the United States got in and then got out.

Moreover, when America does get into a war, it is supremely careful to avoid targeting civilians and to minimize collateral damage. During the military campaign against the Taliban, U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld met with theologians to make sure that America’s actions were in strict conformity with “just war” principles; and even as America bombed the Taliban’s infrastructure and hideouts, its planes dropped rations of food to avert hardship and starvation on the part of Afghan civilians. What other country does these things?

Jeane Kirkpatrick once said, “Americans need to face the truth about themselves, no matter how pleasant it is.” The reason that many Americans don’t feel this way is because they judge themselves by a higher standard than anyone else. Americans are a self-scrutinizing people: Even when they have acted well in a given situation, they are always willing to examine whether they could have acted better. At some subliminal level, everybody knows this. Thus, if the Chinese, the Arabs, or the sub-Saharan Africans slaughter 10,000 of their own people, the world utters a collective sigh and resumes its normal business. We sadly expect the Chinese, the Arabs, and the sub-Saharan Africans to do these things. By contrast, if America, in the middle of a war, accidentally bombs a school or a hospital and kills 200 civilians, there is an immediate uproar followed by an investigation. What all this demonstrates, of course, is the evident moral superiority of American foreign policy.

VERY COOL!.....speakers up!


Here's more.

I have blogged numerous times that America is often its own worst enemy when it comes to illegal immigration. For decades we sat back and did little while the problem exploded. Now we have millions of illegal immigrants we can’t handle, many of whom are out committing violent crimes against innocent, real Americans.

This story goes beyond outrageous. It’s one thing to throw up our hands and say the epidemic is such that any effort to stem the tide is futile. But to bend over backwards to assist illegals? That’s unconscionable, but it’s happening.

“San Francisco juvenile probation officials - citing the city's immigrant sanctuary status - are protecting Honduran youths caught dealing crack cocaine from possible federal deportation and have given some offenders a city-paid flight home with carte blanche to return.

The city's practices recently prompted a federal criminal investigation into whether San Francisco has been systematically circumventing U.S. immigration law, according to officials with knowledge of the matter.

City officials say they are trying to balance their obligations under federal and state law with local court orders and San Francisco's policies aimed at protecting the rights of the young immigrants, who they say are often victims of exploitation.

Federal authorities counter that drug kingpins are indeed exploiting the immigrants, but that the city's stance allows them to get away with ‘gaming the system.’

The practice, federal authorities say, does nothing to prevent offenders from coming back, while federal deportation legally bars them from ever returning. Federal officials also say U.S. law prohibits helping an illegal immigrant to cross the border, even if it is to return home.”

Read the rest in the SF Chronicle.

Your government, working on behalf of illegal immigrants. Is it any wonder we’re in the mess we’re in?

Last summer, I spent time filling in on WISN discussing the tragic story of the death of Lashanda Callaway. Callaway was stabbed at a convenience store in Wichita, Kansas.

While on the floor, bleeding to death, no one offered to help, not the store employee, not the other five customers. Some of the customers stepped over her body so they could continue in line to make their purchases.

One woman, after stepping over the dying woman several times, finally pulled out a cell phone. But she didn’t call 9-1-1. She took pictures of the woman on the floor. Reportedly, some pictures found their way onto the Internet.

Even though the bleeding woman struggled to her feet, only to fall to the floor several times, nobody bothered to help. Finally, emergency personnel arrived, but the delay cost the woman her life.

This is a disgusting story, a tragic commentary on our times that some individuals have such a total disregard for human life.

Now, another story has surfaced in the news, another blatant example of man’s inhumanity and cruelty. Again, it could have been prevented. Here are the details from MSNBC.

We were just kids, playing around.

It was dark, but not dark enough so the July 4^th fireworks from a nearby county park hadn’t begun yet. So some of the neighbor kids and I were on a street corner, armed with lit sparklers. My mother was there, too.

Someone, I don’t remember who, decided to toss his lit sparkler into the air. It came down quickly, landing on the ground harmlessly, just as a squad car drove by.

The squad came to a halt.

Oh oh.

An officer inside didn’t get out but talked to my mother through his rolled-down window. He muttered something to the effect that she could go to jail or some nonsense, gave the obligatory “be careful,” and then took off.

My father joked that night and for many years after that if he had been there with my mother, he would have gladly told the officers to haul her away.

In many locales in Wisconsin, just about every firework is illegal, including sparklers. I’ve read that sparklers can reach temperatures of 2500 degrees, and thus, are quite dangerous. At least, that’s what safety officials always told us in interviews when I worked in radio all those years.

Of course sparklers are dangerous………if you’re stupid. Who grabs one of those lit babies by the part that’s actually sparkling? Maybe some child absent parental supervision.

No sparkler known to man will ever burn down a house. Sparklers should be legal in all of Wisconsin but we have tried our darndest to take all the fun out of the 4^th of July.

The Milwaukee Journal/Sentinel reminds us that the city of Milwaukee has increased the penalties for fireworks. The old sanction used to be $100-$500 per violation. Now it’s $500 to $1,000 per violation.

Remember my sweet, innocent mom? If that same scenario were to take place now, she could face a fine of $1,000 for letting children use fireworks. If Mrs. Fischer doesn’t pay the fine, she can go to jail for 40 days.

Isn’t it wonderful to see leaders cracking down on the real problems facing the city of Milwaukee?

Listen up Independence Day party animals in the city of Milwaukee: No sparklers, no firecrackers, no Roman candles, no bottle rockets, no peas in the cole slaw. Okay, I made that last one up.

And then consider Wisconsin’s impossible to understand fireworks law. The Wisconsin Department of Justice writes on its website, “Sparklers, stationary cones and fountains, toy snakes, smoke bombs, and caps, noisemakers and confetti poppers with less than Вј of a grain of explosive mixture are legal without permits, unless restricted by local ordinances. All other fireworks, including roman candles, firecrackers, bottle rockets, mortars etc.--anything that explodes or leaves the ground--is illegal except for groups with permits. Penalties: Up to $1,000 forfeiture per violation (each firework may be a violation); up to $10,000 and 9 months in jail for a person who violates an injunction prohibiting them from violating the law.”

Then you have the whole issue of enforcement. You’ll hear law enforcement make proclamations right about this time that they will be out in full force to nab and any and all violators. Oh, really? I’m sure our local police have far higher priorities than scouring the neighborhoods searching for the infamous sparkler.

So, if you want to shoot off fireworks in your backyard or in the neighborhood court, get a permit from your mayor, village president or town chairman. If you don’t and get caught and are actually cited by police, get ready to fork over hundreds and hundreds of dollars.

And have a nice holiday.

Business owners interviewed by David Doege of the Milwaukee Business Journal say a sales tax increase in Milwaukee County would be detrimental to businesses.

The Milwaukee County Board has approved an advisory sales tax referendum for the November ballot, with tax revenue to go toward mass transit and the parks.  Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker will veto the measure, as he should given our current tax climate. The Board may have enough votes to override the veto.

If the referendum is placed on the ballot and then approved by voters, the state Legislature and the Governor would also have to approve the tax hike. The increase would raise the total sales tax in Milwaukee County to 6.6%. The county collects a 0.5% sales tax, the state sales tax is 5% and the stadium tax is 0.1%.

Here are some of the reactions Doege of the Business Journal got:

"It would have a devastating effect on businesses in Milwaukee County. It's difficult enough just having to deal with the proliferation of Internet retailers that don't charge a sales tax."
Tony Miresse, owner of Art’s Cameras Plus.

"Jewelry is purchased with discretionary income. It would be an even greater challenge for my business to survive."
Vivian Anton, president of Paul's Jewelers.

“This is not a good time to be increasing anybody’s cost to do anything.”
Ed Lump, president and CEO of the Wisconsin Restaurant Association.

“It’s not that we oppose having good transit. But selective taxes impact where people make major purchases.”
Chris Tackett, president and CEO of the Wisconsin Merchants Federation.

“People have not used public transportation, so I can’t see raising the sales tax to support it.”
Glenn Pentler, owner of Uptown Motors in Wauwatosa and Slinger.

“If you raise the price of motor vehicles by just one-half of 1 percent, it will be a significant factor in some people’s decision about whether to buy a car.”
Gary Williams, president of the Wisconsin Automobile and Truck Dealers Association.


These people get it. Raising taxes hurts businesses, especially those located next to areas that don’t have the increases. Consumers will drive the extra miles to save on the sales tax. The poor will be hit hardest by a sales tax increase, a fact liberals are fully aware of but choose not to discuss.

http://milwaukee.bizjournals.com/milwaukee/stories/2008/06/30/story2.html

Walker’s veto needs to be upheld. Call your Milwaukee County Supervisor ASAP and ask that he/she vote to sustain the veto of the sales tax referendum.

Green Bay Packer training camp opens in 27 days.

Dinesh D' Souza, an immigrant from India who is now a U.S. citizen, is author of the New York Times best-seller What’s So Great About America. A few years ago, he wrote a paper for the Heritage Foundation called What’s Great About America. For seven days, I'm posting, one each day, the qualities D'Souza listed in his paper. Here's #5.


Religious Liberty

America has found a solution to religious and ethnic conflict. In many countries today, people from different faiths or tribes are engaged in bloody conflict: Serbs and Croatians, Sikhs and Hindus, Hindus and Muslims, Irish Catholics and Irish Protestants, Jews and Palestinians, Hutu and Tutsi—the list of religious and ethnic combatants goes on and on. Even in countries where ethnic or religious differences do not lead to extreme violence, there is generally no framework for people to coexist harmoniously. In France and Germany, for example, nonwhite immigrants have proved largely indigestible. They form an alien underclass within Europe, and Europeans seem divided about whether to subjugate them or to expel them. One option that is not available to the nonwhite immigrants is to become full citizens. They cannot “become French” or “become German” because being French and German is a function of blood and birth. You become French by having French parents.

In America, things are different. Consider the example of New York City. It is a tumultuous place, teeming with diversity. New York has black and white, rich and poor, immigrant and native. I have noticed two striking things about these people. They are energetic, hard-working, opportunistic: They want to succeed and believe there is a good chance they can. Second, for all their profound differences, they manage somehow to get along. This raises a question about New York and about America: How does it manage both to reconcile such fantastic ethnic and religious and socioeconomic diversity and give hope and inspiration to so many people from all over the world?

The credit, I believe, goes largely to the American Founders. The Founders were all too familiar with the history of the religious wars in Europe, specifically their legacy of havoc and destruction. They were determined to avoid that bloodshed in the New World. Not that the Founders were anti-religion. On the contrary, they were religious men (some Deist, some orthodox Christian) who insisted that political legitimacy and rights derive from God. The Declaration of Independence, for instance, insists that the source of our rights is “our Creator.” It is because rights come from God, and not us, that they are “inalienable.”

Despite the religious foundation for the American system of government, the Founders were determined not to permit theological differences to become the basis for political conflict. The solution they came up with was as simple as it was unique: separation of religion and government. This is not the same thing as religious tolerance. Think about what tolerance means. If I tolerate you, that implies I believe you are wrong: I object to your views, but I will put up with you. England had enacted a series of acts of religious toleration, but England also had an official church. The American system went beyond toleration in refusing to establish a national church and in recognizing that all citizens, as a matter of right, were free to practice their religion. As America’s first President, George Washington, put it in his letter to the Hebrew Congregation of Newport, Rhode Island, of August 1790:

It is now that tolerance is no more spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights. For happily the government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.

One reason that separation of religion and government worked is that colonial America was made up of numerous, mostly Protestant sects. The Puritans dominated in Massachusetts; the Anglicans, in Virginia; the Catholics were concentrated in Maryland; and so on. No group was strong enough to subdue the others, and so it was in every group’s interest to “live and let live.” The ingenuity of the American solution is evident in Voltaire’s remark that where there is one religion, you have tyranny; where there are two, you have civil conflict; but where they are many, you have freedom.

A second reason the American Founders were able to avoid religious oppression and conflict is that they found a way to channel people’s energies away from theological quarrels and into commercial activity. The American system is founded on property rights and trade, and The Federalist tells us that the protection of the unequal faculties of obtaining property is “the first object of government.” The logic of this position is best expressed by Samuel Johnson’s remark: “there are few ways in which a man is so innocently occupied than in getting money.” The Founders reasoned that people who are working assiduously to better their condition, people who are planning to make an addition to their kitchen and who are saving up for a vacation, are not likely to go around spearing their neighbors.

America has found a similar solution to the problem of racial and ethnic division: Do not extend rights to ethnic groups, only to individuals; in this way, all are equal in the eyes of the law, opportunity is open to everyone who can take advantage of it, and everybody who embraces the law and the American way of life can “become American.”

Of course, Americans have not always lived by these principles, and there are exceptions, such as affirmative action. Such policies remain controversial because, in a sense, they are un-American. In general, however, America is the only country in the world that extends full membership to outsiders. The typical American could go to India and stay for 40 years, perhaps even taking Indian citizenship, but he could not “become Indian.” Indians would not consider such a person Indian, nor would it be possible for him to think of himself in that way. In America, by contrast, millions of people come from all over the world, and over time most of them come to think of themselves as Americans. Their experience suggests that becoming Americans is less a function of birth or blood and more a function of embracing a set of ideas and a way of life.

Today in America, we see how the experiment that the Founders embarked upon two centuries ago has turned out. In American cities like New York, for example, tribal and religious battles, such as we see in Lebanon, Mogadishu, Kashmir, and Belfast, are nowhere in evidence. In Manhattan restaurants, white and African–American secretaries have lunch together. In Silicon Valley, Americans of Jewish and Palestinian descent collaborate on e-commerce solutions and play racquetball after work. Hindus and Muslims, Serbs and Croatians, Turks and Armenians all seem to have forgotten their ancestral differences and joined the vast and varied parade of New Yorkers. Everyone wants to “make it,” to “get ahead,” to “hit it big.” And even as they compete, people recognize that, somehow, they are all in this together in pursuit of some great, elusive American dream.

This is pretty slimy. Former General Wesley Clark, who ran for the Democrat Presidential nomination in 2004 is attacking John McCain’s military service. John McCain spent several years in a POW camp in Vietnam, so to criticize McCain’s service record is unconscionable.

From iht.com:

"He hasn't been there and ordered the bombs to fall" as a wartime commander, the general said on CBS. Clark is mentioned as a possible Obama running mate, although he originally supported Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton.

When the interviewer, Bob Schieffer, noted to Clark that McCain had been shot down over Hanoi, Clark replied, "I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president."

This is a huge tactical error on the part of the Obama campaign. Making derogatory remarks about McCain’s service to his country can and will create a backlash. Republicans in 2004, though critical of John Kerry, never cast any aspersions on the time he served in the military.

Obama, who has not been to Iraq, has had his foreign policy experience come into question.  Having a surrogate throw rocks at a military war hero is bound to backfire.

Read the entire article on Clark.

Obama is now in damage control...

From jsonline.com:

“A 13th Milwaukee County supervisor today said he favors holding a November referendum on a 1-cent local sales tax increase.

Supervisor Theo Lipscomb said he would vote to override the expected veto of the referendum by County Executive Scott Walker. Adding Lipscomb's vote to the 12 supervisors who approved holding the sales tax referendum last week would provide the necessary veto override margin.”

This is a bad idea. Taxes are already too high in Milwaukee County. Another tax increase is unnecessary and Scott Walker is taking the appropriate action with a veto.

Walker’s veto needs to be upheld. Call your Milwaukee County Supervisor ASAP and ask that he/she vote to sustain the veto of the sales tax referendum.