And the president Montesquieu has very just observation upon this head; that the establishment of marriage in all civilized states is built on this natural obligation of the father to provide for his children; for that ascertains and makes known the person who is bound to fulfill this obligation. Commentaries, Book 1, Chapter 16

The duty of parents to provide for the maintenance of their children is a principle of natural law; an obligation, says Puffendorf, laid on them not only by nature herself, but by their own proper act, in bringing them into the world: for they would be in the highest manner injurious to their issue if they only gave the children life, that they might afterwards see them perish. By begetting them therefore they have entered into a voluntary obligation, to endeavor, as far as in them lies, that the life which the;y have bestowed shall be supported and preserved. And thus the children will have a perfect right of receiving maintenance from their parents.

When Obama was at Harley-Davidson last September he said: "It will take more time than any of us wants, to dig out of the hole created by this economic crisis." Mr. Obama - please put the shovel down.

Williams The liberal on the Supreme Court took away the right to build that mosque with their Kelo v. New London decision. The government can take that property for any public "purpose."

For the first time I will respectfully disagree with Dr. Sowell. Tiger Woods is married. With this civil contract Tiger Woods has made an agreement with his fellow citizens that he will be a father to the kids he produces. If he abrogates that duty, we have the duty, as citizens, to protect the inalienable rights of his children; as children that includes their feeding, housing and care.

Reportedly, several of his trysts resulted in a pregnancy that was terminated. We as citizens had the duty to protect the inalienable right to life of that child. Had that child been born, Tiger Woods would have children with two separate women. How can any man truly be a father to children he does not live with? I need not recount the...

What is stunning about the appeasers of World War II is that 25 years earlier the Germans demonstrated to Belgium the value of neutrality. If summary executions and the burning of Luvain couldn't teach liberals anything one wonders if they are real "intelletual."

It reminds me of the Discovery Channel biologist who insisted sharks were misunderstood. Having his calf ripped off on camera didn't even divorce him from his absurd notions. If a liberal learns not from that mistake, what hope do we have?