Complaint Review: Florida Metropolitan University

I am honored that my well-regarded but liberal colleague from Indiana has responded. While we do not agree on much, we are able to debate the issues in a fun and respectful manner. That is what makes this country so great.

Unfortunately, even though Timothy means well, many of his seemingly well thought out views just do not seem to add up. Therefore, I will do my best to distinguish and extinguish his counter arguments.

Since education is the main topic of this report, I will respond to that first. Tim makes a great argument regarding tuition controls being in conflict with conservative ideals. Normally, he would be correct. The main difference here, though, is that access to quality education is often a necessary part of the pursuit of happiness.

If we do not hold schools accountable for outlandish tuition rates, affordable education will not be available for those with limited financial resources. As a result, our right to pursue happiness will be infringed upon. Education is more of a fundamental right than a privilege, and should be made available to all.

Where Tim and I disagree is whether or not this is a Conservative or liberal view. Sadly, liberals who often preach tolerance, diversity, access, etc. are not in favor of tuition controls or indexes. Likewise, they are not in favor of law that would regulate equity in collegiate admissions and transfer processes.

With regards to education, conservative republicans have truly shown that they do in fact care more about average Americans than liberals do. Many busy working adults -- especially those in remote areas and/or with limited resources -- will tell you that accredited and credentialed distance learning is their only viable educational alternative.

Republicans seem to embrace this viable alternative. On the other hand, extremist liberals such as Sen Ted Kennedy and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg have openly spoken out against it. These actions only serve to undermine the hard work distance learners have put in. Americans who wish to better themselves should never be denied a respected education only because the likes of Ted Kennedy and Ruth Ginsburg want to remain elite.

Justice Ginsburg and other liberals even made inappropriate comments regarding distance learning law schools. I can only assume that such liberal elitists are afraid that distance JD degrees will devalue theirs. Instead of embracing a new, legitimate, and effective alternative, Ginsburg made uncalled for and demoralizing comments. The joke is on her, though, because distance learning law schools consistently score higher on the California Bar Exam (one of the toughest in the nation) than quite a few of their ABA approved counterparts. And they do it at a fraction of the price!

Sadly, the ABA refuses to approve this type of alternative legal education; thereby severely limiting the utility of correspondence law degrees. However, until every ABA approved law school in the country outscores every distance learning law school on the bar exam, the ABA and the likes of liberal Ginsburg, should practice what they preach and keep an open mind. Unfortunately, this is another argument for another day, so I will get back to the main issues raised by me and countered by Tim.

First, Tim countered my view on the savagery of baby murder we call abortion. Tim claimed that outlawing abortion would lead to a dangerous black market. My rebuttal to that is simple: oh well. If women wish to risk their lives, only so that they can kill children of their wombs, oh well. No sympathy here if they suffer adverse effects.

More importantly, this black market could be avoided if we put strict punishment laws in place. Basically, if mothers were severely penalized for vacuuming life from their bodies, they would be less likely to engage in black market abortion. Since abortion is premeditated killing, I would propose that violators be charged with capital murder. Hopefully, Bush will win be re-election, and if given the opportunity, appoint conservative Supreme Court justices willing to overrule Roe v. Wade.

Even if you support abortion, think about it this way: would you really want your teenage child having one without your knowledge or permission? If so, vote democrap. But if want to know what is going on in your child's life, vote Republican.

Liberals forget that the equal protection arguments should apply to all; even the unborn. Babies can not argue for themselves, so we must take action for them. Vote republican, and support an abortion ban because that is the right thing to do!

2) I have seen no data regarding increased murder rates at the time of execution, so without seeing what Tim has referenced, I can not comment in great detail. However, I trust that he has researched this issue, so for now, I will assume the claim is accurate.

Even still, we should not act as pacifists and back away from capital punishment. If we do, the violent murders win. This is the same as saying we should back away from fighting terrorism out of fear of retaliation. This is what Spain did, and they are no safer. Rather, they are a much easier target.

Capital punishment, when used with caution, is an appropriate remedy. I will agree that mistakes can and do happen. However, we could fix many of these mistakes by increasing the burden of proof in capital murder cases. For example, proof beyond a reasonable doubt gets the defendant life, and proof beyond the shadow of a doubt (or something similar), qualifies the defendant for death. Murder caught on video would be a great example of a death qualifying incident. In such a case, there would be no mistake to fix.

3) The only way to wipe out racism and discrimination is to impose severe punishment at the time it occurs. Affirmative racism punishes discrimination before it even happens, and thus, is unjust.

Some will argue affirmative racism makes up for past wrongs, but that argument fails my strict scrutiny test, and if more conservative judges are appointed, it will also fail theirs. This is because those who do not discriminate should not be punished for the sins of their ancestors. Two wrongs do not make a right. Affirmative action is wrong!

No one should be given more or less preference in a college admissions processes only because of their skin color. In fact, all race boxes should be removed by college applications immediately. It is within the power of liberal academia to do this, but they are more concerned with filling their rooms with a rainbow of colors than they are with fairness. Colleges are achieving diversity at the expense of many deserving applicants, and this is wrong.

It doesn't matter where racial labels originated. What matters is that they exist now, are used all too often, and only serve to divide us. Again, we are all created equal, and should be treated as such. Any other argument just does not make sense.

4) I sure am glad that you agree there is more than enough gun control is in place, and that gun bans have no effect on criminals because criminals don't abide by gun bans my typing fingers are getting tired.

5) A flat tax will benefit everyone. First, as far as I am concerned, the current structure is a violation of equal protection. If the percentage rate is equal across the board, all American will receive the same protections and benefits.

Tim forgets that the wealthy supply jobs. If the wealthy did not have nearly half of their income stolen from them, they would have more venture capital. As a result, they would be more willing to hire additional workers, start new businesses, etc. This would obviously benefit the working class, and the economy overall.

Further, lazy individuals do in fact derive benefit from defective social aid systems. All tax payer money (from lower to upper class) is going to support these systems. However, because the wealthy are taxed at a higher percentage, they are paying in more and getting less out.

People who make more will always pay more tax, but the percentage rates should always be the same across the board. Anything less is not equal protection.

6) Marriage has absolutely nothing to do with individual rights. Marriage is a sacrament that concerns joint rights. Banning same sex marriage does not equate to an equal protection violation, and here is why:

Gays have every right to marry; they just have to marry someone of the opposite sex. Further, same-sex marriage bans prohibit certain conduct, and therefore, affect every single American in the exact same way. If every American is prohibited from marrying someone of the same sex, how is there an equal protection issue? There simply isn't!
A federal amendment would not infringe upon anyone's individual' rights in any way.

Additionally, your solution of leaving it up to the states is flawed. This is because if we leave this issue up to the states, there will be a full faith and credit issue. States who oppose gay marriage could be forced by the courts to recognize out of state gay marriages. Therefore, a constitutional amendment seems to be the best solution.

Another factor to consider is this: more marriage equals more divorce, and many of our family courts are already overwhelmed. This in itself is not the greatest reason to ban gay marriage, but it is certainly something to think about.

Finally, if same sex marriages are allowed, a slippery slope that will quickly follow. Currently, it is one man and one woman, but if we change that to two consenting adults, things will immediately go downhill. Soon, three people will say they are in love and want to marry, then four, then five, then eventually, Jichael Mackson and his 2 Llamas. You get the point; once it starts, it won't stop. We must draw the line somewhere, but without infringing upon individual rights.

As I said before, I personally see no problem with joint gay adoptions. This is because any home is better than no home at all. Just because someone is gay, does not mean they are incapable of raising a child. However, the sanctity of the religious sacrament of marriage must be protected by law. It is a privilege, not a right!

7) As for the war, I disagree with you completely. We absolutely can not be concerned with how other nations view us! We need to look out for our own safety first. We need to protect ourselves from evil; even when it is not the popular thing to do.

This is where Bush really stepped up to the plate. He ended a terrorist regime, and is helping to replace Saddam's evil with democracy. This is a just and noble cause. Sitting back like pacifists frogs, and failing to act because there is a fear of terrorist retaliation, simply does not work. Doing nothing only makes us an easier target, and 911 proves this. How quickly people forget!

Saddam Hussein was the ultimate human rights violator. He killed and tortured his own populous. He disobeyed international law for decades. He ignored our pleas for cooperation. And when the international community showed their true wussy colors, the best president in our great history -- supported by Congress -- acted with appropriate force in an effort to keep us safe. Saddam was given every opportunity to avoid his fate. As a last resort, President Bush did what was necessary and just. We should be thankful!

Despite the roadblocks we have faced in Iraq, this war has generated many more positive results than negative ones. Genocidal Saddam Hussein will never murder or torture again! The people of Iraq no longer need to fear him! Our firm preemptive action also directly caused the evil leader of another terrorist state (Libya) to turn in his weapons, and we are safer as a result. Our security will only continue to rise once the people of Iraq take control of their country on June 30th.

I am proud that George W. Bush is our president, and I am proud of our military. Because of them, evil is being fought and defeated! Because of their sacrifices, we are safer! The liberal left is so quick to forget the positively amazing things we have accomplished, but I never will. Never!

8) There can be no absolute and complete separation of church and state. As Tim knows, all of our inalienable rights come from our creator, our personal God. Like most Americans, my God and creator is Jesus Christ. However, the word god is not necessarily a Christian reference. All religions worship a God. The words under God in the pledge, only serve to remind us that our rights can never be pilfered by government.

Plus, the word God is everywhere, on money, in the pledge, in the Supreme Court's opening, etc. It just would not be practicable for us to remove it completely; especially since God is such a big part of our history. If people do not like the word, they simply do not have to say it.

Tim's Ten Commandments argument is more understandable, but still flawed. Whether or not they are posted in public should be up to the citizens of a particular jurisdiction. In my opinion, disregarding their wishes would be a First Amendment violation.

Even if viewed in a non-religious context, the Ten Commandments promote good. Therefore, the courthouse is a perfect place for them to be displayed; as long as judges do not base their decisions on whether or not a party believes in their religious context.

9) Immigration, and border controls. Yes, we have had a healthy debate on this issue before. However, I would like to point out that my views are not all that ridiculous. We will never be a truly unified nation if we all can't even speak the same language. Borders, Language, Culture!

In closing, I would also like to thank Tim for the well thought out rebuttal. Even though he was wrong on all but one issue, this is America, where all views welcome. Go easy on him RoR readers, he is a good fella, and means well. ;)

The talk show idea is actually good one, Tim. Have your agent contact mine, but I can only work summers until May 2006. Stay in touch.

Just in case any of you are actually convinced by those ridiculous anti-liberal statements, I feel it necessary, although way off point from the original report, to clear the air.

Per the accreditation and credit transfer issues, I have to defer to M's understanding (in part) because I could never hope to put as much research into the situation as he has. However, I think his characterization of the problem as being the result of some liberal conspiracy is tenuous at best. He is simply using the fact that most academics tend to be liberals to place the blame on liberalism, and ignoring other valid reasons for the state of affairs.

As far as college funding goes, and as far as the anti-liberal statements can be severed, I am also in agreement. Something needs to be done to eliminate financial considerations as a precursor to obtaining a higher education. M points to one conservative politician from California who is promoting increased access to higher education. I would point M to "Proposal 4" from the 2002 Michigan ballot. Michigan had been using funds from tobacco settlements to provide students with need based scholarships. Republican represenatives actually wanted to divert those funds back to the tobacco companies under the guise of "tobacco education" funding. Luckily, proposal 4 failed miserably.

By the way, aren't regulations such as "tuition controls" inherently liberal in nature? Controlling what can be charged for something is certainly not a conservative ideal, at least not when it works against their own economic interests. I guess price controls are O.K. so long as they benefit the wealthy along with the impoverished, but god forbid we should try to cap natural gas prices so that hard working Americans can afford to heat their homes.

If you enjoy failed foreign policy, conflicts of interest and collusion with big business, suppression of free speech, subsidization of the export of American jobs, tax breaks for the wealthiest two percent of Americans, erosion of the division of church and state, and a revokation of overtime pay requirements then by all means vote Republican this Fall. If you would prefer an administration that cares more about the American worker than the American CEO, then a trained chimp would probably make a better President.

1) As distasteful as abortion may be, making it illegal will not make it go away. It will merely create an unregulatable and dangerous black market that will not provide mothers with the pre-abortion counseling and 24 hour waiting period mandated by statute in most states.

2) Capital punishment is a great way for society to obtain a sense of retribution for horrible crimes, but in many ways is a terrible policy. The threat of capital punishment does nothing to curtail crime. Murder rates temporarily escalate after publicized executions. Executing a criminal costs far more than imprisoning him for life. Execution eliminates the chance of exhoneration for innocent convicts, and if you think that innocent people don't end up on death row you are sadly mistaken.

3) Affirmative action is not racism, but it is discrimination. However, if you will recall Gratz and Grutter, affirmative action today is highly constrained and meets the Court's strict scrutiny test. M should bear in mind that the labels placed on us by virtue of color were not created by universities to keep out white people, but by enterpreneurs who manufactured a social structure designed to subordinate non-whites for their own benefit. Affirmative action discriminates in an effort to break down those structures and should exist until the divisions that M decries are actually wiped out.

4) Gun control. I'm in total agreement with M on this one. I pride myself on being a liberal because I feel that the liberal agenda better recognizes the complex ramifications of social policy. Per gun control, however, the liberals have failed miserably in that regard, for the very reasons M has set forth.

5) M asserts that he is for the "little man," but a flat tax will only benefit the "big man." "Lazy" people are not benefitting from the current tax structure, that is far from the truth. It is the hard working, blue-collar types that benefit from the current regime. A flat tax would increase the tax burden of hard workers in the lower tax brackets, and decrease the burden on the upper eschelons. In other words, Joe Punchclock pays more in taxes while Bill Gates pays less. The enormous wealth of the upper class is a direct result of the ridiculously low wages at the bottom. The working class subsidizes the wealth at the top by accepting meager pay for grueling work. We already subsidize corporate America enough, let them pay their fair share.

6) I'm not really too concerned either way on the gay marriage issue. What does concern me is the complete disregard for federalism and the Constitution shown by the moral right. Whether or not gays should be allowed to marry is purely a state issue, and the notion of a constitutional amendment is an affront to the Constitution itself. The purpose of federal constitutional amendments is to maintain personal rights by restraining government. We tried to use the constitution to restrict personal activity before with disasterous results.

7) The vicious murder of Nick Berg only shows how much we have further agitated the terrorists by this ridiculous and pointless war. We do need to take a tough stance against terrorism, but we also need to make sure we do it the right way. The "war on terrorism" is based on completely false notions about how terrorism should be combatted. War may, in some cases, be an effective way to control a rogue nation. Terrorism is quite a different animal. This war will create more antagonism, more terrorist attacks, and further alienate the U.S. from virtually every other nation.

The war on terrorism will be a perpetual disaster on the level of the war on drugs. For every terrorist we kill, three more will take his place. Is that what I want to happen? NO! I hope to god that I'm completely wrong about this! But the sad truth is that I am not, and by fighting this ridiculous war we are only making things worse for ourselves.

8) Religion and government have never mixed well together outside of the Vatican. If we cannot learn the lessons of the past then we are doomed to repeat them. Leaving the phrase "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance only serves to feed the false notion that Christian tenets should be our law. When religion has the force of law behind it attrocities will surely follow. If you need evidence of this, just take a look at virtually every theocracy throughout history and today.

When a person walks into a courthouse he should have the comfort of knowing that he will receive the benefit of the U.S. Constitution and all the rights and privelages that go along with it, and that he will not be judged according to the dictates of some fanatical judge's personal beliefs. The ten commandments have ABSOLUTELY no place in a courthouse. You got all up in arms about how the liberals pick and choose which rights are important when it came to the Second Amendment, calling us phonies and what not, but it seems as though you would like to shove the First Amendment under the rug. Constitutional rights are constitutional rights whether you like them or not.

9) We've discussed the immigration issue at length already. Needless to say, your notions of what "makes us America" are ridiculous, and founded more in conservative rhetoric than history.

Thanks for the opportunity, M, it's always a pleasure! Maybe we'll have a "Hannity and Colmes" style talk show together someday.

Just in case any of you are actually convinced by those ridiculous anti-liberal statements, I feel it necessary, although way off point from the original report, to clear the air.

Per the accreditation and credit transfer issues, I have to defer to M's understanding (in part) because I could never hope to put as much research into the situation as he has. However, I think his characterization of the problem as being the result of some liberal conspiracy is tenuous at best. He is simply using the fact that most academics tend to be liberals to place the blame on liberalism, and ignoring other valid reasons for the state of affairs.

As far as college funding goes, and as far as the anti-liberal statements can be severed, I am also in agreement. Something needs to be done to eliminate financial considerations as a precursor to obtaining a higher education. M points to one conservative politician from California who is promoting increased access to higher education. I would point M to "Proposal 4" from the 2002 Michigan ballot. Michigan had been using funds from tobacco settlements to provide students with need based scholarships. Republican represenatives actually wanted to divert those funds back to the tobacco companies under the guise of "tobacco education" funding. Luckily, proposal 4 failed miserably.

By the way, aren't regulations such as "tuition controls" inherently liberal in nature? Controlling what can be charged for something is certainly not a conservative ideal, at least not when it works against their own economic interests. I guess price controls are O.K. so long as they benefit the wealthy along with the impoverished, but god forbid we should try to cap natural gas prices so that hard working Americans can afford to heat their homes.

If you enjoy failed foreign policy, conflicts of interest and collusion with big business, suppression of free speech, subsidization of the export of American jobs, tax breaks for the wealthiest two percent of Americans, erosion of the division of church and state, and a revokation of overtime pay requirements then by all means vote Republican this Fall. If you would prefer an administration that cares more about the American worker than the American CEO, then a trained chimp would probably make a better President.

1) As distasteful as abortion may be, making it illegal will not make it go away. It will merely create an unregulatable and dangerous black market that will not provide mothers with the pre-abortion counseling and 24 hour waiting period mandated by statute in most states.

2) Capital punishment is a great way for society to obtain a sense of retribution for horrible crimes, but in many ways is a terrible policy. The threat of capital punishment does nothing to curtail crime. Murder rates temporarily escalate after publicized executions. Executing a criminal costs far more than imprisoning him for life. Execution eliminates the chance of exhoneration for innocent convicts, and if you think that innocent people don't end up on death row you are sadly mistaken.

3) Affirmative action is not racism, but it is discrimination. However, if you will recall Gratz and Grutter, affirmative action today is highly constrained and meets the Court's strict scrutiny test. M should bear in mind that the labels placed on us by virtue of color were not created by universities to keep out white people, but by enterpreneurs who manufactured a social structure designed to subordinate non-whites for their own benefit. Affirmative action discriminates in an effort to break down those structures and should exist until the divisions that M decries are actually wiped out.

4) Gun control. I'm in total agreement with M on this one. I pride myself on being a liberal because I feel that the liberal agenda better recognizes the complex ramifications of social policy. Per gun control, however, the liberals have failed miserably in that regard, for the very reasons M has set forth.

5) M asserts that he is for the "little man," but a flat tax will only benefit the "big man." "Lazy" people are not benefitting from the current tax structure, that is far from the truth. It is the hard working, blue-collar types that benefit from the current regime. A flat tax would increase the tax burden of hard workers in the lower tax brackets, and decrease the burden on the upper eschelons. In other words, Joe Punchclock pays more in taxes while Bill Gates pays less. The enormous wealth of the upper class is a direct result of the ridiculously low wages at the bottom. The working class subsidizes the wealth at the top by accepting meager pay for grueling work. We already subsidize corporate America enough, let them pay their fair share.

6) I'm not really too concerned either way on the gay marriage issue. What does concern me is the complete disregard for federalism and the Constitution shown by the moral right. Whether or not gays should be allowed to marry is purely a state issue, and the notion of a constitutional amendment is an affront to the Constitution itself. The purpose of federal constitutional amendments is to maintain personal rights by restraining government. We tried to use the constitution to restrict personal activity before with disasterous results.

7) The vicious murder of Nick Berg only shows how much we have further agitated the terrorists by this ridiculous and pointless war. We do need to take a tough stance against terrorism, but we also need to make sure we do it the right way. The "war on terrorism" is based on completely false notions about how terrorism should be combatted. War may, in some cases, be an effective way to control a rogue nation. Terrorism is quite a different animal. This war will create more antagonism, more terrorist attacks, and further alienate the U.S. from virtually every other nation.

The war on terrorism will be a perpetual disaster on the level of the war on drugs. For every terrorist we kill, three more will take his place. Is that what I want to happen? NO! I hope to god that I'm completely wrong about this! But the sad truth is that I am not, and by fighting this ridiculous war we are only making things worse for ourselves.

8) Religion and government have never mixed well together outside of the Vatican. If we cannot learn the lessons of the past then we are doomed to repeat them. Leaving the phrase "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance only serves to feed the false notion that Christian tenets should be our law. When religion has the force of law behind it attrocities will surely follow. If you need evidence of this, just take a look at virtually every theocracy throughout history and today.

When a person walks into a courthouse he should have the comfort of knowing that he will receive the benefit of the U.S. Constitution and all the rights and privelages that go along with it, and that he will not be judged according to the dictates of some fanatical judge's personal beliefs. The ten commandments have ABSOLUTELY no place in a courthouse. You got all up in arms about how the liberals pick and choose which rights are important when it came to the Second Amendment, calling us phonies and what not, but it seems as though you would like to shove the First Amendment under the rug. Constitutional rights are constitutional rights whether you like them or not.

9) We've discussed the immigration issue at length already. Needless to say, your notions of what "makes us America" are ridiculous, and founded more in conservative rhetoric than history.

Thanks for the opportunity, M, it's always a pleasure! Maybe we'll have a "Hannity and Colmes" style talk show together someday.

Just in case any of you are actually convinced by those ridiculous anti-liberal statements, I feel it necessary, although way off point from the original report, to clear the air.

Per the accreditation and credit transfer issues, I have to defer to M's understanding (in part) because I could never hope to put as much research into the situation as he has. However, I think his characterization of the problem as being the result of some liberal conspiracy is tenuous at best. He is simply using the fact that most academics tend to be liberals to place the blame on liberalism, and ignoring other valid reasons for the state of affairs.

As far as college funding goes, and as far as the anti-liberal statements can be severed, I am also in agreement. Something needs to be done to eliminate financial considerations as a precursor to obtaining a higher education. M points to one conservative politician from California who is promoting increased access to higher education. I would point M to "Proposal 4" from the 2002 Michigan ballot. Michigan had been using funds from tobacco settlements to provide students with need based scholarships. Republican represenatives actually wanted to divert those funds back to the tobacco companies under the guise of "tobacco education" funding. Luckily, proposal 4 failed miserably.

By the way, aren't regulations such as "tuition controls" inherently liberal in nature? Controlling what can be charged for something is certainly not a conservative ideal, at least not when it works against their own economic interests. I guess price controls are O.K. so long as they benefit the wealthy along with the impoverished, but god forbid we should try to cap natural gas prices so that hard working Americans can afford to heat their homes.

If you enjoy failed foreign policy, conflicts of interest and collusion with big business, suppression of free speech, subsidization of the export of American jobs, tax breaks for the wealthiest two percent of Americans, erosion of the division of church and state, and a revokation of overtime pay requirements then by all means vote Republican this Fall. If you would prefer an administration that cares more about the American worker than the American CEO, then a trained chimp would probably make a better President.

1) As distasteful as abortion may be, making it illegal will not make it go away. It will merely create an unregulatable and dangerous black market that will not provide mothers with the pre-abortion counseling and 24 hour waiting period mandated by statute in most states.

2) Capital punishment is a great way for society to obtain a sense of retribution for horrible crimes, but in many ways is a terrible policy. The threat of capital punishment does nothing to curtail crime. Murder rates temporarily escalate after publicized executions. Executing a criminal costs far more than imprisoning him for life. Execution eliminates the chance of exhoneration for innocent convicts, and if you think that innocent people don't end up on death row you are sadly mistaken.

3) Affirmative action is not racism, but it is discrimination. However, if you will recall Gratz and Grutter, affirmative action today is highly constrained and meets the Court's strict scrutiny test. M should bear in mind that the labels placed on us by virtue of color were not created by universities to keep out white people, but by enterpreneurs who manufactured a social structure designed to subordinate non-whites for their own benefit. Affirmative action discriminates in an effort to break down those structures and should exist until the divisions that M decries are actually wiped out.

4) Gun control. I'm in total agreement with M on this one. I pride myself on being a liberal because I feel that the liberal agenda better recognizes the complex ramifications of social policy. Per gun control, however, the liberals have failed miserably in that regard, for the very reasons M has set forth.

5) M asserts that he is for the "little man," but a flat tax will only benefit the "big man." "Lazy" people are not benefitting from the current tax structure, that is far from the truth. It is the hard working, blue-collar types that benefit from the current regime. A flat tax would increase the tax burden of hard workers in the lower tax brackets, and decrease the burden on the upper eschelons. In other words, Joe Punchclock pays more in taxes while Bill Gates pays less. The enormous wealth of the upper class is a direct result of the ridiculously low wages at the bottom. The working class subsidizes the wealth at the top by accepting meager pay for grueling work. We already subsidize corporate America enough, let them pay their fair share.

6) I'm not really too concerned either way on the gay marriage issue. What does concern me is the complete disregard for federalism and the Constitution shown by the moral right. Whether or not gays should be allowed to marry is purely a state issue, and the notion of a constitutional amendment is an affront to the Constitution itself. The purpose of federal constitutional amendments is to maintain personal rights by restraining government. We tried to use the constitution to restrict personal activity before with disasterous results.

7) The vicious murder of Nick Berg only shows how much we have further agitated the terrorists by this ridiculous and pointless war. We do need to take a tough stance against terrorism, but we also need to make sure we do it the right way. The "war on terrorism" is based on completely false notions about how terrorism should be combatted. War may, in some cases, be an effective way to control a rogue nation. Terrorism is quite a different animal. This war will create more antagonism, more terrorist attacks, and further alienate the U.S. from virtually every other nation.

The war on terrorism will be a perpetual disaster on the level of the war on drugs. For every terrorist we kill, three more will take his place. Is that what I want to happen? NO! I hope to god that I'm completely wrong about this! But the sad truth is that I am not, and by fighting this ridiculous war we are only making things worse for ourselves.

8) Religion and government have never mixed well together outside of the Vatican. If we cannot learn the lessons of the past then we are doomed to repeat them. Leaving the phrase "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance only serves to feed the false notion that Christian tenets should be our law. When religion has the force of law behind it attrocities will surely follow. If you need evidence of this, just take a look at virtually every theocracy throughout history and today.

When a person walks into a courthouse he should have the comfort of knowing that he will receive the benefit of the U.S. Constitution and all the rights and privelages that go along with it, and that he will not be judged according to the dictates of some fanatical judge's personal beliefs. The ten commandments have ABSOLUTELY no place in a courthouse. You got all up in arms about how the liberals pick and choose which rights are important when it came to the Second Amendment, calling us phonies and what not, but it seems as though you would like to shove the First Amendment under the rug. Constitutional rights are constitutional rights whether you like them or not.

9) We've discussed the immigration issue at length already. Needless to say, your notions of what "makes us America" are ridiculous, and founded more in conservative rhetoric than history.

Thanks for the opportunity, M, it's always a pleasure! Maybe we'll have a "Hannity and Colmes" style talk show together someday.

FMU is fully accredited by a 100% legitimate agency. Their accreditor (ACICS) is fully recognized by the U.S. Department of Education and the Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA.org); just like the regionals.

FMU has no duty to explain the difference between national and regional accreditation. This is because, technically speaking, there is no difference. Both meet the exact same standards.

No college (not even Harvard) can guarantee that their credits will always transfer. Therefore, unless FMU made such a guarantee, they have done nothing wrong. So stop belly aching! If you are not satisfied with FMU, just transfer the credits you earned there to another school.

Many schools will accept all of the FMU credits you worked hard to earn. So, if you haven't transferred them already, transfer as many as you can right now. Don't let your hard work go to waste.

See: www.ripoffreport.com/reports/ripoff24355.htm ... for a list of schools that will accept your credits. If the school you currently attend refuses to abide by the CHEA transfer statement, file a complaint against them here. Don't let them get away with it!

If you need assistance, contact EDitor@ripoffreport.com ... Someone on his staff may be able to assist you. It is definitely possible that they could help convince your current school to recognize your FMU credits; something they should have done from the start.

Even though FMU is a fully accredited and totally legitimate school, I do have one problem with them. In my opinion, their tuition rates are far too high. Unfortunately, this is true for many accredited schools. Lack of tuition controls is the reason why FMU and others get away with it.

Therefore, be sure to VOTE REPUBLICAN in November. Here are just 2 reasons why:

1) Conservatives/Republicans are working hard to control college tuition rates. Howard "Buck" McKeon (R-CA) has proposed a tuition index that will hold schools accountable for outrageous tuition rates and annual increases.

2) Republicans seem more willing to ease the current transfer barriers. Buck McKeon's proposal calls for the prohibition of transfer denials based only on the source of recognized accreditation. If this policy were to go into effect, FMU students would have a much easier time transferring.

Liberal academics are a major cause of the higher-ed tuition and transfer problems. Contra to what they say, they really don't want the little men to succeed. Rather, they want to hold us down by denying access to affordable education. This allows them to remain elite and retain their base support (poor people and other elites).

We often hear that liberals are more tolerant, more accepting, more understanding, etc. However, nothing could be further from the truth. The way they turn away qualified college transfer applicants for such arbitrary reasons, shows how tolerant and accepting they really aren't.

This is off topic, but some other reasons to vote republican, and re-elect President Bush are listed below. Generally, Republicans are more likely to support the following views....

1) Abortion is a violent form of infant homicide via chop and mince vacuum. Women who abort the children of their womb should themselves be executed by such inhumane means.

Human life is not a choice. Women effectively waive their right to choose when they engage in procreative activity. Liberals often preach equal protection, but their support of abortion demonstrates their hypocrisy. Aren't infants entitled to equal rights too?

2) When used with caution, the capital punishment is an appropriate remedy. The confusing thing to me, though, is how pro-abortion advocates (usually liberals) are also anti-capital punishment.

The message that sends is: it is okay to have sex and kill the resulting life, but it is not okay to execute violent murders, rapists, etc.?? My message, the conservative message, is: protect innocent life, and when absolutely necessary, execute violent murderers.

3) Affirmative action is racism! And racism should be punished! We should all be viewed individually, as Americans, on the bases of merit and need. We are not African American or Latino American, but just plain old American who happen to look different. Labels are not needed! They only serve to divide us.

Again, by supporting this racism known as affirmative, liberals are denying many the equal protection they often preach. This especially applies to college admissions. Many qualified applicants are being turned away only because of racial quotas.

4) There is enough gun control. Enough is enough! More gun control will not solve anything because the controls do not apply to criminals. Only law abiding citizens are affected by gun controls. What makes anyone think criminals would abide by a gun ban?

Therefore, once again, liberals who support gun control show their hypocrisy. They rely on the constitution only when it suits them. We hear the 1st Amendment free speech argument all the time. Yet, liberals would quickly toss out the very next amendment without a second thought.

5) A flat tax is needed. A bracket based income tax structure is not fair. Why should those who work hard to earn more money have nearly half of it stolen from them, and used to support lazy segments of the population.

Again, we are all human, and we are all equal. Therefore, we should all be taxed at the same amount. Anything less is not equal protection. I am not rich, but I fully support tax cuts for wealthy individuals because what's fair is fair.

6) Marriage is between one man and one woman. Keeping it that way is not an equal protection violation, or a violation of individual civil rights. Marriage is a religious sacrament, and most religion opposes homosexual activity.

While same sex marriage should not be recognized, homosexual couples should be entitled to certain mutual rights, such as the right to jointly adopt. This is because children should always be entitled to permanent homes.

7) The war in Iraq is a just and necessary one. Saddam was a brutal and murderous dictator, and a threat to our nation's security. Now he is gone, but many terrorists remain. The vicious be-heading of Nick Berg (also from PA), shows the true nature of what and who we are up against, and reaffirms our need to fight terrorism proactively and preemptively.

Instead of praying for those who defend us, and supporting our dedicated president, liberals continue to cry no war for oil and regime change starts at home. These evil liberal phonies are not patriots. They are gutless supporters of the former terrorist, Saddam Hussein.

8) After all, all of our inalienable rights come from God, not government. If they came from government, they would not be inalienable. Therefore, a small mix of religion and Government should be embraced.

The words under God in the pledge should remain, and the Ten Commandments should never be removed courthouse walls or other public areas. Just think, if everyone followed those Ten Commandments, there wouldn't be a need for criminal and divorce/family courts.

The Ten Commandments and Pledge cases are just a couple of more examples of how liberals, with nothing else better to do, will use any excuse to protest. If they don't like the word God, they don't have to say it.

9) Finally, immigration control is needed! Without it, our hospitals, prisons, and welfare systems will become overwhelmed with illegals. This is something President Bush may need to work on. Less compassionate, more conservative!

Borders, Language, and Culture is what makes us America. Our borders and culture should be defended, and our language should be protected. English is our national language and should be declared as such.

Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, Re-elect President Bush!! Don't let that phony liberal hypocrite, John Kerry, get away with it!