Spy The News! Poll Results: "What Single Issue Will Prevent Your Vote for a 2008 Presidential Candidate?"

The results are in from last week's Spy the News! poll, which asked readers "Which Single Issue Will Prevent You From Voting for a 2008 Presidential Candidate?"

Here are the results of our poll:

Mitt Romney's Faith 7%

Rudy Giuliani's social liberal views 14%

Newt Gingrich's ethics and resignation 14%

John McCain's Senate Record 64%


The results of this poll demonstrated a few things about Spy The News! readers. First, in many prominent polls Mitt Romney's faith appears to be a significant issue, with polls showing that 25% to 35% of Americans would not vote for a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (LDS or Mormon). Spy The News! readers appear to be more tolerant of religious differences than the national average, with only 7% of you indicating Romney's faith would be the deciding factor for your vote in 2008.

Second, many readers appear to have negative impressions about Senator McCain's voting record over the years, and may overlook some of the blemishes of other candidates as a result. Spy The News! is interested in your feedback about what votes or what issues caused you to form a negative opinion of McCain's Senate record.

Visit Spy the News! to participate in this week's poll: "What Political Issue is Most Important to You?"

Pakistan Wheels and Deals with Taliban: Pirated U.S. Missile Technology Used Against NATO Aircraft

Have you ever wondered what happened to the cruise missiles fired on orders of then-President Clinton into Afghanistan in 1998 in his less than half-hearted attempt to strike at Osama Bin Laden? According to Afghani Taliban and Al Qaeda sources interviewed by the Asia Times Online, some of those high tech missiles never detonated and were then retrieved by Pakistani military units near the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. If you have read Tom Clancy’s novel The Sum of All Fears, in which Arab terrorists (not the ridiculous Hollywood version with white supremacist villains) acquire a nuclear bomb when an Israeli Air Force fighter jet loses a nuclear bomb that does not detonate on an Arab farm, you can envision what Pakistan did with these armed and fully intact U.S. cruise missiles.

Pakistani military scientists took note of the sophisticated sensors utilized in the cruise missiles and reportedly did what China has been doing with Microsoft software and Motion Picture Association recordings for years: they made illegal copies. The copied sensors were then successfully fitted to an unknown number and variety of existing Pakistani missiles, which greatly enhanced the capabilities of Pakistani offensive and defensive weaponry.

The Taliban, meanwhile, had long sought more sophisticated weapons to utilize against U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan after 2001 in their efforts to return to power and oust President Karzai. According to the Asia Times Taliban sources, the Taliban acquired older Soviet model SAM-7s (Surface to Air Missile) in 2005, and received immediate training from Al Qaeda operatives. However, those ancient anti-aircraft missiles were largely ineffective against high tech coalition fighter jets and bombers because they lacked an important technological capability: heat-signature tracking and exhaust decoy sensors. The Taliban needed to seek help with resolving this sensor disadvantage and they turned to their natural ally and protector, Pakistan, the alleged American ally in the War on Terror, and its stock of pirated U.S. cruise missile sensors. In a new deal struck between Pakistan's government and the Taliban, Pakistan has reportedly provided the Taliban with pirated sensor technology the Taliban is using to upgrade its arsenal of SAM-7s.

As Syed Saleem Shahzad, Asia Times Online's Pakistan Bureau Chief, noted: the introduction of SAM-7s equipped with the copied sensors ironically could alter the dynamics of the NATO battle with the Taliban. This shift could give the Taliban important advantages in much the same fashion as the Afghani resistance forces benefited from the U.S. gift of Stinger missiles in their historic fight against Soviet occupation. American and NATO planes would be under constant threat from American sensor equipped SAMs. For a stunning series of photos of a next-generation SAM-7 (SAM-14) terrorist attack on a DHL courier jet in Iraq, click here. These photos and the accompanying account of the attack on an Airbus 300, illustrate that terrorists in Iraq, equipped by Iran (and by some accounts, Pakistan), are in possession of even more sophisticated SAMs than the Taliban’s modified version.

Shahzad reported that the Pakistani government (he does not specify at what level) has formed an alliance with the Taliban:

Using Pakistani territory and with Islamabad's support, the Taliban will be able safely to move men, weapons and supplies into southwestern Afghanistan. The deal. . . will serve Pakistan's interests in re- establishing a strong foothold in Afghanistan (the government in Kabul leans much more toward India). . . . Despite their most successful spring offensive last year since being ousted in 2001, the Taliban realize they need the assistance of a state actor if they are to achieve "total victory".

Taliban commanders planning this year's spring uprising acknowledged that as an independent organization or militia, they could not fight a sustained battle against state resources. They believed they could mobilize the masses, but this would likely bring a rain of death from the skies and the massacre of Taliban sympathizers. Their answer was to find their own state resources, and inevitably they looked toward their former patron, Pakistan.

Interestingly, also reported today was the announcement by Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell that the CIA has “compelling” evidence that Bin Laden and his second in command Ayman al Zawahri are currently in Pakistan and are reestablishing al Qaeda training camps in the provinces bordering Afghanistan. While Pakistan makes mostly symbolic occasional arrests in the War on Terror to placate America and retain enormous amounts of financial aid, it is simultaneously forming logistical alliances with and providing pirated weapons technology to our Taliban enemy. While playing this duplicitous game of “(Evil) Axis and (Naïve) Allies,” Pakistan may also be providing Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda’s senior leadership safe haven within Pakistan’s borders with the tacit approval of the Islamabad government. These factors should make more clear the reasons why Vice President Cheney and Stephen Kappes, CIA Deputy Director, made separate visits this week to Islamabad to confront President General Musharraf, presumably with a diplomatic pouch full of satellite imagery and ultimatums.

Spy the News! has previously documented Pakistan’s growing threat to the region, its minimal efforts to capture and extradite Taliban and Al Qaeda operatives, and its fear of radical Islam within its population. Pakistan’s pirating of U.S. missiles to improve its own defense capabilities occurred pre-9/11 and, while patently dishonest, should have been a predictable response to the recovery of abandoned multi-million dollar missiles that, like their mission itself, failed spectacularly. However, Pakistan’s provision of this missile technology to the Taliban in its fight against the Karzai government and American and NATO forces is inexcusable for an alleged post 9/11 ally.

The Bush administration, beyond the personal visits and verbal warnings of the Vice President and CIA Deputy Director, must send a clear message to Pakistan that not $1 in U.S. financial aid (Pakistan is the second leading recipient of U.S. financial aid) will be given to Pakistan until Pakistan, with NATO assistance if requested, destroys every Taliban and Al Qaeda camp within Pakistan’s borders, including all mobile anti-aircraft batteries infesting the mountains between Afghanistan and Pakistan. Pakistan pirated the sensors for those SAMs and must now atone for the traitorous act of supplying them to terrorists engaged in conflict with the U.S. and NATO.

Pakistan currently meets most of the criteria set forth by President Bush to justify the invasion of Iraq: Offering safe haven to terrorists; documented proliferation of nuclear weapons technology or materials; arming and funding known terrorist organizations (state sponsor of terror), including the new cooperative agreement described in this post and in the Asia Time Online. Clearly, generous American financial aid has not moved Pakistan reliably into the American camp in the War on Terror. It is time to invest elsewhere until Pakistan reforms itself and swings both legs over the fence it has been straddling. President Bush received much liberal criticism for the following ultimatum in November 2001, but it should be repeated to and accountability demanded from the country that holds the key to defeating the Taliban and Al Qaeda but refuses to turn it or provide it to those who will:

A coalition partner must do more than just express sympathy, a coalition partner must perform. . . . That means different things for different nations. Some nations don't want to contribute troops and we understand that. Other nations can contribute intelligence-sharing. ... But all nations, if they want to fight terror, must do something.

Over time it's going to be important for nations to know they will be held accountable for inactivity. . . . You're either with us or against us in the fight against terror.

It is time for Pakistan to give its final answer.

Liberal Reaction to Failed Taliban Attack on U.S. Vice President: "Better Luck Next Time"

The major news story yesterday was a suicide bomber’s detonation outside the secured perimeter at Bagram Air Base, Afghanistan, during Vice President Cheney’s visit with military personnel there, but the attack was only half the story. The unabashed disappointment expressed by liberals to the fact that the attack failed was perhaps the aspect that deserves the most attention.

To summarize the incident liberals cheered, the bomb killed at least 23, including one U.S. soldier, one South Korean soldier, and one U.S. contractor. The remaining 20 victims were reportedly Afghani civilians, many of them truck drivers employed to deliver goods to the Bagram base, waiting in line to go through security screening for entry to the base. The bomber did not penetrate security and detonated outside the checkpoint, thus it would appear the Taliban claim that Vice President Cheney was the target of the attack was likely mere political bluster. The U.S. Military put forth the following statement that best describes a plausible motive for the rush by the Taliban to claim the attack targeted the Vice President:

"We actually think that their tying it to the vice president's visit ... was an attempt to draw attention away from the fact that the attack killed so many Afghan civilians, including a 12-year-old boy," said Lt. Col. David Accetta, a U.S. military spokesman.

Attacks at sites where high level U.S. dignitaries are visiting understandably receive extensive international coverage. However, the bombing also served to reveal something very ugly and despicable in American society: personal disdain for a vice president that has become so vitriolic that members of the opposing party are unashamedly disappointed when an alleged assassination attempt of the U.S. Vice President by a foreign enemy fails.

Consider this historical hypothetical comparison which should help place the liberal reactions to the claimed attack on Vice President Cheney quoted below in proper perspective:

It is February 1945, and after 4 years of brutal war in Europe and the Pacific, America has suffered hundreds of thousands of casualties fighting a war against ideologies bent on the destruction of America. Vice President Harry Truman decides, at great personal risk, to visit U.S. troops at an air base in the Pacific preparing for a spring offensive against Okinawa. Keeping his intended destination secret, Truman arrives at the Pacific base, greets and dines with soldiers, offering them encouragement and continued support. During Truman’s visit, an enemy combatant approaches a security checkpoint at the Pacific base and detonates a suicide bomb that kills 23 people, including 2 Americans. Truman is taken to a prepared shelter until base security is confirmed, and then, in courageous fashion, continues with his visit and later flies to Manila to meet with a cooperative but somewhat embattled local leader, all while still in mortal danger from further attempts on his life. When news reaches America that the enemy claimed it had attempted to assassinate Truman but failed, many Americans write letters to the editors of local and national newspapers expressing their disappointment that the enemy had not shown more competence and succeeded in “killing Truman over there so we won’t have to do it here.”

Of course, in February 1945, no true American of any party would have harbored such thoughts or wishes against Truman regardless of political persuasion or war opposition (a negligible phenomenon in that war). Yet in today’s supposedly “enlightened” liberal society, disappointment and write-in expressions of anger that Vice President Cheney survived the attack at Bagram were the reactions of such a high number of readers of a highly popular liberal blog, the Huffington Post, that the web site managers were forced to shut down the reader comment thread for an article titled, “Over 20 Die in Attack on Cheney” after reader comments containing wishes that the Vice President had been killed filled 12 pages, as reported by World Net Daily. WND also successfully captured the comments before they were deleted by Huffington Post site managers.

For the record, the Huffington Post acted responsibly by closing the thread and deleting the comments, as they could potentially be a legal liability should some reader determine, based on the shared support of so many fellow readers, that he/she should attempt to do what the Taliban failed to accomplish. Thanks to World Net Daily, we have a representative sample of how personal, irrational, and truly un-American the anti-Cheney (and anti-Bush, which is actually even more acerbic) sentiment in the Democratic Party has become:

Better luck next time! (TDB)

Dr Evil escapes again ... damn. (truthtopower01)

So Cheney is personally responsible for the deaths of 14 innocent people ... and then he waddles off to lunch!! What a piece of sh--! (fantanfanny

Jesus Christ and General Jackson too, can't the Taliban do anything right? They must know we would be so gratefull (sic) to them for such a remarkable achievement. (hankster2)

Hey, Thalia, lighten up. I, for one, don't wish Cheny (sic) had been killed. I wish he had been horribly maimed and had to spend the rest of his life hooked to a respirator. Feel better now? (raisarooney)

Let's see ... they're killing him over there so we don't have to kill him over here? (ncjohn)

And they missed!? Oh, Hell. Like Mamma used to say, I guess it's the thought that counts ... (Anachro1)

You can never find a competent suicide bomber when you need one. Mark701)

Amazingly Democrats wonder why Republicans question their patriotism. As much as Republicans disliked Bill Clinton, hopefully even the liberal left can recognize that impeaching a man for perjury is a lesser level of disdain than wishing that terrorists had killed him while in office. Expressing such wishes verbally or in writing actually constitutes a felony under federal law, hence the Huffington Post’s wise decision to remove such comments from the blog. Republicans were not particularly fond of President Carter, but would have responded with unanimous condemnation and retaliatory force had he been sitting on the reviewing stand with Anwar Sadat when Sadat was assassinated in 1981. The idea of anyone attacking or killing our elected leaders should produce nothing but outrage and a determination to prevent that from happening to any of them, anywhere they may go, in war time or periods of peace.

More disturbing is the realization that many so-called Americans would ever wish for an enemy to determine who holds office by circumventing our democratic process through assassination. We choose our leaders and we should condemn and thwart any effort that takes that choice out of our control.

Many conservatives have argued that liberals are rooting against American success in Iraq and Afghanistan, and expressions of ignorant and inflammatory vitriol, as demonstrated by Huffington Post readers, provide additional evidence that such observations are accurate. Clearly the majority of readers commenting on the incident at Bagram Air Base hate Vice President Cheney on the same level as the Taliban, as they too wished to see him dead.

Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton have declared that Iraq is “Bush’s war,” which has become a phrase used interchangeably with “Iraq War” throughout the liberal media. Framing the war in that manner assures that actually winning in Iraq or defeating terrorists anywhere will hurt Democratic chances in 2008, hence they cannot be expected to do anything to tangibly improve national security or lead to military victory in the Middle East. They simply cannot afford to allow President Bush to succeed in any way, and their personal hatred for the Bush/Cheney team trumps all other instincts, even their own survival. After all, if the Taliban reportedly hoped to kill Vice President Cheney, why would Democrats think they would be immune from such attempts if they were in office?

Terrorists don’t distinguish between our parties and call cease fires on Americans during Democratic administrations. Apparently forgotten are the seizing of our embassy in Tehran in 1979, the World Trade Center bombing in 1993, embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya in 1998, the bombing of the USSS Cole in 2000, and other attacks during the Carter and Clinton administrations.

The liberal Vice President Cheney haters, in their rabid desire to blame him for everything from global war to global warming, should focus on organizing enough votes to elect a vice president they can support rather than wish radical Islamic terrorists would eliminate a man they failed to defeat politically. Americans should be united in our gratitude that the Vice President was not hurt, not because it was “Dick Cheney, “ or “Darth Cheney,” as liberals like to call him, but simply because he is America’s Vice President, regardless of party affiliation. A phrase the ACLU has not yet litigated against because it contains no God reference, E Pluribus Unum, states perfectly the unity with which America should respond when its leaders are targeted for assassination: Out of many, one.

Can Teachers and Professors Hide Personal Bias? AZ State Senator's Bill Would Require It

Is it possible for teachers to be completely objective while teaching history, politics, and other potentially controversial issues in the classroom? Not according to Arizona state Senate Majority Leader Thayer Verschoor, R-Gilbert, AZ, who has introduced a state bill that would require public school teachers to be impartial and not present their personal political or social views to students. Teachers would, of course, retain their First Amendment rights to share their views privately outside of recognized teaching settings.

Predictably, the bill has generated passionate controversy among teachers, school administrators, parents, and even students, as reported in the Arizona Republic. The liberal opposition to the bill argues that it curbs free speech and will discourage teachers from teaching anything about controversial historical issues or current events out of fear of reprisal under the bill’s provisions. They further claim that students will be harmed by a sheltering intellectual climate and that “the classroom is precisely where these kinds of important controversial debates should be taking place,” as stated by the Executive Director of the ACLU in Arizona. Conservative supporters of the bill express concern that children and teens are very impressionable, view their teachers as authorities, and should not be subjected to the personal political or social beliefs of teachers.

Having experienced a tremendous amount of liberal bias and pressure to conform or receive poor grades years ago in graduate school, I gravitate toward supporting a bill of this nature, but I likewise am certain that it will have virtually no efficacy because teachers and professors are only one third of the problem that requires correction: the other two thirds are public school/university administrators and the selected curriculum being taught as authoritative within these schools. Legally requiring teachers or professors to teach impartially out of an approved school district curriculum implies a naïve faith that the curriculum itself is politically or socially objective. As I have described in a previous post, being forced to digest textbooks used in today’s schools is to be force fed a steady diet of history liberally laced with the collective opinions of academia, which is undeniably and overwhelmingly politically liberal. Author David Horowitz’s newest book, Indoctrination U:The Left's War Against Academic Freedom, illustrates the intellectually stifling effect that biased education continues to have on America’s students. If you have children in college or will soon be in that position, read Horowitz's book and discuss with your student what he/she can expect and how to recognize bias in texts and lectures.

In most local school districts throughout the nation, teachers could present only the approved texts and still influence students to adopt liberal views, as there is less fair and balanced presentation in textbooks than one would find on broadcast news or in print newspapers. The professors who write textbooks are notoriously biased to the left and, unlike journalists who feign impartiality, members of academia are proud of their stances and make no claims to objectivity. It is unrealistic to expect school teachers to be held to a teaching standard not similarly applied to college professors who produce texts taught to school children.

The Arizona Republic article included a quote from one college student who supports the proposed bill for the shelter from academic grade penalties often imposed by liberal professors on students known to hold conservative views:

"You might have your own opinions, but don't use a public university where people and taxpayers are paying you to teach," said Hyde, chairman of the Arizona College Republicans. "Don't use (the classroom) as your soapbox and think you're put there to teach me why you think the president is an idiot. That's not your job."

Liberal opponents of the bill argue that students need to be presented with differing viewpoints to facilitate their academic and intellectual growth. This claim, though it sounds rational, ignores the reality that students are not being challenged by a variety of interpretations. The problem is that there is only one item on the academic menu, and it is a stale slab of Euro-socialist anti-American propaganda not fit for consumption without something of opposite flavor available to remove the aftertaste. Some of the teachers quoted in the Republic article expressed concern that they will lose the ability to discuss controversial issues, but this is a red herring. The role of a teacher in discussions or debates of such topics is as a mediator, not as a validator of opinions or as an arbiter as to which viewpoint is right. Even in competitive debate courses, the judge is supposed to declare a winner based on the persuasiveness and construct of argument rather than whether the point of view argued is right or is in harmony with the judge’s personal beliefs.

The Arizona classroom impartiality bill is a noble attempt to correct a problem that is endemic to academia, but also impacts the media and the judiciary. All of these professions theoretically should be populated with objective people dedicated to teaching, reporting, or judging “just the facts,” but human nature is clearly more potent than even the most altruistic desire for objectivity in any of these fields. Perhaps an alternative solution might include required disclosures statements from teachers to their students prior to sharing any personal opinions in the classroom. A similar disclosure from the news media would certainly help the public recognize biased reporting.

Honesty in America would reach astounding levels if we could turn on the CBS Evening News and hear this anchor introduction: “Good Evening, I’m Katie Couric, and I have never voted for a Republican. I believe America brought 9/11 on itself and said so within minutes of the collapse of the second tower. I hate President Bush and believe he is a stupid cowboy. Thank you for choosing to let me influence you to be a liberal like me through my words, body language, and vocal inflections. Now, in today’s news. . .”

We require political candidates to reveal who donates money to their campaigns in order to determine what influences will shape the candidates views. Why not require teachers and the news media to likewise reveal their personal political affiliations so that students and readers can recognize that what they are being taught or are reading has passed through an opinion prism?

Honey, Hide the Celery! Boys Genetically Driven to Weaponize Ordinary Items Due to Toy Gun Control

On Saturday I viewed much of the Fox News mockumentary, "Reel Politics: If Hollywood Ran America." It was disappointing, largely because it did not portray what America would be like with Hollywood celebrities holding important political offices in Washington, it instead merely named which celebrities Fox News felt would be appointed by Hollywood to fill various cabinet posts. There was some humor in the selections, such as Jane Fonda as Secretary of Defense (sorry to my milblogger readers!), but I had hoped the comedy program would delve into the actual policies the Hollywood liberals would implement and the disastrous results of those policies.

While still considering the frightening scenario of Tim Robbins or Alec Baldwin running our government, I happened upon a seemingly unrelated, but delightful, article at WashingtonPost.com by Jonathan Turley, a professor at George Washington University. Professor Turley's article takes an unintended swipe at an issue near and dear to the Hollywood liberal heart: Gun control. However, this is no ordinary, predictable gun control article, since the guns people are demanding be banned range from plastic to an index finger and thumb held in gun shape: Toys or imaginary guns. Applying the situations described in Hurley's article to the question of what America's gun control laws could regress into if Hollywood liberal activists held positions such as Attorney General or Chief Justice of the Supreme Court provides an unsettling vision of the future.

Turley's wonderful article, titled "My Boys Like Shootouts. What's Wrong With That?", describes his encounters with parents who do not allow their own children to play with toy guns of any kind and seek to enforce this zero tolerance toy gun policy on other children and parents as well, threatening not to allow children to play together and either not attending parties of friends who play with toy guns or not inviting any plastic gun-toting tots to their own parties. Of course, this sounds ludicrous and perhaps an exaggerated reaction by only a few parents out there, but as Turley relates through his own stories and some amazing examples from across America, the toy gun control lobby is growing in numbers and influence in many neighborhoods, perhaps even your own.

Turley begins by relating when he first noticed that what he considered normal role playing adventures for his three young boys was generating unexpected reactions from other parents in Alexandria, Virginia:

I first noticed the "shunning" at the most unlikely of events. Each year on Labor Day, my Alexandria community has a "Wheel Day" parade in which hundreds of kids convert their bikes, scooters and wagons into different fantasy vehicles. Last year, we turned our red wagon into a replica Conestoga wagon with real sewn canvas over wooden ribs, wooden water barrels, quarter horse -- and, yes, plastic rifles. It was a big hit and the kids won first prize for their age group. The celebration, however, was short lived. As soon as one mother spotted the toy rifles inside the wagon, she pulled her screaming children out of the event, announcing that she would not "expose them" to guns. After some grumbling, my friends and I eventually dismissed the matter as some earth mother gone berserk.

But then it happened again.

My 4-year-old son, Aidan, brought his orange Buzz Lightyear plastic ray gun to "the pit," as our neighborhood playground is known. As he began pursuing an evildoer -- his 6-year-old brother, Jack -- around the playground, a mother froze with an expression of utter revulsion. Glaring alternately from Aidan to me, she waited for a few minutes before grabbing her son and proclaiming loudly that he could not play there "if that boy is going to be allowed to play with guns."

Turley found it ironic that he found himself on the defensive side in a gun control battle, given his political views:

My wife and I are hardly poster parents for the National Rifle Association. We are social liberals who fret over every detail and danger of child rearing. We do not let our kids watch violent TV shows and do not tolerate rough play. Like most of our friends, we tried early on to avoid any gender stereotypes in our selection of games and toys. However, our effort to avoid guns and swords and other similar toys became a Sisyphean battle. Once, in a fit of exasperation, my wife gathered up all of the swords that the boys had acquired as gifts and threw them into the trash. When she returned to the house, she found that the boys had commandeered the celery from the refrigerator to finish their epic battle. Forced to choose between balanced diets and balanced play, my wife returned the swords with strict guidelines about where and when pirate fights, ninja attacks and Jedi rescues could occur.

Intrigued by the passionate resistance to toy guns, Turley decided to explore the psychology behind toy selections for children, and what impact toys, specifically guns and other weapon-like toys have on young boys in their formative play years:

. . . I found a library of academic studies. . . . The thrust was that gender differences do exist in the toys and games that boys and girls tend to choose. The anecdotal evidence in my neighborhood (with more than 60 young kids in a four-block radius) was even clearer: Parents of boys reported endless variations on the celery swords. There seems to be something "hard-wired" with the XY chromosome that leads boys to glance at a small moss-covered branch and immediately see an air-cooled, camouflaged, fully automatic 50-caliber Browning rifle with attachable bayonet.

Many parents can relate to Holley and Warren Lutz, who thought that after their daughter Seeley, they could raise her little brother, Carver, in a weapon-free house. Holley realized her error when she gave 10-month-old Carver a Barbie doll and truck one day. The little boy examined both and then proceeded to run Barbie over repeatedly with the truck. By 2, he was bending his sister's Barbies into L-shapes and using them as guns.

As a father of three young boys, Turley took seriously the question of whether playing with toy weapons could potentially awaken "some deep and dark violent gene" potentially found in all boys. Turley's research, however, led him and his wife to conclude that nature dictated their boys' choice of toys and the imaginary adventures they acted out while playing with toy guns and swords. Despite his rationale, founded as it was in research, psychology, and genetic science, neighbors and parents of his children's friends were not convinced.

Turley observed that despite the violent scenarios his children could have acted out with their toy weapons, something remarkable occurred that suggests something profound about toys, parenting, and hero imitation:

when their best friend recently invited them to his Army-themed birthday party, it didn't bother us a bit (though some parents did refuse to let their children attend). In fact, I was struck by how, more than combat fighting, the boys tended to act out scenes involving rescuing comrades or defending the wounded. What I saw was not boys experimenting with carnage and slaughter, but modeling notions of courage and sacrifice. They were trying to experience the emotions at the extremes of human conduct: facing and overcoming fear to remain faithful to their fellow soldiers.

While violent video games perhaps provide too much stimulus to the imagination, creating actual scenarios of lethal force for points rather than patriotism, toy guns and swords alone do not influence children to become violent. In the case of Turley's boys, and billions of young boys over centuries, toy weapons more often were used to imitate noble figures or occupations in a society, such as policemen and military heroes. If we attempt to protect boys from toy weapons in a misguided effort to shield them from good and bad uses of violence, how will they grow up to protect themselves and their nation? If we rob them of their imaginations and dreams of courage and rescue, what type of soldiers will our armed forces consist of in the future? How many will want to place themselves in harm's way in law enforcement or intelligence agencies? All of these require knowledge and use of weapons to be used for morally justified societal needs, such as protection of the innocent and preservation of a nation.

If Hollywood ran America and established the naive gun control policies they espouse, America would be filled with gender-neutral toys that send mixed messages to confused children who will have no outlet for their youthful, playful aggressions. Turley provided a small but alarming sampling of actual incidents nationwide in which young children have been punished, suspended, and even expelled for behavior as benign as pointing a piece of chicken at another child and saying "pow, pow, pow." It would appear that the liberal campaign to make America "enlightened" like European firearm-free nations is exerting enormous influence at the grass roots level, even in formerly play tolerant suburbs.

What toys do your children choose to play with when presented with several choices? After reading Turley's article and perusing some of the psychological books he examined, you may learn more about your children and their natural affinities and values than you may think. Chances are, if you can never find the celery in the refrigerator, your child may be smuggling replacement swords to his guerrilla army comrades at the playground.