There's a bunch of bystanders in Anaheim, California trying to tell developers how to do business.  I just couldn't let this one go by without commenting.


Isn’t it nice that they can agree on demands they have for what someone else does with their own property?


Ask them to buy the property at market value.  Tell them to put their money where their mouth is.  Why shouldn’t the property owners develop according to market demands, instead of listening to people who may or may not pay for goods and services offered on the property?


Good for you.  I suppose you will be generating your own power, then, without help from any materials or outside energy source?  Or is “sustainable” just a buzzword you’ve adopted from the nosy?


Public resources shouldn’t go into it.  The property owners should pay to develop the site themselves, and they should be able to do it without a bunch of people who haven’t developed anything themselves butting in.


That’s great – but you don’t own it, so shut up.


How can anything be “designated” as low-cost housing?  What really makes housing low-cost?  A lack of demand.  That means it is either in a less-desirable location and/or it is small or otherwise limited in appeal.  Otherwise, it isn’t low-cost, even if the occupants get it for what seems like a low price, because either tax money and/or money from other occupants is paying for it.


Although I haven’t found a stated reason for that opposition, my guess is that it is because the last thing Disney wants to deal with when building a new theme park or hotel is a bunch of people living next door, who aren’t even pulling their own weight to begin with, complaining about how it is going to be a drag on their lives.


”Working” families.  There’s that phrase again.  You see, all of those people who pushed and studied and persisted and became doctors, lawyers, accountants, engineers, etc. aren’t really working.  No, they just sit around and collect paychecks for doing nothing.

Why, besides the influx of millions of illegal aliens, is there a housing shortage?  Because socialists like these people make it so hard to build new housing in these areas.  Let the market work, and housing demands will be met without a convoluted series of demands, breaks, subsidies, and incentives.


Well that’s very generous of them.


How about an “agreed-to wage” for whomever will take the jobs?  Why should these owners pay someone more they can negotiate on their own?

What ever happened to liberty, freedom, choice, and property rights?  Yes, the coalition has the freedom of speech, but why don’t they buy some property and build what they want and how they want instead of trying to badger others?  These groups don't create anything on their own.  They wait for others to show initiative and ambition, and then latch on to them and make demands.  The businesses are trying to meet real demands, and here they have to deal with a bunch of whiners.

New to politics?  Leaning Left?  Want to fit in and sound like a pro?  This Primer For New Leftists should help.

A. Situation: You notice something about the world you either don’t like or you don’t see every day.  

Conclusion: Something outside of you must be wrong, and it must have been caused by one or more of the following:

1. A Shortage of Funding Because the Greedy Rich Are Hogging All the Money
2. A Lack of Universal, Government-Funded Health Care, Pre-School, and University Education (see above)
3. Human-Caused Global Warming
4. Overpopulation/Not Enough (Government Funding For) Abortions (see above)
5. Bush/Cheney/Rove Incompetence, Evil, and Dirty Tricks
6. The Patriot Act (see above)
7. Bigotry Expressed Through Racism, Sexism, Homophobia, or Believing a Religion to Be True
8. Right-Wing Talk Radio and Fox News (see above)


B. The Answer to Every Problem is One or More of the Following:

1. Tax-Funding of Embryonic Stem Cell Research
2. More Government Spending and Programs
3. Education and Training, Whether They Like it or Not
4. Condoms
5. Tax-Funded Abortions on Demand, Through the 9th Month
6. Talking (with terrorists, with gangs, etc.)
7. Higher Union Dues


C. Talking Points

No matter what happens in Iraq, even if attacks decline, say:
“This is just another sign of Bush’s failed policy.”

If you don’t like the weather, say:
“This is just another sign of Bush’s failed policy.”

If someone loses their job, say:
“This is just another sign of Bush’s failed policy.”

If someone dies of old age, say:
“This is just another sign of Bush’s failed policy.”

D. Offering Workable Solutions

Don’t.  Just respond to whatever Bush does by either calling for the opposite (even if you previously called for the same thing) or by saying “It’s not enough.”

Has There Ever Been a “Popular War”?

Why is it that the MSM must constantly refer to the situation in Iraq as an "unpopular" war?  Has there ever been a popular war at the time it was going on?  Who enjoys having to defend themselves from genocidal terrorist fascists?  Who enjoys sending their mother, father, husband, wife, brother, sister, son, daughter, best friend, or employee off to a situation where their life is on the line?

If you think more than a third of the American colonists even wanted independence from Britain, let alone wanted to fight the British, you’d be wrong.  How popular was the war between the American states?  How many people really wanted to send their loved ones off to fight in World War II?

Why bother to call a war “unpopular”?  We do all sorts of things we really don’t enjoy for the sake of a better life down the line, or for the sake of others.  Who likes sending their loved ones off to work their shift as a firefighter or police officer, knowing they might not come back?  Who likes having to go under the knife for major surgery, or getting chemo, or going to the dentist, or going on a diet, or leaving loved ones to go work five days a week, or getting up early for a class, or doing homework, or paying for insurance, or testifying in court, or dealing with construction?

Who likes doing their income taxes?  And yet you’re not going to hear over and over again in the MSM come April 15 that people are rushing to finish their “unpopular” taxes.

I’ll tell you one thing we’ve done wrong in this war.  We haven’t handled the PR right.  Just look at the propaganda we had during WWII.

Next time, I say we either neutron-bomb the place, or we have better PR.  Or, maybe the Democrats can be like the Republicans during WWII and not work to defeat U.S. goals, despite a member of the other party being President.

With the Academy Awards, Hollywood’s biggest high school-like popularity contest coming up this weekend, perhaps you will be inspired to make a film.  Free of charge, I’m going to offer you my Oscar-Winning Film Generator.  Not only will a film using this formula be sure to get funded, it will have a good chance of being nominated.

First, you need a protagonist/hero.  This character can have one or more of the following identities: abortionist, embryonic stem-cell researcher, woman in a predominantly male field, corporate employee whistleblower, illegal alien, single mother, homeless person, soldier for World War II Imperialist Japan, Iraqi Muslim, dissatisfied housewife, ugly-lesbian-serial-killer-of-men, Hugo Chavez, drug addict, cultured serial killer, inner city teacher, penguin, member of an endangered species, noble slave, golden-hearted prostitute, mentally handicapped person, Alfred Kinsey, Charles Darwin, Karl Marx, Sigmund Freud, mobster, gang banger, blind musical genius, dancer, a gay couple, a cross-dresser, a pornographer, or Al Gore.

If you narrow it down to a few but just can’t narrow it down any further, use some of the identities for friends and love interests of the hero.

Now, you’re going to need a formidable antagonist/villain.  This character can have one or more of the following identities: homophobe, anti-abortion activist, evangelical Christian, Roman Catholic priest or official, Southern Baptist, televangelist, right-wing radio talk show host, Big Tobacco executive, Enron executive, Big Oil executive, GOP operative, health care provider or insurer, pharmaceutical company exec, neo-nazi, Pope, landlord, a boss, rich straight white guy, military commander, corrupt cop, the Military-Industrial Complex, or Halliburton executive.

Remember, you need a plot.  That will somewhat be determined by who your protagonist is and who your antagonist is, but if you need further help, choose one or more of the following as the protagonist’s motivation: to get an abortion on the public’s dime, to find a cure using ESCR, to change marriage laws, to hold gay-bashers accountable for their actions, to expose corruption, hypocrisy, and cover-ups in the Roman Catholic Church, to expose the lies of Big Tobacco, to expose the lies of Big Pharma, to expose the lies of Big Oil, world peace, ending Gun Violence, to get health care, to avoid dying in an unjust war, to expose/prevent the war crimes of Americans, to “die with dignity”, to prevent a nuclear power plant from being built, to Hold Someone Accountable for Pollution, to unionize a workplace, to end sexual harassment, to “find” her/himself, to show that “science” is good and “religion” is bad, to teach kids written off by others, to end Global Warming, to save a rainforest, to escape slavery, to overcome bigotry, to make “the government do something”, to have a drug trip.

You’ll get extra points if the setting is one of the following: the racist American South, a backwards small town in a Red State where the rubes all still go to church, the Oppressive 1950s, the Wretched Reagan Era, war-torn Vietnam, Iraq (idyllic with Saddam, horrible without Saddam), or stifling superficial suburbia.

It would also be a good idea to make your film a thinly-disguise allegory about one of the following: the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Scopes Money Trial, McCarthyism, George W. Bush stealing elections, AIDS, or the evils of European imperialistic colonialism.

Finally – your film can be a documentary, a musical, or a drama.  Please avoid displaying a sense of humor in your work.  Take yourself way too seriously.

Got it?  Good.

Craig Carr of West Hills writes a letter to the Los Angeles Times:


War is hell.  Saddam didn't comply with the terms of the cease fire agreement from the early 1990s.  In a post-9/11 world, a coalition took action because of Saddam's violations.

And don't forget that the hundreds of thousands of people that Saddam killed can't speak to the Los Angeles Times.  The dead victims of the homicide bombers he encouraged can't speak to CNN.  Thankfully, we don't know how many people would have been victimized had he continued to use his oppression of Iraq to sponsor terrorism.

I can only wonder exactly who is paying for the ads in California pushing universal socialist health insurance... taxpayers? Government employee unions?  With offices in San Francisco and touting legislation submitted by liberal gender-disordered Sate Senator Sheila Kuehl, it comes as no surprise that deceptive propaganda is pushing this big power grab.

The ads point out that the rest of us are left holding the bag when the "uninsured" (In California, this mostly means illegal aliens) seek medical care.  The ads say there's "no choice" but for the rest of us to pick up the tab.  No choice?  Really?  I don't know, I think there are plenty of choices.  Choices like, oh, enforcing our borders.  I know, know - that's a little far-fetched and will take work, and wouldn't it just be easier to be more of a slave to the system?  There's also the choices that include more privatization and less bureaucracy, more choices, and no monopolies, even for unions or professional associations.

We don't need universal socialist medicine.

Some people are young and healthy and don't need medical care at all.  Why force them to pay for it?  Some people are kooks and prefer to treat their cancer with mushrooms.  Why stop them?

We need to demand that people take responsibility for themselves.  I should be able to get insurance with other people with my lifestyle, so I don't have to pay for hypochondriacs or  people who drink themselves to illness, smoke themselves to illness, snort themselves to illness, fornicate themselves to illness, or have their child hacked, vacuumed, or burned to death.

Sheila: Get out of my wallet.  Get out of my doctor's visit.  Get out of my hospital bed.  Get out of my medicine cabinet.

According to those racist, socialist freaks at at the ACLU, there are too few Latino and African American students are enrolled in gifted programs in the Tustin Unified School District in California.


So they are going to waste their resources to take away resources from the school district.  Brilliant.  Why don't the people in the ACLU run for school district spots, get elected, and make changes themselves?  Oh, that's right.  They'd rather bully other people in places they don't live to do things their way.


I recall, wen I was in school, that is was parents who pushed to get their kids into such programs.  Why not sue the parents?


Great!  Let's have quotas to get more people into these programs based on their skin color, household income, and country of origin!  Who cares if they meet the intelligence or talent criteria... what really matters is having different skin pigmentation in the class.  What really matters is making a poor kid sit next to a rich kid.


Well, then, the there are only two solutions to this crushing problem, aren't there?  We can either ban preschool and starve all kids, or we can have universal state preschool and meals.  After all, we must do something about these disparities, and we must use government force to do it, right?


Yeah, because teachers and administrators aren't already spending enough time in ongoing training and seminars.  What a bunch of psychobabble.  Standardized tests - like ones in English - are biased?  What are you going to do?  Go door to door and re-educate their parents into valuing education?


Even if that were true, welcome to LIFE!  There was a company for which I wanted to work once.  They did outreach internships to "minority" colleges - not mine.  Guess I should have gotten the ACLU to sue.  Somehow, I doubt they would have taken the case.


"Potential."  How are they going to define that?  I'm glad all of the serious threats to civil rights have been eliminated, freeing up the ACLU to get involved in cases like this.  I noticed that "Asian" students somehow overcame language barriers to take up more than their "rightful" slots in the program.

This is yet one more reason why there should be separation of state and school.

Is all this talk about global warming a run-up to an attack on the sun?

If intelligence showed that Iran was causing global warming, the Democrats would immediately demand that we never do anything about global warming.

Can you imagine if a gun store took the position that they should seek out business from criminals who might use their guns to aid a criminal lifestyle, and require less identification from criminals than law-abiders?  The Left would freak.  Yet I ask you – how is a bank offering credit cards and other services to illegal aliens any different?  Do I think the government should stop this?  No, except in individual cases where fraud, identity theft, or other crimes are being committed.

Now that Bank of Mexico – uh, I mean Bank of America – is offering credit cards to Mexican citizens (and others) living illegally in the United States and not requiring them to provide a Social Security Number while still requiring Americans to provide one, ask yourself: Why shouldn’t Mexicans illegally move to Los Angeles?

Legal immigration is a hassle.  The waiting and paperwork is for suckers.  Obviously, with millions of illegal aliens in the U.S. (reserved estimates start at 12,000,000), how hard can it be to get here or stay here illegally?

We know that the U.S is the greatest nation on God’s green Earth.

Mexico, on the other hand, has too much corruption at all levels of government.  Someone who is poor and “unconnected” in Mexico has little hope of making a better life staying there.

Meanwhile, what will they find in the greater Los Angeles area?

Jobs.  Employers will hire them with little fear of serious negative consequences for doing so.  The wages and working conditions will be better than in Mexico.  Their job may even be protected by a union, and they can get workers comp, welfare, and social security.  The written materials and signs in the workplace will accommodate their lack of English skills, too.  Businesses love them, because they are cheap and hiring them is less of a hassle than relocating to Mexico, where they have to deal with the corrupt government.

Housing.  Banks apparently have no qualms about helping illegal aliens buy housing.  Or, they can rent with no hassle.  They might even be able to get housing subsidized by those chumps who waited in line to immigrate.

Education.  Wow.  Free education all the way through high school, and then subsidized university education.  What a deal!

Health Care.  Currently, the emergency room is the place to go.  Free expert medical care.  What a deal.  If certain socialist health care reform is put in place, they won’t have to settle for the just going to the emergency room any more.

I.D.  The Mexican government passes out matricula consular cards, primarily for their citizens living illegally in the U.S.  But if a California lawmaker gets his way, they’ll be able to get a California Driver’s License.  Bank of America credit cards will help, too.

Infrastructure and utilities.  Roads, waterworks, plumbing/sewers, flood control, garbage collection, electricity, natural gas, phone service – usually subsidized by those foolish citizen taxpayers and legal immigrants.

Public Mass Transit.  Very cheap bus and rail rides, subsidized by all of those citizen idiots.

Church.  Hey, isn’t it nice that the Catholic Church’s Cardinal Mahoney is sticking up for them?  It’s also nice to have church services in many denominations in Spanish.

Friendly Law Enforcement.  They speak Spanish.  They’re not allowed to take bribes or beat people up.  Illegals can be defended in court on the taxpayer’s dime.  The prisons are nicer, and since there are a bunch of other Mexican citizens there, there is a support/protection network.  Although, should they get injured, it could mean big bucks from taxpayers.  And hey, if they kill an American cop, they can flee to Mexico, guaranteeing that they won't have to face the death penalty.

Customer Service.  Businesses have Spanish signage and written materials, Spanish phone recordings, their employees speak Spanish – heck, there are Mexican chain stores.  Plus, some businesses will now take pesos, so you don’t have to go though the hassle of converting to dollars.

Politicians.  They’re looking out for them.  The mayor of Los Angeles proudly stands with them in protests and speaks Spanish.  The California legislature is doing everything it can to make their illegal presence as comfortable as possible for them.  There are city councils that have declared their cities sanctuaries for them, and have even dropped regulation and code enforcements to accommodate their lifestyle.  After all – why should they be expected to conform to the standards and culture they have illegally invaded?  The President of the U.S. and the majority of Congress want to reward their flouting of our laws with U.S. citizenship and tax breaks.

Voting.  Nobody checks your I.D. when you go to vote or checks to see if you are a citizen.  The ballot is in their language, too.

Media.  Advertisers reach out to every market, and illegal aliens are no exception.  Spanish advertising abounds.  And why not?  There are television channels, radio stations, and newspapers all geared towards the illegal aliens.  How can anyone ignore such a huge market?

Social/Support Groups.  There are many places to openly meet up with other illegal aliens for good times and support.  Heck, they’ll tell the illegal aliens that the land really belongs to them anyway, even if they were born hundreds of miles south of the border.  Why learn English?  Why not fly the Mexican flag over the U.S. flag?

So, put yourselves in their shoes.  Why wouldn’t you come to L.A. (or some similar U.S. area)?  Border enforcement is lax, and if a border agent actually stops you, you can easily get a lawyer to file a multi-million dollar lawsuit.  Hey, it’s worth a try, isn’t it?

Now, I don’t want the people of Mexico to suffer.  I’d like to see their culture fight corruption.  I think U.S. employers should be able to hire anyone, but then I don’t think the Federal government should be involved with employment issues and payroll taxes – but it is.  Homebuilders should be able to sell to anyone, and landlords should be able to rent to anyone – but I should not have to subsidize their business.  Schools should be able to take any student they want to – but the schools should not be able to force me to support them.  Medical professionals should help anyone they can – but again, I should not be forced to pay for that care.  Infrastructure and transit should be funded by user fees, not by money I’m forced to hand over – and then I won’t care who uses it.  Businesses should be able to cater to their customers as they see fit, and I can choose whether or not to be their customer, and should be force to give them subsidies.

As for the churches – Christians should be – and are – working to make things better in Mexico.  And, if they feel called to help those here illegally with voluntary charity – great.  I do not believe, however, that everyone should be forced to support Mexico’s citizens.

Control the borders for our security and health.
Transfer most publicly funded projects and programs to private funding.
Until those two things happen, do not reward businesses that hire illegal aliens.
Increase legal immigration.
Voluntarily reach out to those in need.

What kind of discovery or series of discoveries would cause you to doubt naturalistic macroevolution?  Or, what kind of discovery or series of discoveries would cause you to consider the possibility of intelligent involvement in our origins?

If you can't think of any answer (in other words - if it isn't falsifiable), then isn't it really a matter of faith on your part, and not a conclusion based on evidence?

If no evidence would change your belief in naturalistic macroevolution, then how can you say your belief in it is based on evidence?

We're back to the debate of about "origins" in the Kansas schools.


Hey, I have an idea.  How about separating state and school?  Then we don’t have to fight over origins, or dress codes, or just how freaky we’re going to let the kids get on the dance floor, or class sizes, or just how evil the founding fathers of the United States were, or what to call that vacation time conveniently scheduled around Christmas, or if we tell kids when they’ve made an incorrect answer, or how much homework there should be, or any number of other arguments that take up so much time and whose “conclusions” usually are dissatisfying to so many people.


If the evidence for (naturalistic) evolution is so strong, then surely it can stand up to challenges without being protected by the school board, right?  And how isn’t a philosophy that assumes that no intelligent agent was involved in the origin of human beings and living organisms in general incompatible with religious doctrine?  It’s compatible with one religion – secular humanism, and incompatible with just about every other religion.


As if there are no scientists whatsoever who support discussing the weaknesses in evolutionary theory.


“Moderates” must mean people who say “It’s okay to have wishful thinking about God, but you must deny that God had anything to do with the origin of human beings and life.”


See, only “religious groups” question the idea that time + matter/energy = life.  No scientist could possibly notice that abundant evidence that information + matter/energy = life.


I have absolutely no problem with “teaching evolution”, as long as the whole truth is taught, including:

-The past revisions of popular evolutionary theory and timetables, supposedly supportive evidence later revealed to be fraudulent (and still used widely, in some cases), and the current divisions in evolutionary theories.

-The “gaps” in the fossil record.

-How fossils are formed and how fossil specimens are “reconstructed” when discovered,

-The tendency of mutations to be fatally or sterilizingly harmful, and rarely minor and helpful in that they help an existing species to adapt but still stay the same basic kind of organism.

-That genetic mutations in an organism that helps it survive must still be passed along to descendants through asexual or sexual reproduction, and not cancelled out by natural corrective mechanisms or the genes of the sexual partner, or they are lost.

-The irreducible complexity of various animal organs and systems, meaning they would have had to “evolve” instantly in complete form to be effective, or they'd be fatal, harmful, or at least a burden on survival.

-That there is no known natural mechanism for turning nonliving materials not from living organisms into living organisms.

-That scientists today are doing intelligent design of livestock (goats with spider genes, for example).

-The numerous factors regarding the Earth, our solar system, our galaxy, and the universe that make the Earth condusive to hosting intelligent life and to making discoveries about the universe – and the odds of those factors all aligning in single planet the way they have.

-That the majority of scientific evidence supports the theory that the universe had a beginning.


Really.  Where did the scientific method come from?  What were the motivations, the philosophies, and the conclusions of most of the great founding scientists of history?

I say that tax money has no place in schools at all, yet here we are.

I wonder if anyone in Human Rights First, which is upset about the influence of the television show "24", claiming the show is influencing people, have ever dismissed the claims of conservatives or the PTC that some television shows, films, or music promote fornication, immodesty, vulgarity, crime, and violence among the populace.

Because if anyone from Human Rights First or anyone who supports them has dismissed those concerns before, I say "You know, you can turn the channel or turn the television off.  Don't cram your beliefs down my throat!"

Ahhhhhh... that feels good.

I’ve been tagged, but a) I have several reasons to stay somewhat anonymous here, including that I’m a professional writer but not getting paid for this blog, and b) I do not support viral time wasting.

Granted, this current tag trend isn’t as nefarious as the e-mails that say “send this to ten people including the person who sent it to you, or you don’t care about Jesus - and puppies,  kittens, and baby seals will die a slow, painful death”.  The logical outcome of something like that, if everyone obeyed, would be that people could do nothing else than end up constantly sending the same messages back and forth to each other.

So, I will not be tagging anyone else.  Sorry.  If you like the idea, tag yourself since you've read this post.

Here are six interesting/weird things about me that keep me anonymous:

1. I lived next to a convicted triple murderer until he committed the murders. He was even in my house at least once.  I did not like the guy and knew he was trouble long before the murders.

2. I was an ear-witness to the murder of an on-duty law enforcement officer.

3. I testified in court in defense of a huge corporation that was being sued over a personal injury.  The corporation won.

4. My Schwarzenegger number is 2.

5. Separately, I used to babysit the children of a one-time Republican candidate for U.S. Senate.

6. I once had a one-on-one, face-to-face conversation with Heather Locklear.

Dr. Laura, after making comments about the Roman Catholic Church, has apparently been getting a lot of feedback.  I don’t have a transcript of her recent comments in response to the feedback.  I’m a follower of Christ, but not a member of the Roman Catholic Church.  I also tend to like Dr. Laura’s program, commentaries, and books.

Please excuse the paraphrase, but she said something like how she doesn’t buy into the thinking that there is only one true church and everyone else deserves to die, and that is the kind of thinking we’re dealing with in the terrorists’ motivations.  She also said that all righteous people will inherit the Kingdom of God.

I wanted to comment on this, and since I have this blog, here goes.  The Christian (Biblical) mentality is NOT that “we’re better than everyone else” or that “only our congregation is right” or that “everyone else deserves to die.”

True Christians - meaning followers of Jesus - also believe the righteous will inherit the Kingdom of God.  However, what is righteous?  Who is righteous?  Everyone falls short of the holiness of God - except for one.  Jesus lived the perfect life in our place, and died to pay for our sins, and has inherited the Kingdom of God.  He shares that with all who accept his gift by making Him their Lord and Savior.  All of us are unholy.  Being unholy  is like being pregnant – even if you are just “a little” pregnant, you are still pregnant.  So how can unholy people become righteous?  Through Christ.  He is our representative.  We are guilty, but there is forgiveness of our guilt through Him.  The circumstances of your birth do no matter.  Your citizenship does not matter.  How wealthy you are does not matter.  What matters is - do you stand before God to be judged on your own record or the life of Jesus?

Furthermore, Christians do not want anyone to die and go to Hell, nor do we think we are better than anyone else.  The first thing we do is admit our sin.  We admit we’ve blown it!  Then we turn from sin in that we no longer will call it right even if when we continue to stumble – and we will.  So before a true Christian reaches out, he or she has freely admitted their need for a savior.  THEN we seek to share this good news with others - that there is a Savior, and forgiveness for all who ask of Him.  Hell is for people who reject God on God’s terms.  After all. Heaven is eternal fellowship with God, and if you don't want to fellowship with God now, why should you be forced to for all eternity? There is nothing in the Bible calling for people to force someone to be a follower of Jesus or to kill someone for not being a Christian.

The Christian faith is about living with Jesus as Lord and Savior.  Who Jesus is and what He has done is at the heart of the faith.  There are many churches that are built on that faith - some with different customs, different music, different styles, different organizational structures - but all are made of imperfect people.  Any human organization can be corrupted and become harmful, and churches are no exception.  If a church has become systematically harmful, people should leave and seek to gather together with other believers elsewhere - in a healthy church.  A healthy church does not protect pedophiles from the law.  A healthy church does not condemn all other churches.  A healthy church teaches the Bible and lives the Bible, ministering to the needs of the congregation and the community.  A healthy church does not reassure people that it is okay to continue in their sin.

Maybe you’ve been exposed to a lot of nonsense about Christianity.  I recommend reading the basic creeds of Christianity here, and if you think Christianity is for people who don't think, check out this site and this one.

As for Dr. Laura, if I remember correctly, she is still searching after following Orthodox Judaism and then somewhat pulling back out of it.  I sincerely hope she finds the peace and joy I know from my fellowship with the Jew, Jesus, who lived, died, and rose to live again forevermore.  I needed His forgiveness, and I still sin, but it is so wonderful to be able to go to God in prayer and ask for forgiveness, and submitting to His will.

If the KKK really is increasing membership, it is a real shame.  As I've written before, I believe the Bible talks about one race - the human race, and I find it laughable for any one or any group to claim to be Christian and yet harbor hatred, especially for Jews.  Jesus was (and is) a Jew.  That they are against an invasion by illegal aliens is akin to a broken clock being right twice a day.  I think many of them would be fine with illegal aliens from Nordic Europe.  I, on the other hand, like most people opposing the illegal alien invasion, am not opposing based on racist grounds, but rather primarily because of our public funding for services and infrastructure.

Unfortunately, fringe extremist groups will always be able to find more members and support if people are frustrated and perceive a lack of appropriate action by their government.  I certainly don't think aligning with the likes of the KKK is the right answer - it is just that human nature is such that some people will go that way.  Violent extremist "black" groups were active in the 1960s and 1970s largely because of a perception that African-Americans were not being given a fair shake.

The answer is not to divide by "racial" tribes.  The answer is for equal protection under the law, control of our borders, personal liberty, and for people to voluntarily reach out to each other regardless of skin color.  The vast majority of America does that already.