This weekend America celebrates the life of one of our all-time greatest citizens. Martin Luther King Jr was a man whose actions and influence were immeasurable and invaluable. He was a man of courage. A man of God. A man of the Constitution. His convictions were solid, and he made the ultimate sacrifice for his cause. Amen.

It’s hard to think of Dr. King without a deep sense of warmth overcoming you. He made America a better country. He made us all better people. He gave us hope and vision. If I had the opportunity to meet anyone in history, Dr King would no doubt be in my top 5 and probably more like top 3. Rarely does such a man come along and I look forward to someday shaking his hand in the afterlife.

As a conservative, my deep admiration of Dr King sometimes surprises people. Usually those people are liberals who hold the belief that conservatives are generally racists. I’m not sure exactly why they think that but I have my theories, and I think much of it has to do with comments like the ones I will make today. We’ll see. At any rate, when my mind turns to Dr King I often reflect on what he did, what he died for, and if his dream has truly been realized. That is today’s post.

What is not disputed about Dr King is what he fought and died for. Dr King believed in equality. He often quoted the Declaration of Independence along with many of the scriptures as he forwarded his cause that all men are created equal and all human life has value. In short, Dr King was a man who believed in liberty, and he died fighting for liberty. He joined the hundreds of thousands of Americans throughout history who made the ultimate sacrifice for the one thing that we have demonstrated amazing courage in defending…liberty. He may not have died in uniform, but that doesn’t make his sacrifice any less significant. Martin Luther King gave his life so that others can be free. There is nothing more American than that.

However, as I look back over the past few decades I wonder how much his sacrifice helped, and how much it has been exploited. For one, black leadership has been severely lacking. I’ve posted on this before so I’ll just hit the highpoints. Since Dr King’s death, we’ve seen men like Malcolm X, Louis Farrakhan, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton step forward as leaders of the black community. The problem is they all failed to carry on Dr King’s cause and message. Instead, they fostered divisiveness, contempt and resentment. Their message was one of entitlement. Their message was one of class warfare. Dr King preached that we are all in this together, while these men preached more of an “us against them” message, and I think the black community has suffered because of it. No doubt these men achieved a lot of personal gain both financially and politically because of their message, but they have overall done very little to further King’s cause and to benefit America’s black population and America as a whole.

Our national political leaders haven’t done much better, and I think Dr King would be incredibly disappointed in both political parties if he were alive today. The Democrats have carried the same tired message since the 60s, a message of governmental intervention. “We’re the government, and we’re here to help.” It sounds good on the surface, but history has taught that it’s not the answer to our problems. They feel the government has a responsibility to take care of the problems of the poor (often considered the same problems in the black community) and they teach that the private sector can’t be trusted to address these problems. They carry out their plan with a tax-and-spend agenda that seeks to redistribute income from the haves to the have nots, while along the way spewing a lot of rhetoric that often propagates resentment and class warfare amongst the people. This fosters a sense of entitlement in the black and impoverished community that the Democrats are all too eager to reinforce. They feel it’s the government’s job to provide for its citizens. In the process, they campaign on promises of giving. They are the party of the government entitlement. They are the party of the government handout. Someone on this site recently asked me why blacks and minorities favor the Democrats so overwhelmingly, and I think that the above explanation is responsible for a lot of that. Minorities (many of whom live in poverty) hear the message of handouts and, naturally, support the party providing those handouts. But there’s a big problem with that.

My last comment will no doubt bring charges of racism from skeptics. So be it. I’ve been called many names, most of them don’t stick. I am not a racist in that I believe in equal rights for all law-abiding human beings, and I don’t believe one’s race should change that or that any one race is superior to the other. But I do believe that the black community has been misled by the Democrat party in the sense that they’ve been convinced that the government must provide for them rather than the individual providing for themselves. This breeds complete dependence on the government amongst a large segment of the population, and since only one party champions this agenda it essentially leads to dependence on that one party, assuring that they have the votes to gain and stay in power. But what good does it do for the individual. Dr King died for liberty. I ask: What liberty does one have when they depend on the government for housing, education, healthcare, employment, and sometimes food and living expenses? Is this the liberty that King gave his life for? Of course not.

A wise man once said that this democracy will fail the moment the people realize they have the power to vote themselves rewards from the treasury. When that happens, the people give up their liberty to gain those rewards. I dare say that we are seeing much of that today, and the latest campaign verifies that thought every day. How many people base their vote on what the candidate promises to give them from the treasury? Again, this is not the liberty that King died for. In a way, I’m accusing many in the black community of selling out Dr King and his dream of liberty and equality so they can have their piece of the government pie.

We have to look no further than Hurricane Katrina to see the implications of what I’m talking about. Despite the claims of many, especially among the black and democrat leadership, that disaster was not about race. The charges that Bush ignored things, or doesn’t care about black people are beyond ludicrous. Many people of all races suffered terribly from that storm. Many people, of all socioeconomic background and status, lost their homes. But who was left stranded in the city, neck deep in the putrid water? It was the poorest citizens. Why? Because the poorest of citizens depend on the government for security. They have no means to care for themselves, so when times are bad they rely on the bureaucracy to care for them, which will ultimately leave you wading through neck deep filth fighting for your life. Meanwhile, those who are self-dependent were able to escape the storm’s path. They lost property, but saved themselves. Katrina was a tragic metaphor for how we have failed in helping the poor amongst us. More government is not the answer. Yet, the promises continue and the Democrat leaders keep with their game of class warfare and race baiting. They’ve made Katrina a race issue, and many in the black population have bought off on it without realizing that depending on the government is ultimately self-destructive.

This is not to say that all liberals have ill intentions. I think many have genuine desires to help the needy and truly feel the government is the best way to do so. It’s the political leadership that I criticize because they exploit those feelings for political and partisan gain.

The Republicans hold some blame as well. The black community simply doesn’t vote for Republicans. I’ve offered a partial explanation for that above, but I also think there is more to it. It’s a common misconception that conservatives don’t care about blacks or the poor. This is, of course, absolutely asinine. Conservatives are very generous people. We give lots of money to lots of charity programs to help those in need. Look at the statistics and you’ll see how generous conservatives truly are. If we didn’t care, we simply wouldn’t give. The difference is that we don’t think the government is fit to handle such a task, whereas our charity of choice specializes in doing these things. We see money in the hands of the bureaucrats as money that is wasted or inappropriately spent. Here’s a simple analogy: If I pull up to a stoplight and see a homeless person holding a “will work for food” sign, I won’t give that person money because, chances are, he will spend it on booze or drugs. However, I will most certainly give money to a homeless shelter or soup kitchen without reservation. Why? Because then I know my money is used properly, to actually help people who need help. Therein lies the difference. I equate giving money to the government as giving money to the homeless guy on the street. Chances are it will not be used properly. There is simply too much bureaucracy for the government to be able to effectively provide so much to so many without screwing it up like we saw during Katrina. Many conservatives feel the same way and are considered cold and heartless because of it. Over the years, this has been manipulated to paint conservatives as people who don’t care. Since we oppose government entitlements and handouts, we are made to look as though we oppose helping the poor. It’s a blatant misrepresentation of our core principles.

The problem is that conservatives have done very little to defend themselves. We should be echoing the above paragraph at every opportunity. Instead, we allow others to paint us as cold-hearted and anti-black without answering the charge. As a result, blacks and the poor have become anti-conservative and anti-Republican. This is where the GOP has failed. And now, many of the GOP politicians have migrated to the Left on government spending and advocate big government in a lame attempt to help their image and gain votes. It really is quite nauseating to see Republican leaders sell out their conservative principles to pander to the poor. This is not the way to attract the minority vote because it looks phony. The right way is to echo the message that conservatives DO care, that we very much want all people to prosper and be wealthy and the way to do this is with less goverment.

So, in many ways, Dr King's dream has been realized, but we still have a long way to go and it starts with putting an end to the politics and class warfare. I will keep up the fight because I believe we CAN achieve his vision. We owe it to him, to our country, and to ourselves.

FLINT, Mich. (AP) — A judge says a man charged with raping women he's accused of abducting from Flint-area shopping malls must undergo testing for sexually transmitted diseases.
But the American Civil Liberties Union is complaining there hasn't been a finding of probable cause that Kevin L. Thomas of Iron Mountain committed the assaults.
Genesee County Prosecutor David Leyton says his office asked for the tests so that the women wouldn't have to wait months for results.
But defense lawyer Anthony Pappadakis says Leyton's motion is premature.
The 32-year-old Thomas faces 18 charges stemming from the three incidents in October. The charges include first-degree criminal sexual conduct, kidnapping, carjacking, assault and armed robbery.

The ACLU is at it again, fighting for the "rights" of criminals while trampling the rights of law-abiding citizens in the process. No probable cause? He's been charged with rape. That's not reason enough to perform STD testing on the man?

Does the victim have any rights here? In my opinion, a woman victimized by rape has the right to know if she may have been infected with HIV or hepatitis. Is the ACLU not concerned about that right? She's suffering enough as it is without the added stress of waiting for months to know what her attacker may or may not have transmitted to her. Plus, it's well documented that treating HIV and hepatitis early can have an impact on the severity of the disease. Hospitals require any worker who suffers a high-risk needle stick to start antiviral medication at once, and they require this for a reason. The treatment works. And diseases like Chlamydia and Gonorrhea, if left untreated, can lead to pelvic inflammatory disease which can cause chronic pain, scarring and even infertility. But that's not important to the ACLU.

What's important to them is standing up for the rapists of the world to ensure their rights aren't violated by their victims.

I have to hand it to Dick Morris. Once again, he proved that he knows the Clintons all too well. Last week, Morris predicted that Hillary would insert race into the campaign. The reason: To get people talking about Obama's race and not the issues. We all know what husband BJ said. We all know what Hillary said about Dr King, LBJ and the civil rights movement. And now, what is everyone talking about?

Personally, I think both comments were harmless. This may be the first time you ever hear me defend the Clintons. Bill's "fairy tale" remark was referring to Obama's position on the war. Hillary was making the point that effective change requires effective political leadership. I don't think Hillary was taking a shot at Dr King or trying to diminish his role in history. But some members of the media picked it up and ran. Soon, Bill was bowing down at the altar of Al Sharpton and Hillary was back tracking as well. But her back tracking also included a few shots at Obama in the realm of "they are misrepresenting what I said".

Now, Obama never commented on Hillary's comments before that, so I think she was trying to bait him and it worked. Before too long, Obama was down in the mud with her. And now everyone is talking about race, which is exactly what the Clintons wanted.

Some may say that I'm giving Billary too much credit. I don't think so. Bill is a master politician and his wife isn't too far behind. Manipulation is their specialty and I think this was all deliberate. The Clintons wanted race on the forefront and now they have it. Obama's mistake was answering their petty charges and getting in the mud with her. Big mistake. Suddenly, the Democrat party seems to be divided along racial lines.

It's always been my contention that Democrats are the party of racism. In my mind, there is nothing more racist than government handouts and affirmative action, both of which are centerpoints of Democrat domestic policy. But I never thought I'd see two Dem candidates divide the party like this. It's not accidental, folks. This was manufactured by the Clintons. After all, you don't hear much discussion about gender, do you?

Obama may end up benefiting. I know many African-Americans who looked at him as uppity and "not black enough". That may change for him. But there's no doubt that Hillary will benefit. If you get people talking about race - something they weren't talking about before now - then eventually people will ask if a black man can beat the republican in the general election. That kind of doubt is exactly what Hillary wants.

I just love being right. So anytime science vindicates me or my positions I will echo the findings. I recently posted about immunizations and the myths surrounding them. Years ago, some science journal decided to publish some poorly constructed study about autism and Thimerosal, an antiseptic additive used in vaccines to prevent bacterial contamination.

Some hack in the science world noticed that autism rates were increasing dramatically and he felt that this had to be related to immunizations, since our immunization rates have also gone up dramatically over the past several decades. His study was published in a British science journal and before too long it caught on in the US. Add a few celebrities and political names, ie RFK Jr, and soon the hysteria set in. Parents began withdrawing their children from immunization programs, and refusing very important vaccines out of fear of autism. Lawsuits and rumors of lawsuits began to build. The vaccine manufacturers began to panic.

Keep in mind that there have been many studies on this and some of those predated the study that induced all of this panic. Those studies showed thimerosal to be safe and not linked in any way to neurologic disease, including autism. Of course, science has never stopped people from taking drastic, irrational action (anyone remember what happended with DDT? How many people die every year from malaria since we banned it on bad science?). So the fear of lawsuits basically led the vaccine manufacturers to remove thimerosal from their vaccines in 1999 despite the lack of scientific evidence supporting such action. As a sidenote, this action alone could potentially be harmful since the reason for having thimerosal in the vaccine came about after several children died from a staph infection they received from a contaminated vial of vaccine. This didn't happen once the thimerosal was added. Granted, there are other ways to keep the vaccine clean, but still this was something that didn't have to be done given the actual evidence.

Anyway, the California Dept of Developmental Services has just completed a study that basically blows RFK Jr's cause completely out of the water and (hopefully) ends the discussion altogether. They've been tracking autism rates with close scrutiny since 1999 to see if there would be any impact from withdrawing the thimerosal. This is classic epidemiology. If a disease is caused by a particular agent, then removing that agent will lead to a decrease in the disease rate. So what did they find in California? Interestingly, the rate of autism has actually INCREASED since we stopped giving our children thimerosal in their vaccines.

Does this mean thimerosal provided an element of protection from autism? Of course not. But it does confirm the generally agreed upon theory regarding the increasing rates of autism. Basically, autism has increased because we have gotten better at screening for it, recognizing it, and diagnosing it properly. In the past, these children were simply labelled as "mentally retarded" because we didn't know much about autism. Now, we are diagnosing them appropriately. Plus, we have developed some screening tools to pick up on the diagnosis at younger and younger ages, and we are doing better at instructing parents on what signs to look for. So technically autism the disease is not increasing in frequency, but autism the diagnosis is. Make sense?

It is my sincere hope that this new study ends the discussion completely, and parents stop endangering their children with silly myths. But, somehow, I wouldn't be surprised if nothing changed.

My endorsement for President...

I am a conservative and a traditionalist, so naturally that's what I look for in a candidate. That doesn't necessarily mean that I will always vote Republican. There are many Blue-Dog Democrats who won in '06 that I would support for President. Unfortunately, none of them are running. For some reason, the Democrat party is running 3 radical Left politicians which risks alienating a lot of voters. Hillary is phony and much too ambitious. Edwards is an ambulance chaser who would steal your wallet if you turned your back on him. And Obama? Well, to be honest, I like him as a man. I read his book and I truly feel he is honest and devoted to his family. He is a good husband and a good father. However, his Senate record consists of many "present" votes rather than yes's and no's. He gives a good speech, he is honest, but he is a coward. There is no other way to put it. He inspires people because he speaks with passion and makes us feel good, but he has no substance. There is no way he would ever have my vote unless he showed a little backbone and took a stand for something.

First and foremost, the President is the Commander-in-Chief. He must be willing to defend this country with ferocity. He must be unwilling to defer our sovereignty to a UN committee and never allow US troops to serve under UN command. Military experience is not a requirement, but is certainly a bonus. NONE of the Democratic candidates have demonstrated the qualities that I look for as Commander-in-Chief. In fact, I have sincere concern for the military should any of them take over as President.

Foreign policy should be "America First". That means taking on China economically. That means taking care of US corporate interests. That means doing whatever it takes to make America energy independent, regardless the consequences for OPEC. That means cutting foreign aid with a broad knife to any country that is not 100% supportive of our policies, including Mexico. And that means removing ourselves from the UN as soon as possible.

As for domestic policy, here are the key components that I value in a candidate, in order of importance:

- Social Security - I have heard a sound, detailed plan for saving Social Security from only one candidate...the candidate I am endorsing. Both Republicans and Democrats are deeply lacking on this issue. No one wants to tackle it, and I think it's the biggest domestic issue this generation faces.

- Immigration - Tonight I heard my candidate say that America 'should be a nation of tall fences and wide gates where we control when to open those gates'. Amen! I couldn't have said it better myself. I'm ALL FOR immigration, but our laws must be enforced and our borders must be secured and it must be done NOW.

- Healthcare - Any candidate that wants socialized medicine will get nothing but strong resistance from me. Socializing our medical system will ruin quality of care, and access to care will vanish...all at great cost to the treasury. My candidate should be deeply concerned about the number of uninsured citizens in this country, and will put forth a plan to improve access to care via the free market with minimal government interference.

- Energy - Improve technology for cleaner energy and take steps towards energy independence. But that's all long-term stuff. What about short-term? My candidate has to advocate for more nuclear power to help our energy needs while allowing technology time to come up with something better.

- Environment - I believe in responsible policy. I care about the environment. I'm an outdoorsman and a hunter, and it's hard to find more dedicated conservationists than hunters. I want to protect the earth, but I want to do it based on sound science and with methods that will not harm our economy or job market. It can be done, and it doesn't require panic or hysterics.

- Taxes - Must be reduced. My candidate has already advocated for abolishing capitol gains taxes, the AMT, the Death Tax and implementing a fair tax system. A true conservative must fight to shrink the government and MEAN IT! This is one of my biggest gripes with Bush and the Republicans. Spending is out of control. Earmarks have become ridiculous. This must stop. Washington has to stop wasting money and balance the budget, and they need to do this with lower taxes. It can be done.

As far as values are concerned, the ideal candidate must have a strong values system, something unwavering, which means that he must have a religious background. Any candidate who conjures their own set of values will falter in difficult times. Moral relativists can not lead a nation. The ideal candidate will appoint Judges who uphold what is written in the Constitution, not apply their own vision to it. I refer especially to the TENTH AMENDMENT, which many judges conveniently ignore in order to create law and impose their own beliefs on the American people. This must stop and the President must appoint judges who will stop it. The President must be willing to do the unpopular thing if it's the right thing. The President must not govern by polls.

With all this in mind, there are only 2 candidates that meet my criteria. Duncan Hunter has a phenomenal platform and will make a great running mate for the eventual nominee, but he is too deep in the polls to win and he needs to work on his delivery to connect with voters. Therefore, I endorse Fred Thompson for President. He is a true conservative with a solid values system who will be strong on foreign policy. He will likely drop out if he doesn't win in South Carolina, but I am not picking winners, I am picking my ideal candidate.

Vote for Fred!

New Hampshire eve....

Tomorrow the first primary votes are cast, and here are my predictions:

- Obama wins by double digits. I've posted before about how important Iowa is to Democrats and the tendency for a "follow the leader" mentality in that party, ie John Kerry. Obama's win in Iowa may not have assured his nomination, but it certainly made him the hands-down favorite. With a win in Iowa, he raises the hammer to drive the final nail into the coffin of the Clinton campaign.

- Hillary gets nasty. Don't count her out. Dick Morris, who knows the Clintons as well as anyone, predicts that she will play the race card. Her last-gasp desperation tactic will be that a black man can't get elected in America. Of course, she will be subtle about it but that will be the message nonetheless. I think Morris is spot on. I've wondered how Clinton could get muddy with Obama without a backfire and this may be it. We'll see.

- McCain wins. This will be the beginning of John McCain's presidential nomination. 3 months ago I didn't think he had a chance, but it's funny how Rudy's numbers seemed to tumble in correlation with Hillary's. It's almost like GOP voters wanted a Rudy-Hillary match or none at all for the former mayor. So I think McCain edges out Romney which (considering the investment Romney made in New Hampshire) basically knocks Romney pretty much out of it. Granted, he won't exit until he loses in Michigan, but this is the beginning of the end for Mitt. McCain will go on for the nomination and, in my opinion, wins the general election in a landslide. Can you imagine? A first term junior Senator with a very flaky voting record running against arguably the most respected man in the Senate on both sides of the aisle? And one of the few politicians respected by voters nationwide? No contest. McCain's biggest obstacle is the nomination. If he gets it (and I think he will), he has the general election in the bag.

- Huckabee fades. Finally. I watched the debate and this guy seems absolutely clueless. He dodges more questions than Bill Clinton, which brews a nauseating sense deep in my gut. He may win South Carolina, but that will be it.

- Richardson dumps Hillary and takes Obama as his new best friend. I've been impressed at how Richardson has been campaigning, not to win the election but to be Hillary's choice for a running mate. Oops. Now he has to nudge his way in with Hagel, Clark and Lieberman. Good luck with that, Billy.

- Ron Paul refuses to go away. Does anyone else want to swat this lunatic? Paul isn't even a Republican, so why is he running in the GOP race? Libertarianism in its purest form is just as dangerous as socialism and, for the LAST TIME, isolationism DOES NOT WORK. How many wars will the US have to fight before the libertarians admit to that morsel of logic? Anyone voting for this numbskull should perform an immediate self-assessment on their level of sanity. It's time he climbed back onto his starship with Kucinich and returned to Mars.

WEP will soon be issuing my official endorsement for President. I haven't done this before but I have a good reason. As a Florida voter, registered as an Independent, I am not allowed to vote in the primary election. That's unfortunate because I would like a little say in who the candidates will be instead of accepting what the two parties give me. It's a shame that I have to declare myself a Democrat or a Republican in order to have that say, and I refuse to do it. So I'll voice my opinion on this site and issue the first official When Evil Prospers endorsement. Stay tuned my brave and faithful readers, and God bless you all for tolerating my gab!

Star pitcher Roger Clemens and his ex-trainer Brian McNamee were asked Friday to testify before a congressional panel on Jan. 16, according to media reports. Also called were fellow Yankees pitcher Andy Pettitte and former Yankee position player Chuck Knoblauch, as well as Kirk Radomski, the former New York mets clubhouse attendant who alledgedly dstributed performace-enhancing drugs to players, reports said.

I am a baseball fan and in certain circumstances Roger Clemens's (or anyone else's) steroid use may be an issue. However, I haven't figured out why Congress is getting involved in this matter. Isn't this an issue for Major League Baseball to handle?

The nitwits in Congress obviously have too much time between meeting with lobbyists and attending $500-a-plate fund raisers, so they have to fill their schedule with inconsequential matters like Roger Clemens and his potential steroid use. If only we lived in a country where this was the most pressing of issues. Last time I checked, Social Security remains an impending disaster, illegal immigration threatens to bankrupt hospitals across the southwest, and we are still not energy independent. But those things can wait. We need to get to the bottom of this Roger Clemens steroid issue.

I wonder how much longer the American people will tolerate this madness from their elected leaders. They pass laws fluffed with earmarks and unnecessary spending, all while running for president as the "candidate for change". Change? Unless they start addressing the important stuff, and ignoring the unimportant stuff, then there is no change happening.

I'm sure the pundits on ESPN feel the Clemens issue is important. I'm sure there are die-hard baseball fans across the nation who agree. But I say let MLB figure it out. We don't pay our Congressman to interview baseball players. We pay them to solve problems. Perhaps one day they'll start doing their job.