John Lofton

In their attempts to defend the indefensible – John Roberts helping advance the homosexual agenda by coaching homosexual activists to win "special rights" in the Romer v. Evans Supreme Court case – many supposedly Christian "leaders" have left the impression that Roberts had no choice but to do what he did because his law firm took this case.

A footnote: When I called Ertelt's bogus reporting to the attention of "World" magazine publisher Joel Belz, he, at first, reacted in way I found hopeful. He sounded like he was concerned and would check out what I told him. Days turned into weeks, however. No reply. Then this curt email: "We have no responsibility to respond to your comments and queries. Please do not address further questions to any of our staff."

I first drank deeply of Republicanism in 1964 when Barry Goldwater told the convention that nominated him to be President that freedom was made orderly in our country by "our Constitutional government." In fact, he said, in front of God and everybody that government should perform "only Constitutionally-sanctioned tasks." Then and there I was hooked.

We did not discuss Roe v. Wade in any context or any other pending issue that will be considered by the Court. I did not ask that question. You know, to be honest, I would have loved to have known how Harriet Miers views Roe v. Wade

Well, better late than never, I guess, as they say – but not really in this case. You blew it, Brother Pat. The Constitution Party's 2004 Presidential candidate Michael Anthony Peroutka represented precisely the kind of "authentic conservatism" you are now barking about and calling for. But, you did not endorse him. So, please, my long-time friend, zip it. You have no credibility on this subject and it's your own fault.

In his national TV address from New Orleans telling us, proudly, about all the un-Biblical and un-Constitutional aid the Federal Government would be giving to help victims of Hurricane Katrina, President Bush said: "We're the heirs of men and women who…rebuilt Chicago after a great fire." Well, yes, if he was making a purely biological point. But, a resounding NO! if he meant we're the same kind of Americans who rebuilt their city after the great Chicago Fire. When this disaster occurred, there were no mobs screaming for the Federal Government to rebuild that city, as the following article by Daniel T. Oliver says. This piece is from the February 2000 issue of "The Freeman: Ideas on Liberty." At the time he wrote it, Mr. Oliver was a research associate at the Washington D.C.-based "Capital Research Center" and a freelance writer. A version of this article appeared in the Center's newsletter, Alternatives in Philanthropy