Update to the story that virtually no other media outlets desire to cover. Harlan Drake has been found guilty of murder in the killing of pro-life demonstrator Jim Pouillon and of Mike Fuoss.

Likely to get mandatory life sentence. Drake smiled as the verdicts were read.

The fun show last week on the three California teachers who made a mockery of Black History month continues to generate enormous email response.

A handful agree with me that the teachers should be fired. Most do not - of course, they are wrong :)

Even more think that Black History Month should be eliminated altogether. A point of view that actually thinks that the average white American knows a lot (or at least enough) about the contributions of black Americans, particularly in the 18th and 19th centuries to America's development. I could not disagree more.

Anyway, here are two of the most interesting emails to arrive. For your reading pleasure.

Allen,

1. African-American History has outlived it's purpose. African-American history is included in every history curriculum in the U.S. If we are to have true racial healing in this country, we have to get away from the idea of seperateness and start seeing ourselves as one people.

2. The three teachers in California may not have been conservative bigots trying to make a point. They may have been liberals who thought these three men were wrongly accused or convicted. After all, it was California.

3. Another man who is often included but should be excluded from African-American month is Malcom X. He was a racist, and should not be included with the likes of Rev. Martin Luther King.

Thank you,

Louis


Mr. Hunt. In your tirade about the three L.A. teachers you repeatedly said they should be fired, why? Because they were insensitive? Because they disrespected Black History month? Please! For starters there have been far worse offenses commited by teachers where being fired was not even considered. I think "Diversity Training" whether in education or on the job is outragious. This is nothing more than political correctness run amuk. This is just more big government. How about teaching American History. Why segregate our history? Let's just educate our kids. I think you're just ate up with political correctness and diversity. You continued to harp on the fact that they were "three white males." What if they were females, black or hispanic? Should they still be fired? I believe we should be more worried about the overall education system and what it's doing to all our children. I think we should be trying to pull together as one nation, one people with one history not worried about how diverse we can be. Exploiting our diversity will not help pull us together. I'm a frequent listener and will keep listening. Keep up the good work.
V.R.

This lady takes the cake. She captures souls and then sells them. Check it out.

She donates the proceeds of the soul sales to a charity for animals. After deducting her exorcism fee of course.

She sounds like a perfect candidate for Congress.

Harlan Drake may employ the Bobby Boucher defense. After all, it appears he was just trying to please his mother. Adam Sandler made a fortune playing the apron-strings-still-attached Boucher in The Waterboy. Boucher is best remembered for his line, “Mama says, mama says, mama says, girls are the devil.” Harlan Drake, on the other hand, faces life in prison for his role as the murderer of Jim Pouillon in Owosso, Michigan, on September 11, 2009. Drake's trial began last week.

Who is Harlan Drake, you say? You may well have forgotten him since the national media barely offered a blip about his transgressions. After all, while Scott Roeder murdered an abortion doctor, Drake merely murdered a pro-life protester. In the American psyche, the former is an outrage; the latter offers little worth lamenting. The murder of an abortion doctor will get you expansive amounts of shrill media coverage, an immediate statement from the White House, and a swift Department of Justice promise to step up security and enforcement at abortion clinics around the country. Killing a pro-life protester will not even get you ignominy. It will merely get you, well, ...oblivion.

Not even Harlan Drake disputes that he murdered Jim Pouillon. The only point of debate is whether he was insane at the time; and whether anyone notices or cares that he did it.

Harlan Drake was every bit as meticulous in his assassination in Owosso as Roeder was in his own killing of George Tiller in Wichita. Drake dropped off his nieces at school and then edged his pickup into the vicinity of pro-life protester, Jim Pouillon. Pouillon, 63, was in one of his regular protesting locations, on the street corner in front of the high school. Harlan Drake rested his left arm on the car window to steady his right hand as he shot the elderly man. He pulled the truck closer to fire again. In all, Drake landed four bullets in the defenseless Pouillon's body. Jim Pouillon fell down, then forward, and died right there. Drake drove away and moved on to murder a former employer, Mike Fuoss, and to search for a third victim, whom he fortunately never located.

A former Owosso city councilman, Michael Cline, has testified that Harlan Drake's mother, Kimberly Staples, had phoned several days in a row leading up to the murder and asked the councilman to “do something” about the problem protester, Jim Pouillon. She told him she would “send her boys over to go see Jim.” After the shootings, Cline reported that Staples called him and said “I have solved the city’s problem.” In other words, Pouillon needed killing.

Jim Pouillon's tactics in protesting abortion were controversial to be sure. He carried signs with a picture of a healthy baby on one side and a photograph of a dismembered, aborted fetus on the other. He aimed to show passers-by the horrors of abortion.

Pouillon's personal history was spotty with a series of family disputes and strained relationships. Jim Pouillon had few admirers in Owosso, Michigan. In fact, the local paper, The Argus-Press, said in an editorial five days after the killings, "His sign, often accompanied by his shouting at passers-by, gave his cause, indeed his town of Owosso as well, a bad name." No evidence of such reputation editorializing emerges from Wichita after the murder of Dr. George Tiller. Evidently, in the public mind, vocally showing people pictures of aborted fetuses is one thing while being the one who actually, but very politely and quietly, does that dismembering is another thing altogether. The former is heinous and disgusting; the latter merely falls into the category of health care, or reproductive “rights.”

In fact, prosecutors in Michigan were so concerned about Pouillon's reputation for abrasiveness that they doubted their ability to get a fair trial from an unbiased jury of Drake's peers. Again, Pouillon had few defenders for his pro-life protesting.

The trial is underway and should continue for two more weeks, but it will do so without the participation of Owossohites like Judy Jackson, 64, who told one reporter, "I don't agree with someone taking someone's life. But I don't miss the man on the corner or his foul mouth. He would chase you, call you names. He was evil. His pictures were so gross." In other words, to locals like Ms. Jackson, he had it coming. After all, Pouillon was “evil.” He performed the dastardly deed of displaying before human eyes the atrocities of abortion.

In America, or at least in Michigan and Kansas, what offends is not so much what you do as it is how you do it. Suction babies out from their mothers' wombs, or stick scissors into their heads if you must, but please we just ask that you not show us what it looks like. Our souls may not be delicate, but our eyes and our sensibilities most certainly are.

And therein lies the difference between the cause celebre that is Scott Roeder and the quickly forgotten mama's boy, Harlan Drake.

I can't decide. 7 out of 10 married persons say they would marry the same partner all over again. Is that good or bad?

7 means that most married folks (like me, I should point out early on!) would make the same decision. I actually look forward to the years ahead and growing old together with She Who Must Not Be Named. 7 means 70% are more or less in agreement with that statement. 7/10 full.

But that also means that 3 out of 10 married people are miserable or darn close to it. As Meat Loaf said, "Praying for the end of time, so I can end my time with you." That is really tragic. To have made a crucial decision and watch it fail to thrive. 3/10 is a lot of half-empty.

So what is the one key ingredient in a 7/10 couple? Humor? Forgiveness? Shared faith? Stable finances?
No, the indispensable ingredient is deep, genuine friendship. That is where true love resides. When the finances are stripped away, when the romance flickers, when life hits the fan, a relationship deeply rooted in genuine friendship with one another will stand the test. My grandmother was right. "Don't marry someone you can live with. Marry someone you can't live without."

Great hour tonight on miracles. According to the new Pew study, 4 out of 5 of us believe in miracles. Does not surprise me at all.

So I opened the phones for you to share what you think a miracle is and whether you have experienced one. The show should be posted on the site tomorrow if you missed it and would like to listen.

As you wait, here is an email miracle:

Allen, this is an actual miracle.

In the late 70's I was driving home to Asheville, NC from Orangeburg, SC, after a night of playing a 4 hour gig, stopping in Columbia to down a few drinks, and trying to get home before sunlight.

Well, as we got close to NC driving up I-26 I started to fall asleep at the wheel. It must have been about 3 or 4am. Just as I started to veer over into the mountain side I felt hands on top of my hands turn the starring wheel back onto the road. The combination of feeling those hands on me and knowing that I had almost gotten us killed, woke me up scared to death. I immediately pulled over and told my partner what had happened. I don't think he believed me. But I was so sleepy I demanded that he drive so I could sleep.

In less than 30 minutes the exact same thing happened to him and he pulled over and told me. He refused to drive anymore and I forced myself to stay awake and got us home.

I have only seen my partner once or twice in the last 30 years but he would tell you the same story. That's not something you forget.

I truly believe God saved our lives that night even though we tempted him twice the same evening! I do not know why we were spared but I am very happy that it wasn't our time. This incident furthered my belief in the Lord, although I've never been very religious.

But I do know God is real!

You can use my name.

Steve Callas

Yitta Schwarz was my kind of gal
She, her husband and their first 6 kids were sent to the Nazi concentration camp at Bergen-Belsen

They later immigrated to America in 1953 – and she eventually birthed a total of 16 kids. I love it!

A devout Hasidic Jew, Yidda saw life as a gift and a blessing from God.
She practiced her faith intently even into her 90's.
She attended all the circumcisions, first haircuts, bar mitzvahs, engagements, and weddings of her immense family.
One of her sons finally had to create a family calendar just for her to keep up with the obligations.

When she died last month, Yidda was 93.
And she left behind 15 living children, more than 200 grandchildren, and close to 2000 living relatives.
2000 thumbs in the eyes of the Nazis who wanted to eliminate the Jewish people. I love it a lot!

Mrs. Schwartz did not want her children to collect photographs of her.
“Just keep me in your heart. If you leave a child or grandchild, you live forever.”

May she rest in peace.

You can read her full obituary here.

I surely am the biggest advocate of forgiveness that radio has ever experienced (not saying much, I know)

But this guy stretches the bounds of even my grace standards. Could you forgive a guy (or vote for him) who had an affair with his mother-in-law while his wife was pregnant?

Give the man credit for one thing - it takes real guts to run for public office knowing that everyone will learn about your story.

Just not sure that I could bring myself to vote for someone who did this or even work for him if he were my boss.

Eeewwwwww!

Would you go into a grocery store seeking a loaf of bread and begin by looking in the frozen food section and then moving on to the wine aisle? Probably not.

Would you go into a grocery store seeking a loaf of bread and search the store by picking random aisles, hoping that you might eventually find bread? Doubtful.

To find a loaf of bread in a grocery store, your strategy would likely be to look at the signs hanging above each aisle to identify the area of the store housing baked goods and bread. You would look for your desired asset in the area most likely to have it. An efficient, perfectly reasonable way of doing things.

Seems like an obvious strategy, doesn't it? Not to the ACLU, and evidently, not to the Pentagon. And they have proven it two more times this week.

First, the Department of Homeland Security announced yet another airport security screening procedure – swabbing the palms of passengers to identify any hands containing traces of explosive materials. Security experts applauded the new tactic, but the ACLU demurred.Their concern? Being sure that the swabs were applied randomly rather than primarily to passengers (likely Muslim) to whom logic would point as being most likely to terrorize.

Jay Stanley, a privacy expert with the ACLU, said the organization supports the idea as “a good form of security” but is concerned about its application. "We would not want to see it implemented in a discriminatory fashion; for example, in a disproportionate way against Muslims and Arabs or, for example, people with red hair or anything else. Security experts from across the spectrum will tell you that that's not just unfair and unjust and not the American way, it's also a terrible way to do security.”

Stanley trots out the good old “not the American way” argument. He fails to ask the proper questions. Does the “American way” not include some right to assume that your plane is not going to be blown up by a man with trick underwear? To live in a free society without the danger of an Islamic loon seeking to destroy the basic threads holding together a free society? Are Americans illogical? Is America the land of the inefficient?

Do we like to find our bread randomly or would we prefer to apply simple logic and reason? Thus far, we have had a grand total of zero red-heads attempting to blow up planes. It seems reasonable to allow red-heads to proceed through our already exhausting and exhaustive normal screening process. On the other hand, every one of our plane bombing terrorists has been a Muslim male between the ages of 20 and 40. In fact, most of the terror arrests in the last decade have fit that profile. If you are looking for bread, do you not look on the bread aisle?

A solution to this fear of “profiling” (which really is just the application of reason to the law enforcement process) comes from within Islam itself. Two weeks ago, Muslim scholars objected to the new scanner technology being installed in airports on the grounds that it violates Islamic standards of modesty. These scholars recommend each Muslim passenger self-select and ask for a hand-pat examination in lieu of scanning. I suppose that is a kind of self-profiling technique. Can one profile oneself?

With this helpful encouragement from Islamic scholars, I propose a new strategy. Muslim self-profiling.

Self-profiling by Muslims seems like a very patriotic thing to do. In fact, most Americans would stand and applaud if American Muslims said, “We want to be screened more thoroughly than anyone else.” Would your heart not exult at a statement from the Muslim community that shouted, “We recognize that 80 of our young men (and no red-heads) were charged, convicted, or sentenced on terror charges in America in 2009, and we are appalled by it. By all means, screen us with the greatest care so we can show our commitment to American security and our opposition to terror.”

Such a communal statement would show patriotic sacrifice and selflessness rather than the customary defensiveness and whining to which we have grown accustomed. Given the Islamic faith's propensity for producing terroristic loons, a healthy speaking out against their own radicals, mixed with a willingness to offer up themselves as patriotic examples, would go a long way in waging the war we face.

The Pentagon would do well to invite its Muslim soldiers to follow suit. Now that Islamic scholars have suggested that self-profiling is the way to go, vetting our Muslim soldiers most thoroughly would send a powerful message. Such a message might help prevent not only future Nidal Hasans and Ft. Hoods but also the ugly reports this week of accusations of Islamic subterfuge at Ft. Jackson, where reports indicate that five Muslim soldiers were taken into custody in December (amazing how the Pentagon could keep that under wraps for 3 months) and questioned about having possibly sought to poison the food of soldiers at our nation's largest military base providing basic training.

Was this incident just one of Muslim soldiers trading insults and threats with other soldiers who feel threatened by the Muslim presence among the military? Or was it another incident where Islamic supremacists are at work within our nation's own borders and structures to erode and destroy the fabric of America? Only time will tell. But clearly we do know that the Pentagon's unwillingness to mention Islam even once in its Ft. Hood investigation is a huge, and potentially lethal, omission.

Regardless of the outcome of Ft. Jackson, a strategy of Muslim self-profiling will offer Muslims the opportunity to show that they really do embrace the Western values of freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and equality of women, despite those values' absence in Islamic culture and teaching. Such a strategy will also send the message to the rest of America that we actually know we are at war, and we know who our enemy is – Islamic terrorists.

A strategy of denial and randomness will work no more.

I am not a big Vince Vaughn fan. He usually is one-dimensional and predictable in his performances. 4 Christmases was one of his better efforts, but that one needed some serious editing.

However, after watching Couples Retreat this past weekend, I have raised my opinion. This movie was surprisingly good, maybe because I had no expectations whatsoever. When the bar is set low, it is not too tough to jump over it.

The story revolves around 4 couples who travel to a exotic island for a couples renewal experience. The plot is simple and funny. Two things I understand. Simple and funny.

It was a thoroughly enjoyable, and actually a bit insight-producing, experience. Good fun with a little marital wisdom thrown in on the side.

AHS Grade: B