One of the things that I’ve pointed out about my own life in some of my past works here at America’s Right is that I’ve been a huge sports fan since I was a very small kid. Like so many who live in my area, following the Boston Red Sox and the New England Patriots is part of the very fabric of my being. And it is my love for these Massachusetts teams–in particular the Patriots–which is slightly, analogously relevant to the point of what I feel is a very important commentary.
Because Massachusetts was Ground Zero for the American Revolution, and given that it is one of the most Democratically-controlled, liberal states in the country–which is actually kind of sad, given its heritage and deep roots in freedom’s soil–it is quite ironic and significant that the opportunity has now presented itself, in its very nascent stages, to be sure, for America to finally pivot back to her more conservative roots. Just as perhaps the most important stand against tyranny came during the siege of Boston so many years ago, once again the country could be looking to patriots in this state to stand firm for liberty once again.
One of the lasting images from New England Patriots history in my own memory comes from a game that the Patriots played against the Giants in December 1996, during the final few weeks of the season in which they eventually advanced to Super Bowl XXXI against the Packers of Green Bay. Although the Patriots were already going to the playoffs, the game against the Giants was an important one, as it still carried implications for playoff seeding. Toward the end of that game and with the outcome still in doubt, Drew Bledsoe hit Ben Coates on a short pass across the middle, and Coates looked as though he was going to score; several Giant defenders, however, met Coates at the very edge of the goal line and seemed to have him stopped cold. Just as the play was about to end, though, Patriots running back Dave Meggett came from out of nowhere and literally pushed and willed Coates over the goal line for the decisive score.
That, my friends, is the assistance that we need to provide in Massachusetts on January 19, less than two weeks from now. The passing of the Liberal Lion of the Senate, Ted Kennedy, has left open one senate seat – one very important senate seat, especially considering how the Democratic Party leadership is scrambling to maintain a filibuster-resistant majority in the Senate in the wake of the recently announced retirement of North Dakota Sen. Byron Dorgan and Connecticut Sen. Christopher Dodd.
Should the Republican candidate, Scott Brown, win that seat, then everything that the Democrats have planned in Washington between now and November–Healthcare, Cap & Trade, Amnesty–is all ostensibly dead. Vote #41 is the Republican filibuster. Of course, this doesn’t preclude the possibility of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid continuing his campaign to strong-arm and/or bribe enough senators for required votes, but in theory, anyway, a win in Massachusetts could buy us the time that we need to make it to the mid-term elections in November.
Nationalizing elections hasn’t always been easy in the past, but as we saw last year in New York’s 23rd congressional district, this political climate makes everything possible. The fact is, most people who gather their news at this Web site and across the Internet are not residents of Massachusetts and do not have a vote (though if we went undercover for ACORN we might be able to procure one on the sly). We must, however, find ways to get the word out and “turn up the volume,” so to speak, and bring this election to the forefront of the minds of as many people in the Bay State as we possibly can. My hope is that the people reading this piece can find a way to spread this link to any people in Massachusetts with whom they have some type of contact.
When this campaign began, Scott Brown trailed Democratic candidate and state Attorney General Martha Coakley by more than 30 points in some polls; however, as of Tuesday, January 5–the day of a three-way debate between Brown, Coakley, and Independent candidate Joe Kennedy (an interesting candidate himself and, if I had to guess, I’d say he’d probably also be vote #41)–that deficit had been cut to only nine points. Keeping in mind the sinking polling numbers for the president, congressional democrats and health care reform, and considering the results of last November’s gubernatorial
elections in New Jersey and Virginia, and this could be yet another sign of the waking giant. Brown, though, still needs as much help as possible to get across the finish line. It’s time for all of us to push.
Massachusetts is a hopelessly liberal state, and in the couple of years that I’ve been really, truly following politics and reading up on the leftist mindset I’ve come to this conclusion: old habits eventually become like old leather — comfortable, broken in and hardly in need of any working over. Likewise, in the case of a state like Massachusetts, it’s simply easier to just “go along to get along,” to just do the things you’ve always done, and to think the way you’ve always thought. Hence the lengthy careers of liberal senators like Kennedy and John Kerry.
I truly believe that people who identify themselves as “liberals” do so for any one (or more) of the following reasons: (a) they’re angry at nothing in particular, (b) they’re blind contrarians, (c) they believe that liberalism means “freedom,” (d) for some perverted reason, they feel guilty for being moderately productive and successful, or (e) they hate their parents. In short, they’ve been taught never to stop and actually think about what it is that they’re doing to their lives, albeit in a very slow, corrosive fashion. It’s time to hit them over the head with an issue anvil.
All of this being said, I contacted Jeff Schreiber on Tuesday and threw out the idea of possibly putting together a review and trying to spread the link and foster discussion and awareness. He was all for it, so what follows is what I feel are the most pertinent points on the issues which were discussed. Obviously, there’s a conservative bias in my viewpoint, but I think what I’ve presented–while not completely objective, of course–tells the truth as to what needs to be done to turn our country back around. So, without any further adieu:
Issue #1 – Increased Taxes
Coakley (D): She claims to have been a fiscally responsible attorney general, yet she is an ardent supporter of cap-and-trade and increasing taxes to help to defray the national deficit. She also emphasized her claim that she has a record of “bringing money into the Commonwealth.”
My Take: I had a distinct problem with the claim that she has “brought money into the Commonwealth,” because to me that smells an awful lot like the mindset of Mary Landrieu, Ben Nelson and Jack Murtha, a distinctly machine-Democratic mindset in which money brought back into the district or state, whether it be in the form of a modern airport nobody uses or medicaid expenses picked up by taxpayers in other states. Instead, rather than having a determinant of political success be whether or not a particular lawmaker brings home the bacon to his or her constituents, we should look at whether that man or woman is doing what is best for the state, and by extension, the country.
Coakley also made it a point to hammer home the hackneyed expression of “the failed economic policies of George Bush” and that there has to be more regulation on Wall Street. Throughout the debate, she struck me as having all of her standby slogans at the ready and was playing to what she felt was the left part of what she perceives to be the winning base.
Brown (R): Brown went after Coakley on her claim of being a “pragmatist” when she is, in fact, an ardent supporter of cap-and-trade. He pointed out that she has a history of calling for the more taxes while he himself has a history of, at the very least, holding the line on taxes and showing clear restraint on government spending. He emphasized that cap-and-trade is first and foremost a tax, and that such a tax–which will increase the cost of living and the cost of doing business in the United States by hundreds of billions of dollars–will affect the average family ev
en if they are extraordinarily practical with their electricity usage. He also took issue with Coakley’s claim that Brown’s history of increasing fees on things such as marriage and firearm licenses were tantamount to taxes.
My Take: Brown is a veteran of three decades in the military, and it showed throughout the debate. He was very strong and direct on his views, and very rarely was he evasive on anything. He was clear in stating his belief that lowering taxes on businesses and families leads to the creation of jobs, and that increasing taxes during a recession does exactly the opposite.
Kennedy (I): Kennedy didn’t have much to say here, other than very practical responses: he has worked for 17 years in various senior management positions and has quite a bit of economic experience. He also refused to differentiate between the terms “fee” and “tax,” in that if it’s money coming out of an individual’s pocket, then it’s money coming out of an individual’s pocket. He simply feels that government spending and unnecessary programs must be cut and cut hard.
My Take: Truth be told, Kennedy didn’t seem to be given the same opportunities to present himself throughout the debate. When he did, he seemed to make the most of his opportunities, He was good. He’s a self-described “non-interventionist” in all matters, whether it be the lives of the American people or involvement in
foreign wars. I would have liked to have heard more from him, as I began to wonder whether I was hearing the voice of a libertarian. In this, however, I’ll admit that my experience isn’t quite refined enough. I think someone like our own Mr. Schreiber would have liked to have heard what he had to say as well. The presentation of the debate on the whole, however, was that this is a decidedly two-horse race.
Issue #2 – Healthcare
Coakley (D): In full support of the Senate version of the healthcare bill, as she feels it brings us closer to the goals of healthcare legislation: getting people covered and creating competition that brings costs down. She is also in full support of a woman’s right to choose and providing taxpayer-funded abortions.
My Take: I’ll be honest – Coakley frightened me on this one. She is ardent in her support of the American taxpayer’s paying for the unwanted pregnancies of other people. She also went after Brown on what she tried to present as his aversion to personal “choice,” and she did this by trying to frame him in the hypothetical of the rape victim who is apparently often turned away by medical professionals who will not perform such procedures on the basis of religious objections. She feels that medical professionals should be obligated to provide emergency contraception or termination in a case such as this, rather than “turned away” and sent to another medical facility. Brown termed such an example (“getting back into a car”) as ridiculous, and while he clai
ms that the issue of personal choice is one that can be discussed, he feels that a medical professional should never be obligated to provide emergency contraception or termination if it is in direct opposition to his or her moral or religious dictates.
Brown (R): Not in any way in favor of abortion of any sort, either partial-birth or full, and is most certainly against any federal funds being directed for such purposes. While he readily acknowledges that Roe v. Wade is the law of the land, he emphasized that there is a big difference between acknowledging the law and funding the action. He also went after Coakley in a very strong manner in his pointing out that she has historically been in lock-step with Emily’s List, a political-action group whose members are dedicated to building a progressive America by electing pro-choice Democratic women to office. He claims that Coakley has received hundreds of thousands of dollars from this group over the years and, if she were to be elected, would no doubt go to Washington as a social crusader in their stead, advocating for issues such as federal funding for abortions, partial-birth abortions, and lowering the age of consent for an abortion without parental consent.
My Take: Not much needs to be said here, other than Brown strikes me as a common-sense conservative in this regard, and Coakley still scares me.
Kennedy (I): In emphasizing his self-described “non-interventionist” roots, Kennedy simply said that government has no right to tell a person what he or she can or cannot do with one’s body. He’s also against any type of government-controlled healthcare of any sort. He also was on board with Brown in that he feels taxpayer funds should not be directed toward abortions and that such a procedure should only be performed by the private sector.
My Take: I would still like to hear more from this man. [So would I. -- Jeff]
Issue #3 – Federal Control of Health Care
Coakley (D): When pressed by Brown on the mess that is Massachusetts state-run health care, she didn’t have much to say other than it has “not yet” managed to defray costs for the people. Brown pointed out that insurance premiums in the state have in fact increased by eight to ten percent since the program went online. Coakley still feels that, even though Massachusetts is cash-strapped in many ways, the Senate’s plan for health care reform is the way to go.
My Take: In a corner with nowhere to run. Even when presented with the facts, the liberal cannot be swayed. Or, perhaps, it’s a case of “I’ll keep hitting myself over the head with a hammer, because each time I stop, it feels really good.” Any way you look at it, though, it’s typical liberal behavior coming from a typical liberal.
Brown (R): Tremendous response on this issue. First, Brown feels that the government’s only role in the healthcare industry should be its ensuring that the free markets actually work. In order to illustrate this, Brown hit hard with a great point — he asked if anyone in the room is aware of the only aspect of healthcare that continues to decrease in price every year; no one did. He explained that elective surgeries are the only single part of medical treatments that annually decrease in cost, because they are not regulated by the government and are open to competition. He went on to point out that as a result of the proposed health legislation on Capitol Hill, Massachusetts will have to trim another half-trillion dollars from its Medicare program, a prospect which, he feels, should frighten every senior citizen in the state. He concluded that a “public option” will soon become the only option under national healthcare.
My Take: I needed a cigarette after that response. I thought for a fleeting second that I was in love. Well, in Massachusetts, anyway, I’d be able to marry him.
Kennedy (I): No reponse. Unfortunate.
Issue #4 – Profiling
Coakley (D): She feels that our profiling tendencies have already increased since 9/11. With regard to the Christmas Day incident, she feels that our “watch list” was essentially ignored and that there were systemic breakdowns. Coakley also went on record as saying that, ultimately, this is President Obama’s responsibility and that the buck stops with him. She also feels that if captured, Osama Bin Laden should be held by the military as an enemy combatant.
My Take: While her answers were good, they weren’t anything other than what you’d expect; after all, a candidate would be playing with fire if he or she came across as weak in issues of national defense and the safety of the people, especially in the wake of what happened in the skies over Detroit and at Fort Hood over the past few weeks and months. On the whole, the answers struck me as stock responses.
Brown (R): His primary points were, again, strong ones. Brown feels that common-sense protection of American lives must be balanced with constitutional protections of the accused; however, in the case of terrorists, they should receive no constitutional protections, be treated as enemy combatants, should not be allowed the right to an attorney, and should be held in military facilities. Since Coakley had stated that Bin Laden should be held as an enemy combatant, he challenged her on the civil trial of KSM, in which case she had gone on record as saying that she would defer to the judgment of Eric Holder. Brown wanted to understand the difference.
My Take: Once again, Brown came across as much more decisive and willing to consider the issue beyond what he felt the public wanted to hear. Unfortunately, he was a bit evasive when it came to direct questioning on the issue of profiling, merely reiterating that we need to use “any and all means” in order to ensure the safety of the American people. Given his strong stance on everything else leading to that point, I was curious as to why he wouldn’t go to the lengths of saying that profiling is a tool that must be used. It seemed as though he didn’t want to commit to the use of the word. Disappointing.
Kennedy (I): Once again, not much to say. He merely said that in light of the Christmas Day incident and her initial response to the problem, Homeland Security Director Janet Napolitano should pay for her incompetence with her job. He also claims that profiling must be used, but not solely on the basis of religion.
My Take: As I’ve said, his general points were good. As the debate continued, though, I began to wonder more and more if Kennedy (especially given the last name) was a “ringer” of sorts placed into the race by the Democrats for the purpose of dividing the conservative vote, which his presence could do on two counts – the quality of the answers and the name. His voice came across as a conservative one but certainly not one that was hell-bent on taking the seat.
Issue #5 – Education
Coakley (D): Her main thrust here was, to me (given my experience in education) a curious one: Coakley continued to reiterate and seemingly emphasize throughout the discussion of this issue that more dollars must be put into education. When asked about the viability of charter schools–which Obama seems to support–her only response was that she would support them only if no resources are taken away from the public schools. As this point continued on, I couldn’t help but begin to think that she’s more than likely in the pockets of the teacher’s unions, a point at which Brown strongly hinted in his response.
My Take: As I listened to her take on pouring money into schools, I kept asking “why?” in my head. Why would a person continue doing the same thing over and over, when decades of evidence suggests that it not only doesn’t work but that it’s also completely counter-productive? Take a look at the public school systems around the country and tell me if I’m wrong. I guess it goes back to my hammer analogy. This was textbook Democrat, from the beginning of the response to the end.
Brown (R): Not much to say, with the exception of one important point: it should all come down to school choice for the parents. Whether that can be accomplished by charter schools, vouchers, etc., educational reform efforts must be directed in the area of choice.
My Take: Kind of hearkens back to my sentiments in a previous article about essentially turning public schools into tuition-driven schools. If given the opportunity, there’s a lot that can be done with that idea. At the very least, though, Brown has been erring on the side of freedom.
Kennedy (I): He made two really good points in his response to this issue. First, he feels that merit pay, rather than the typical public-sector “step system,” should be developed in order to motivate teachers to produce their best work and to provide a method by which administrators can differentiate the truly effective educators from the sub-par ones. Further, Kennedy went as far as to say that if sent to Washington, one of the “unnecessary” programs that he would work to disband is the Federal Department of Education, as nothing that it does has any positive effects on our young people. He feels that those resources should be re-directed to the local communities, where the real work is being done.
My Take: Solid responses and I would like to have heard more, but I still couldn’t shake the idea that he could be a vote-dividing plant.
Issue #6 – Deploying Troops
Coakley (D): She made a couple of general points here. First, she claims to trust Eric Holder’s judgment as to whether or not cases involving terrorists should be tried in civilian courts; second, she does not agree with Obama’s decision to send more troops to Afghanistan. She tempered the latter part of her response by saying that she understands the fact that the president is in a difficult position, because he’s fighting two wars that he inherited.
My Take: In every part of that response, she struck me as playing to what she feels that the populist, hard-left wing of her party wants to hear. It struck me as stock stuff and what she felt was probably very safe territory. Running against George W. Bush is starting to really get old.
Brown (R): Took Coakley to task for apparently not only failing to support the president with regard to his decision to increase troop levels but also because the president is a member of her own party. Brown feels that, ultimately, the president has done the right thing by making the decision to fight in the interest of the safety of the United States. He also expressed his deep concern with the fact that, for the first time in history, enemy combatants are apparently going to be tried in civilian courts at taxpayer expense. Judging by his tone, he seemed to view that reality as inexplicable. He feels that the tools and resources to fight this war should be placed in the hands of our soldiers in the field, not in the hands of attorneys.
My Take: I’m not sure that common sense with regard to the obvious could be stated any more succinctly.
Kennedy (I): Once again stressing his non-interventionist outlook, Kennedy emphasized that our troops need to be brought home immediately and that the only time we should be using military force to defend our people is when there is a clear and present danger to the country, as in the case of a potentially nuclear-capable Iran.
My Take: Solid answer, straight to the point, but his continued short responses that lacked any real depth and contained only basic nuts and bolts continued to concern me as to whether he’s truly serious about running for this senate seat.
Issue #7 – Political Alignment/Economy
Coakley (D): Despite this question being specifically asked in such a way so as to ascertain where each candidate viewed him or herself politically and how that ideological perspective would impact their individual outlooks as to how to repair the nation’s economy, Coakley continued hammering the current Democratic Party mantra of “the failed economic policies of the Bush administration.” I kid you not. It certainly seemed confusing.
My Take: Coakley again seemed to have no problem whatsoever falling back on current standard Democratic fare and is, in my opinion, another example of (a) regurgitating what seems to be “safe” and what that the base might want to hear, and (b) saying something over and over again to the point that people begin to believe that it’s the truth. Obviously there were economic issues under George W. Bush, but I feel that the reality of it has been so twisted and contorted by the leftist agenda that no one can really tell truth from fiction anymore.
Brown (R): His responses in this context were actually bordering on fascinating, at least to me. Brown aligns himself with former President John F. Kennedy, of all people, one of the most significant Democratic heroes of all-time, and certainly a heroic figure in this state. While the Democrats have attempted to align Brown with Bush and Cheney merely on partisan politics, Brown views himself as a “supply-sider” and tax-cutter in the mold of JFK and Ronald Reagan. He stated flatly that the Democrats have lost their way as a party and have fallen away from the promise of JFK and Reagan when it comes to protecting the rights of the taxpayer. George W. Bush, he feels, allowed federal spending to get out of control and failed to use his veto power enough. As to the liberals’ repeated calls for more and more regulation, he feels that we have more than enough regulations in our economic system; what we need is our law enforcement agencies to actually do their jobs. Brown also took Coakley to task on her view of increased tax rates, which she views as “investments” on the part of the American citizens.
My Take: Brown hit on something here that I’ve desperately been trying to bang into the heads of some of my more liberal-minded friends: if JFK were alive and in his political prime today, he’d be so far to the right that the Republican Party probably wouldn’t even have him. Kennedy’s whole outlook was based on a hatred of and crushing communism, strong national defense, and low taxes as a method of fostering growth. If that doesn’t sound like common sense, I’m not sure what does.
As to Brown’s contention about our law enforcement agencies actually doing their jobs, he’s right on again: capitalism is not the core of our economic problems; corruption is. Sadly, ground zero for economic corruption in this economy is the current administration. Liberals hate monopolies and big business, right? Well, they need to look at the government right now — it’s the biggest business and monopoly in the country.
Kennedy (I): He also had a very interesting response, one that again leaves the concerned listener wanting to hear more. Kennedy claims that we already have a simple playbook for getting ourselves out of this economic mess and, of all places, it comes from President Harding at the beginning of the 1920s. Harding apparently went hard after our spending at the beginning of that decade, slashing and burning every unnecessary federal program. Kennedy’s contention is that Harding got the country out of the mess in about one year.
My Take: Admittedly, I don’t know anything about Harding’s administration. Given the seeming surety of Kennedy’s response and the confidence in his delivery, I intend to read up on it.
Issue #8 – Clergy/Sexual Abuse
Coakley (D): Didn’t have much to say on this issue other than what you’d expect — that she feels Cardinal O’Malley should release the names of all members of the clergy who are known sex offenders. Brown, however, went after her in a reasonably strong fashion on two counts: since she had jurisdiction as AG in these cases, he found it surprising that neither she nor her office released any type of statement or took any action in order to insist that Cardinal Law step down. Further, Brown pointed out that Coakley’s office has in the past come down hard on not enforcing mandatory time for sexual abusers of children.
My Take: First, remember that this is Massachusetts. This was big news up here. That being said, given the standard fare of Coakley’s answer, Brown’s assertions demonstrate that he came prepared. There is some disturbing truth to what he claims here, as Fox News Channel’s Sean Hannity reported on Wednesday that semi-scandal surrounding Coakley was beginning to develop. The issue concerned her apparent negligence in failing to enforce mandatory jail time for a child molester, a man who was later found guilty and sentenced to time in prison by her successor. She also has been rumored to be in the pocket of SEIU.
Brown (R): Very clear on his feelings in this matter, which are that he would, indeed, utilize the “bully pulpit” of the United States Government to pressure Cardinal O’Malley to release the names of the guilty and ensure that all sex abusers of children serve mandatory jail time under Jessica’s law.
My Take: Brown’s clear response in this matter, in concert with what appear to be recent allegations that will most certainly work against Coakley, strikes me as another example of the firm footing that is beginning to take shape under the conservative movement.
Kennedy (I): Will also definitely utilize the ‘bully pulpit’ of the US government in these cases.
My take: I still found myself wondering about this man’s actual determination to win. At the very least, he was making this commentary a whole lot easier to write. He may get my vote just for that.
Issue #9 – Bankers/Wall Street
Coakley (D): This final major issue was one that should have been right in her wheelhouse, as it is loaded with the “populist outrage” sentiment off which Democrats make their meal money. Here again, however, I feel that Brown got the better of Coakley. She claims that she was one of the first AG’s to go after predatory lenders, the type of political criminals that deliberately worked to corrode to foundation of our economy. When asked whether she would support windfall taxes on businesses, she was quite evasive.
My Take: Hey, Martha, here’s a gut-check for you – if you’re going to go after predatory lenders and the politicians who forced that action, how about starting in your own state with Barney Frank? I’m just sayin’.
Brown (R): Considering the federal bailouts, Brown simply said that, while he didn’t agree with them, once the government becomes a financial partner it absolutely has the right to have a say in the bonuses that are doled out to business employees. As concerns populist outrage, he added what you’d expect any common-sense person to add: if you don’t like the business practices of a given corporation, then don’t buy its products. It’s actually quite simple. When asked if Goldman-Sachs employees should be allowed to retain their bonuses, he flatly reiterated that if they received government money, then they should not.
My Take: Wow – actual, real, common sense. Fancy that. The only problem I can foresee is one that was pointed out here at America’s Right a few months ago, when the Obama administration first started to look into retroactively taxing executive bonuses — ex post facto legislation runs afoul of Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution.
Kennedy (I): Another good response in that he feels that banks, as well as any business institution, should be allowed to fail. There won’t be any outrageous bonuses being paid to employees of a company or bank that has been so unsuccessful that it’s gone bankrupt. As to whether he would allow the bonuses to be paid out if the government had already intervened, he flatly stated that he would.
My Take: A true enigma. All generally solid responses, but nothing that was thought out and well-developed. Just short, raw meat, exactly what a conservative would want to hear. I can’t help but wonder. Kennedy seemed to be cut from a Ron Paul cloth, albeit a dispassionate one. Perhaps its because I’m not used to seeing such a political character here in the Bay State, but it all just seemed a little convenient for me.
The debate ended with a series of very short-answer position questions, which I’m not going to explore here. The last segment only took up about ten minutes. The true, meaningful part of the discussion has been presented here. Let me reiterate that I feel it very important for any reader who is concerned about the direction of the Democratic Party and liberal policies to spread this link to any contacts that you might have in Massachusetts. I’m not delusional enough to actually believe that this review might influence more than a handful of voters, but every vote at this point counts quite a bit. I’m casting my vote for Scott Brown.
The relative success of Doug Hoffman in NY-23, as well as the sweeping victories and about-faces carried out by Chris Christie and Bob McDonnell in New Jersey and Virginia, shows that anything is possible, and shows the inherent power that Americans still maintain when pushed up against the wall by an overreaching federal government. Scott Brown has managed to cut down Martha Coakley’s lead in the polls by two-thirds — should he manage to win Ted Kennedy’s vacant Senate seat in January 19th’s special election, liberal Democrats everywhere will be socked in the jaw by the reality of the consequences of their actions. That alone is good enough for me — being able to stop health care reform and cap-and-trade would be an added bonus.
John Feeny is the author of the recently published book, Congress Shall Make No Law…Abridging Freedom of Speech and works in secondary education at a Catholic high school in the Northeast. He and his wife, Sheila–who works in higher education–have been married for 14 years and have become increasingly alarmed with the direction of the young people in our society and what that means for the future of our society. They’ve been blessed with one son, who at 11 years old is in the process of giving John a run for his money. John has been an America’s Right contributor since September 2009.
Congress Shall Make No Law…Abridging Freedom of Speech can be purchased at Amazon.com and is currently being sold alongside the books of Glenn Beck, Mark Levin, and Michele Malkin at Patriots Heart Network. John can also be followed at Twitter (JJFeen).