My wife and I were given tickets to see the Broadway show Movin' Out. Of course, we're in Chicago, but the play is now traveling. Regardless where you might see it, I strongly recommend that you do see it. Using only the songs of Billy Joel (there is no other dialogue), the story is about a group of friends and their transiition from teenagers in the 1950's through the Vietnam era and into the present. The entire show is made up of interpretive dance and song.

As a big Billy Joel fan, I was interested in seeing how the concept worked. The singer, while not Billy Joel himself, was somewhat true to the original. He certainly lacked Joel's vocal power, but he did copy his inflections and style. The songs were generally complete, with a few edited to allow the story to be seamless

From the balcony, where we sat, we could feel the sadness and joy of the actors and dancers. Regardless of any formal dialogue, Movin' Out told a very believable and compelling story. Even if you aren't a fan of Billy Joel's work, I strongly recommend it.

*******

My friend and landlord (at least as long as I pay the rent, then it may be reversed), Rabbi Yaakov Lopin often sends me links to important stories that, if I don't post directly, influence my writing. The latest thing he sent me is a posting on one of his favorite blogs, The GlazerBeam.

The posting is called "Freedom to Teach Lies" and is about Kevin Barrett, a University of Wisconsin teacher. Barrett who is scheduled to teach an introductory class on Islam at UW-Madison this Fall, claims that the US Government (not Al Qaeda) planned and carried out the attacks that destroyed the World Trade Center and damaged the Pentagon.

Like other moonbat professors along the likes of Juan Cole and Ward Churchill, Barrett has some serious issues and is need of strong medication. Read the whole posting here and tell me if you agree with me.

*******

Noted columnist Cal Thomas asks in his latest editorial, "Can a Mormon be president?"

It got me thinking. In 1960, there were many people who refused to vote for JFK because he was Catholic. In fact, although the separation of church and state forbids the favoring of one religion over another, religious belief has always played a large role in American politics. Furthermore, race obviously does as well. You can legislate civil rights, but you can't change a racists thoughts by passing laws.

Back in the late 1980's, Saturday Night Live ran a segment showing what would have been Jesse Jackson's inaugural speech had he won the Presidency. In the skit, Jackson, played by Tim Meadows, makes his remarks while running back and forth evading incoming bullets

While this was clearly an attempt at humor - and successfully so - it underscored what was a prevailing thought- that it was unlikely that a Black President would survive in office. Obviously, we have come a long way from the time Blacks couldn't vote, but regardless of qualifications, I still find it unlikely that this country would elect a minority as President. At least not yet

But what exactly constitutes a minority? Is a Black or Hispanic a minority? What about a Jew? Or even a woman? Are the considered minorities? If a Jew is, what about a Catholic, or a Lutheran? Thomas asks about a Mormon - would a Mormon be lumped in that group?

Why do we become concerned with religion when it comes to our President? Many people who voted against Kennedy said that they we afraid that he would yield to the decisions of the Catholic Church, which of course he didn't. So what would be wrong with a Jewish President? Is it that the prevailing thought would be that he would yield to Israel? Name the last President who didn't. America's relationship has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with democracy.

Now comes a thornier issue. Assume that most Americans no longer base their candidates by race or religion. That would be ideal, right?

I beg to differ. The greatness that is the United States has always been based in the specific values of the Judeo-Christian belief system. From the outset, many of our founding fathers quoted the Bible in formulating opinions and laws. While they weren't perfect (especially in regard to slavery), this belief system has been the basis of this country.

So why can't a Catholic be President? Kennedy proved he can. Maybe the country isn't ready for a Jew just yet. Or even a Black or Hispanic, but that will come. I do believe we are closer to having a woman serve than ever before - I just hope and pray it isn't Hillary Clinton.

What about a 2nd-generation German? Or a Japanese-American? The war was a long time ago. Could the country support that?

This leads me to my point. Maybe we have progressed to the point that just being American is enough. But in this day and age, could any of us perceive what life would be like if we elected an Arab-American? Or worse, a Muslim? Does anyone believe that we would be in good hands in this case? The saving grace from this is that Islamic values (now there's an oxymoron for you) is far removed from Judeo-Christian values. As long as we hold true to the values of our founding, we will never be placed in this horrific scenario.

That is why it does matter who we elect. The American Left have for years forced the erosion of these Judeo-Christian values in our public schools and government. The have consistently forced legislation against any religious activity in the name of separation. Although the law is in regard to freedom of religion, the Left has redefined it to mean freedom from religion.

In her latest book, Godless, Ann Coulter ascertains that liberalism is a religion all it's own. Regardless of all the negative hype (most of those who criticize her have never read a word of her work), her indictment is spot-on.

As far as the Left is concerned, the only criteria required for a President is that he be a devout Liberal. It certainly explains why the Left is so forgiving of Bill Clinton's invasion of Bosnia and so horrified by George Bush's invasion of Iraq - being that neither one received the blessings of the UN.

Unfortunately, the religion of the Left shares it's moral belief with some of the most brutal regimes the world have ever known. Left to their own values (as opposed to G-d's), man has proven time and again that we are savages. In Germany, in Soviet Russia, in China and in Cambodia, millions of people have been tortured and/or killed in the name of the "state".

Arabs hate America and Israel because of their faith. Whether it be Judaism, Christianity or Liberalism, as long as it's not Muslim, they hate us. The sad part is that the Islamofacists understand that their greatest ally today are the Liberals. The Liberal religion is not the same as Judaism or Christianity. No, these both share a belief in a higher authority. Liberals believe in the goodness of the human race.

History has proven that to be a losing proposition - and a deadly one to boot.

Can we afford to have a Liberal as President again? Not if we want to remain the greatest country the world has ever known.