The Bad the worse and the foolish -- A frustrated look at recent events: Maxine Waters, Gulf oil spill, beauty pageants, the Supreme Court, Sen. Reid, Michelle in Spain. (1332)

Modern living provides numerous luxuries and activities. An endless parade of entertainment, distraction and diversion is at our beck and call. Shopping centers and malls abound, a cadre of restaurants surrounding each. There's a club meeting one night, the kid's practice the next and the church's covered-dish supper the night after that.

Satellite television beams hundreds of crystal clear channels into our living rooms. A few are even worth watching. Movies, music, and information stream from high-speed Internet. A universe of information and entertainment is a mouse click away. Ours is a different world. The changes in the last forty years alone are staggering.

During my childhood, dining out meant a trip to the local café or fish camp. There were few, if any, family steakhouses. And there certainly wasn't a restaurant in every corner of the mall parking lot. In fact, there wasn't even a mall.

In the late 1960s the Internet was a military secret. Television stations were few and color sets were uncommon. I watched Neill Armstrong take “one giant leap for mankind” . . . and I watched it in black and white. Our set could tune two VHF channels.

Just as today's world has surpassed my childhood, so had that time advanced over the previous generations, when television itself was rare or nonexistent. People received their entertainment from the radio voices of Amos and Andy and the Jack Benny Show. Their information came from newspapers, books and magazines. The 20th Century was change, with less than 100 years separating the heyday of the buckboard from the reusable spacecraft.

Now, you may wonder what this walk down nostalgia lane has to do with Bethlehem. Very little, in a direct sense. But it does serve to compare the rapid advancement in our lifestyles with the primitive shepherds' experience, recorded in Luke's Gospel, that first Christmas night. The thought came to me as I read the story for the umpteenth time, not that you can read it too often.

Some Bible translations place the shepherds “in the same country”; others say they were “in the fields nearby.” Either way it is evident that they were on the outskirts of Bethlehem, which had nothing in common with modern suburbia. There was no reflection of Bethlehem's lights against the night sky. There was only a darkness that today's suburbanite can't comprehend.

The shepherds may have kindled a small campfire and lit a torch or two. But they wouldn't have stayed very close to that light. It would have compromised their night vision, making it difficult to spot thieves and predators, which was their purpose for being there. The only prevailing light came from the stars and the moon.

No distant train whistle pierced the silence. No car horns honked and no jets passed overhead. There were no blaring boom boxes, blinding televisions, or ringing cell phones. The only sound was the shepherds' conversation and the soft bleats from the flocks. They are alone on a dark and silent night.

Without warning a celestial being illuminated the night sky. The angel Gabriel declared the long-awaited Messiah's arrival to the accompaniment of an angelic chorus. How would those shepherds, unaccustomed to such brilliant displays, have reacted? Luke tells us they were “sore afraid.”

Considering the societal transformations and technological advancements we've experienced it is difficult, if not impossible, for us to relate to the lives of those shepherds. We think black and white television is archaic and cell phones are indispensable. It's unlikely we can appreciate the scene that long ago night on Bethlehem's hillside pastures.

Feast, my friends, this Christmas Day! Gather by the fire. Unwrap the gifts. Amidst the celebration save a minute to ponder the shepherd's experience. Our lives are so accustomed to sound, light, and distraction, perhaps we can't comprehend the powerful, majestic display that long ago night. But we can try.

`Tis the season for common sense, culture, heritage and tradition to take its annual backseat to politically correct nonsense. Each Christmas the PC police are bolder than ever. Nativity scenes can't be displayed here and angels can't be heard on high over there. Phrases and icons that reference the central reason for the “holiday season” are squelched so not to offend the perpetually offended.

A few years ago, the Seattle, WA airport authority displayed the gutlessness of Decembers present. Twenty-five years of displaying Christmas trees at the airport's entrances came to a halt with one complaint. According to airport spokeswoman Terri-Ann Betancourt the trees were removed “because we didn't want to be exclusive.” Next were the big retailers, whose zeal for a “non-threatening” shopping experience prompted employees to wish shoppers “happy holidays” or “season's greetings” in lieu of “Merry Christmas.” Christmas trees became “holiday” trees.

The idea of these faith-neutral terms and phrases is to avoid the seeming preference of Christianity over other religions. But Christmas trees? How does calling a Christmas tree what it is sanctify one belief over another? Thoughts on the origin of Christmas trees are as diverse as the kinds of trees used. In fact, the religious meaning of Christmas trees is debated even within Christianity.

The Christmas tree's root, if you'll pardon the pun, could rise from the Ancient Romans, who decorated trees with strips of metal during a festival honoring Saturnus, their god of agriculture. Perhaps modern Christmas trees date to 16th Century Germany, where small fir trees were decorated with apples and nuts. On December 25th the ornamental treats were given to the children. The Feast of Adam and Eve, where the “original sin” was reenacted on December 24th, may be the source for our tree. An evergreen, hung with apples, was used as a prop for the play.

Christmas trees are but one example of how the ever-offended are attempting to transform a season of joy and happiness into one of anxiety and misery. Flaps over “holiday trees,” corporate policies governing the greetings retail cashiers can offer and idiocy like that at Seattle's airport prove that political correctness and “sensitivity” have run amok.

Do Christmas greetings and traditions truly offend people? Or, are offended people simply seeking reasons for offense? Our world is filled with verified misery: war, famine, pestilence and violent crime. Why would expressions of hope and happiness offend any rational person? Frankly, it's because the offended aren't rational at all. They're so consumed with their manic despair that they cannot suffer cheerfulness. The joyous message of Merry Christmas reminds them of their empty, bitter souls.

Let's put this in perspective. If a Jewish man were to greet me with “Happy Hanukkah,” I would accept his wishes in the spirit they were offered. I would not become mortally offended, allowing the good wishes to be overshadowed because the greeting reflected a holiday not of my own faith. The proper response is to thank the Jewish gentleman for his gesture and respond with a cheerful “Merry Christmas.” If his expression to me is sincere he will accept my greeting without reservation.

Ironically, our society condones crass vulgarities in the name of diversity, yet is vulnerable to traditional courtesy, and that vulnerability is magnified at Christmas. The very reason there is a season to greet is sacrificed so as not to offend the most intolerant of people. It's shameful that the phrase “Merry Christmas” is yielding to a tide of politically correct multiculturalism.

Christmas commemorates Christ's birth, make no mistake about it. So what? America has a Christian heritage whether the PC police believe it or not. As such we are entirely within the realm of good taste and etiquette to wish “Merry Christmas” to anyone, even if that person is of another faith or of no faith at all.

The nonsense must stop sometime. Let it end today, now, this minute. I sincerely wish peace, safety and a Merry Christmas to you. This greeting is extended without apology to the Christian, the Jew, the Muslim, the Hindu, the Sikh, the Buddhist, the Wiccan, the Scientologist, the Taoist, the agnostic, the atheist, the environmentalist, the Jehovah's Witness, the Mormon, the Branch Davidian and whoever else happens to be out there. If you are a rational person you will accept these good wishes in the spirit they are offered.

Julian Assange, Wikileaker extraordinaire, is somewhat the enigma. His appearance is, at best, unimpressive. In fact, his visage screams “metrosexual” with the subtlety of a train horn on a still summer's eve. His sexual preference is in question even while he's accused of raping two women. Assange is both a heroic freedom-fighter and a treasonous lout, depending on who you ask and when. Perhaps he is equally both and yet neither, all the while turning American politics on its ear.

Regressives cheered when Assange's Wikileaks exposed information that endangered key allies and operations in Afghanistan. Kudos for open government, they crowed. To hear Regressives tell it, protecting domestic constitutional liberties meant knowing everything our military was planning on the other side of the world. Of course, contemporary Regressives would've considered leaking the U.S. military's big secret on June 5, 1944 as an act of patriotism, too. Conservatives (and some Regressives) liken Assange to the second coming of the Rosenbergs, even encouraging the CIA to punch his ticket.

Assange next dumped information that embarrassed the State Department. The leaked communications revealed how U.S. emissaries spied upon both friend and foe and exercised strong-arm diplomacy with our allies. However, to spill the beans on champagne-sipping envoys doesn't seem as evil as unveiling military secrets. Besides, anyone who doesn't realize that we spy on our allies, and they on us, and that international negotiations aren't invariably conducted according to Robert's Rules is rather naïve.

Assange's leak of Afghanistan War records harmed the military. This infuriated conservatives and caused Regressives to squeal like school girls on prom night. He then exposed the State Department's diplomatic affairs--and diplomacy is the true love of the Left--that embarrassed the Obama administration. In a pure political sense he has offended and satisfied both the Right and the Left. Thus Julian Assange is 100-percent evil and 100-percent good, depending on what was compromised, who was embarrassed, and when. Regressives and Conservatives have political common ground; they can both love and hate the dual faces of Julian Assange.

But, not all matters should be seen through red or blue colored glasses. Sometimes there is no right, left or middle. Sometimes moral and ethical aspects transcend political advantage. That time is now, when Julian Assange's two faces have become one. His publication of military documents potentially compromised the safety and mission of American troops fighting on foreign soil. That's a Julian Assange that no American should excuse, regardless how thoroughly Wikileaks may have tweaked their political opponents.

Nancy Pelosi isn't long as Speaker of the House. But if there's one constant in our ever-changing world it's that Pelosi will prove unconscionable until the gavel is wrested from her hand. During a recent speech on the House floor she expressed opinions about unemployment insurance and tax policy that seem irrational even for her.

Pelosi supports extending unemployment insurance beyond the current 99 week limit. To substantiate her position she touted unemployment benefits as a burgeoning economic catalyst. All we need do is and tap into their power. Pelosi informed Congress, “Unemployment insurance . . . returns $2 for every $1 that is put out there.”

A two dollar return for every one invested is a lofty promise. No financial advisor would make such a guarantee, especially in these days of stagnant stocks, miniscule interest rates and sunken real estate values. Not even a gold-plated, platinum diamond could augur a 100-percent return on investment.

Is Pelosi a pecuniary Nostradamus? If so, it's imprudent to squander her financial perception. To realize the full economic impact unemployment insurance portends, every American from restaurant bus boys to Fortune 500 CEOs should cease work immediately. According to Pelosi's two-for-one estimations, living on unemployment alone would boost our gross domestic product from 2009's $14.1 trillion to $28.2 trillion. In an instant the U.S. economy would exceed that of the European Union, China and Japan combined. And this can be accomplished while we sit home watching reruns of Hogan's Heroes.

Does Pelosi sound crazy? As the old saying goes, “Brother, you ain't seen nothing yet.” If Pelosi's take on unemployment benefits has your blood boiling, you'll erupt over her thoughts on taxation.

“Giving $700 billion to the wealthiest people in America does add $700 billion to the deficit,” Pelosi claims. Of course, extending the current tax rates gives nothing to anyone. Furthermore, Congress doesn't have to “pay” for tax cuts even when reductions are on the table. But remember, in Pelosi's world a static tax rate equals a cut because all wealth is first and foremost government property.

Even the casual observer knows that when tax rates are static, or reduced, Congress doesn't send the taxpayer a check. Tax rates simply determine the percentage of wealth that remains with its rightful producer instead of going to Washington. Money that never arrives in Washington cannot add to the deficit. The $700 billion budget hole that Pelosi laments--superficially, I might add--didn't result from insufficient taxation but from Washington's lust to spend like drunken sailors in foreign ports.

At this point it's natural to conclude that Nancy Pelosi is the stupidest woman on earth. If not stupid, she must certainly be ignorant. Would that either case were true, for both stupidity and ignorance are correctable.

If Pelosi is stupid, teaching her will be yeoman's work, for she knows very little and resists learning. Yet she can learn if her teacher is patient and persistent. It will be difficult, but not impossible. Correcting an ignorant Pelosi is much easier. Ignorance is the absence of knowledge or understanding, nothing more. Expose an ignorant Pelosi to facts and the ignorance dissipates like vapor.

Nancy Pelosi will benefit from neither approach because she isn't stupid or ignorant. She is a spin master, an epic fraud, an insufferable boor and a pathological liar. But she isn't dumb. No one could attain her position while drinking the sociopolitical Kool-Aid she serves up. No, Pelosi isn't stupid or ignorant. She does, however, credit those characteristics to her constituents. Sadly enough, she's correct. Otherwise, her seat in Congress wouldn't be so secure.

A people's representative respects the intelligence of the people he or she represents. That may sound outdated, but it's nonetheless true. A ruler expresses utter contempt for their subject's intellect. Therefore rulers, unlike representatives, treat people like stooges and serfs. Rulers quickly become proficient in the artistry of condescension and falsehood, confident that the masses are too dense to discern the truth.

Is Nancy Pelosi a representative or a ruler? Anyone who can't answer that simple question needn't worry about representation. They should prepare to be ruled.

Women should stay home, sweep floors, prepare meals and bear their master's children. Changing diapers and baking brownies; that's a women's role. Women should be seen in public only when posing for the Victoria's Secret catalog. Isn't that how Regressives would have you believe Conservatives view women?

This theory sounds insane, but it has a solid foundation. Conservatives recognize and accept reality. Men and women are genetically, physically and emotionally dissimilar. Sorry! That's just how it is, has been and-genetic engineering aside-will remain. When Conservatives mention these facts Regressives play the sex card. However, the sex card is flawed beyond repair.

Conservatives really aren't concerned with gender. It's a person's ideas that garner support or criticism. And conservatives certainly don't demand that women remain barefoot, pregnant and chained to the kitchen stove. That is, if you'll pardon my sexism, an old wives' tale. Fortunately, a growing number of women are recognizing the reality in conservatism and the respect it has for women. According to a 2009 Gallup survey, women are more conservative than liberal even though their party affiliation remains more Democrat than Republican.

Sexism was once defined as mistreating women. Not today. Sexism is whatever the Regressive feminist declares it to be. Is it sexist to buy a woman's lunch? Is it condescending to hold the door for a lady, or to escort her to the porch following a date? Is it harassment to ask a woman for a date to begin with? Women must consider such traditional courtesies as blatant condescension to be a good feminist. Furthermore, feminist dogma must be accepted to avoid sexism charges. Such acceptance by affinity-a Regressive standard-is the worst form of denigration.

Conservatives don't consider women inferior beings at all. They are equals worthy of respect and protection. They aren't tools for social engineering. It is the left that manipulates women for that purpose. Thus it is the left that practices sexism.

The left's “defense” of women is about feminism and abortion on demand. It's not about women and is, actually, insulting to them. Forget the rhetoric about choice; choice is the last thing on the Regressive agenda. The only legitimate “choice” a woman can make is the one the Regressives demand. Remember the reaction to Tim Tebow's mother?

Mrs. Tebow made the “wrong” choice when doctors advised her to abort the future national champion quarterback and Heisman Trophy winner. Regressives roasted her. Women are thinking independently only when walking lockstep with feminist dogma. Thus being pro-choice is the choice to abort and pro-freedom is the freedom to pursue the morals of an alley cat. It's a tidy denunciation of personal responsibility. It is the Regressive in a nutshell.

Regressives rank ideology above a woman's emotional and reproductive health. They rank their agenda above a woman's ability to make individual choices. In truth, Regressives are women's worst enemies.

Once Elena Kagan was confirmed to the Supreme Court it was certain that she would, at some point, cast a vote or render an opinion. It sort of goes with the territory. Of near equal certainty was that her initial ruling would embody everything objectionable and inexplicable about the Supreme Court, judges, lawyers and the legal system in general. Well, Justice Kagan has cast that first vote, to little fanfare I might add. In so doing she proved that my confidence in her ability to baffle was justified.

Granted, Kagan's first decision wasn't a thorough legal dissertation. It was simply a recorded vote in support of a losing opinion. However, she did confirm what conservatives expected from Elena Kagan. She voted to stay the execution of a convicted murderer, uphold a Ninth Circuit Court decision and support a lower judge's ruling that questioned the safety of a lethal injection drug.

For a known Regressive jurist to coddle convicted murderers and side with the Ninth “Circus” is completely predictable. Understandable no, but completely predictable. But to question the safety of a lethal drug? Maybe I'm unclear on the concept. It just seems logical that a drug administered to fulfill a condemned prisoner's death sentence would be, by necessity, unsafe. If the drug were safe, it would have difficulty achieving its stated purpose, now wouldn't it? God help us, what has happened to our brains! Educated jurists speculating on whether or not lethal drugs are safe for their intended use is a sure sign our system has abandoned all sanity and common sense.

What's next? Warning labels on sodium thiopental? We have labels on other drugs, most of which cause remedies to sound worse that the diseases they treat. I can almost hear the disclaimer now.

Are you suffering from violent anti-social outbursts that culminate in shooting, stabbing, strangling, or dismembering? One drug, Executus, has been proven to alleviate recurrences of these behavioral abnormalities. Executus is suitable only for patients professionally diagnosed with Chronic Criminalitis, especially Premeditated Murderosis. Diminished breathing and pulse rate accompanied by low or non-existent blood pressure are common among users of Executus. Some users may experience undesirable side affects, including partial paralysis, anxiety, depression and signs of panic. These symptoms are always temporary. If signs of life persist, stop taking Executus at once and contact your nearest ACLU chapter.

The Eighth Amendment prohibits government from dispensing “cruel and unusual punishments.” Not only is that proper, it's wholly compatible with our cultural values. No one wants to brutally torture convicted murderers to achieve vengeance, satisfy bloodlust, or simply for hoots, regardless of how heinous the condemned treated their victims. There's no burgeoning movement--not even among the most ardent death penalty supporters--to reintroduce crucifixion, iron maidens, burning at the stake, or drawing and quartering as practicable forms of capital punishment. But death sentences aren't the antithesis of our Eighth Amendment protections, as evidenced by the fact that capital punishment was routinely used when the Constitution was debated and ratified.

Speculating on the safety of sodium thiopental may sound nuanced, reasoned and deeply thoughtful in circles where common sense is considered an archaic relic of our ignorant heritage. Such reasoning may gain its advocate a favored seat among the intelligentsia, for whom dismissing traditionally proven solutions is a sign of superior knowledge. But it smacks of short-sighted foolishness to me, a thorough waste of time, effort and discourse.

Elena Kagan carried a warning label that foretold her voting tendency. However, like the warning labels on prescription drugs, we tend to ignore a prospective jurist's precedents, positions and opinions. Thus we make perplexing and painful mistakes like Kagan, mistakes that last a lifetime.

A novice sailor will notice when a large vessel veers drastically from its charted course. But even experienced seamen may not realize the change when course deviations are slight. Societies react to cultural variations in similar fashion. People will balk when the moral code is abruptly altered. But when the transition is slow, over several generations, the original course is lost before the change is perceived.

Philip R. Greaves' book, the Pedophile's Guide to Love and Pleasure: A Child-lover's Code of Conduct, indicates another subtle change in America's moral bearing. It should shout “Warning!” at the top of its lungs, for it illustrates how a society can adapt to moral degeneration. The first step is to rationalize the irrational and defend the indefensible until deviant behavior is mainstreamed. Greaves is willing to give it a whirl. He claims his book doesn't endorse pedophilia, but establishes guidelines for pedophile relationships. Injurious acts are off limits and certain principles must be adopted to ensure safety for the child. Greaves explained, “I hope to achieve this by appealing to the better nature of pedosexuals.”

Apparently, since pedophilia undeniably occurs, it should be woven into our cultural fabric. Notice the change? Child molesters are no longer twisted pedophiles but “pedosexuals.” The word lends legitimacy to the act, similar to how homosexual, bisexual and transsexual have legitimized behaviors once considered immoral.

Even if Greaves' were correct in assuming that physical injuries common to pedophilia can be eradicated, the psychological traumas linger for years. Furthermore, adults who seek sexual fulfillment from children are exhibiting not only a complete disregard for long-established cultural boundaries but also for plain good sense. If pedophiles were governed by the “better nature” Greaves' references, they wouldn't molest kids to begin with.

Granted, the Pedophile's Guide to Love and Pleasure hasn't exactly mainstreamed the pedophile. The book was removed from Amazon.com amid a flood of customer complaints and, shall we say, “slow” sales. Still, it should prompt a thorough cultural examination. How did we arrive at the point where a child molester's guidebook is available via a respected retail outlet? Similar to how ships change course unbeknownst to their crews. The Pedophile's Guide is but another moral degree that our culture has strayed from its original course.

For instance, marriage was once the sacred domain of a man and a woman, with sexual relations reserved for matrimony. That cultural norm has changed. Four in ten Americans now consider marriage obsolete and “shacking up” is nearly as common as matrimony. The thought of reserving intercourse for marriage is summarily dismissed, as evidenced by the increase in unwed pregnancies over the last 40 years. Such pregnancies are now standard fare where once they were cause for shame.

Homosexuality, bisexuality and transsexuality--previously shunned as the domain of deviates--are alternative lifestyles. Homosexuality is even considered the superior attraction in some circles. In Hollywood, for example, it's “in” to be “out.” The thought of same-sex marriage never crossed the mind a generation ago. But it's rapidly gaining popularity across the societal spectrum, reaching majority status among Americans under age thirty. Anyone who questions the purity in such activities is labeled homophobic, which is almost like being identified as a Klansman.

Moral bearings aren't lost overnight. It's the result of incremental course deviations. Bit by bit the unthinkable becomes commonplace. Considering the slight alterations in cultural morality that produced our present state, is it beyond belief that future generations will consider “pedosexuality” an “alternative lifestyle?” We'd be foolish to dismiss the possibility.

Few people believe that mankind has ever practiced perfect virtue, in public or in private. But it's blatantly naïve to think the deviancies we tolerate today wouldn't have caused our grandparents to wash our minds out with soap. Humanity's moral ship is adrift. The Pedophile's Guide to Love and Pleasure is the latest deviation toward a wayward destination.

In the George Orwell classic Animal Farm, there lived a horse named Boxer. He was strong, willing and dependable. In fact, Boxer was so dedicated to his assignments and his leader that he often said, “Napoleon is always right,” followed by his personal pledge to “work harder” toward accomplishing the state's goals.

Boxer was a good, faithful horse. But his fault was his blind devotion to his leader and his willingness to sacrifice himself to Napoleon's grand goals. Boxer never benefited from his loyalty or from Napoleon's phony promise of an easy future. When he was no longer useful he was shipped to the glue factory, ironically under the guise of receiving state provided medical treatment. Let that sink in, Obamacare advocates.

On Animal Farm, appeals to necessity, subtle changes to established rules and revisionist history were the tools used to control Boxer and his comrades. Boxer willingly accepted his marching orders until his fate was sealed. The tactics that led to his demise, and the enslavement of his friends, are now deployed at airport security checkpoints across America. I can't help but wonder if we've become a nation of “Boxers.”

Even before John Tyner's videoed confrontation with body image scanners and full-body groping sessions there was Joe Sharkey, who wrote of his own experience with the TSA. Sharkey also refused to be scanned, which prompted security screeners to repeat a vocal alarm that might have been necessary had Osama bin Laden himself tried to board a plane. But there was no reason to suspect Sharkey. There was nothing conspicuous or suspicious about him. His sin was balking at being treated like the terrorist he isn't.

Sharkey's article mentioned another flier, Bruce Delahorne, who faced a similar situation. When Bruce questioned the need for the unfamiliar tactics to which he was exposed he was informed that nothing had changed in airport security screenings. “We have always done this,” the TSA agent explained. After passing through the checkpoint Delahorne asked the same question of another agent. He received a similar answer, “the process has always been the same.”

Well, airport screenings haven't always been this way. Sure, we live in a post-9/11 environment and caution is prudent. But body imaging every air traveler isn't the same as intercepting specific phone conversations between Abdullah the Butcher and a cave in Waziristan. We're dealing with de facto strip searches of everyday Americans, pat downs of nuns and confiscation of shampoo and nail clippers. All of this nonsense is done so as not to offend Islam, whose virulent adherents fostered this “necessity.”

The TSA has released images from both the millimeter wave and backscatter imagers currently in use. The fact is that the TSA images aren't exactly fodder for next month's Playboy centerfold. Other images are circulating that depict an inverted scan that reveals both nudity and identity. But such photos are easily faked and there appears to be no proof that they are authentic. That's little comfort to air travelers who are exposed to humiliating body scans and invasive pat down searches. Even the stance assumed for the scans--feet apart and hands held above the head--portrays a submissiveness that belies a free people. Fellow Americans, our government has declared us guilty until we prove our innocence.

There remains the argument that body scanners are necessary to prevent terrorists from smuggling bombs aboard aircraft. That may be true, but realistically the scanners do nothing to combat terrorism as a tactic. A terrorist attack isn't like an advancing army; it doesn't acquire territory and it need not commandeer or destroy an airplane to accomplish its goal. Terrorism need only sow doubt and fear to be effective.

When innocent Americans are essentially strip searched in airport concourses the terrorists have achieved their goal. In fact, terrorists are equally served without boarding an aircraft at all. Suicide bombers need only detonate their payload at a crowded TSA checkpoint. Scores of unsuspecting travelers would be killed or injured. Such an attack would do more to shatter our illusion of security than blowing up an airliner.

We're being sold a false sense of safety from a Department of Homeland Security that can't muster the courage to identify our real enemies, much less target them. But Napoleon is always right. Thus we'll be scanned and probed so not to offend the very people who hate us, our liberties and our culture simply because we've refused, thus far, to adopt their ways.

The day will come when we won't be able to enter a sports arena, a shopping mall, or a public parking deck without passing a body imaging checkpoint. Maybe then we'll realize we've become like Boxer, dutiful and obedient until securely locked in the knacker's wagon.

If there were a Spin Doctorate program at Political University the requisite course would be Obfuscation 101. No one survives in contemporary American politics without a thorough mastery of the subject. Obfuscation 101 instructs the neophyte politician on how to tell voters what they want to hear while having no intention of fulfilling the obligation when elected. The politician becomes adept at issuing promises and making pledges that are as foreign to their character as Sharia Law is to the Southern Baptist Convention.

That's how the world turns in American politics and there seems to be little anyone can do about it. Aren't there times when you long for a politician who has nothing to hide? Rest easy, I have found just the candidate for you.

Meet Sara May, a candidate for a district council seat in Warsaw, Poland. Sara is self-described as honest, sincere, independent, consistent, ambitious and hardworking. In short, Sara May appears everything you could want in a politician, everything most politicians aren't. She's also willing to prove that she has nothing to hide, as her campaign poster (shown below) attests.

That's our babe, uh, I mean, candidate. As you can see, Sara isn't exposing all of her secrets. But she has revealed more about her self than will most political candidates. And the few personal “issues” she's kept hidden are much more appealing that what most politicians conceal. At any rate, Sara is quite a change from the stereotypical leader in the once-communist Poland, huh?

Sara's campaign poster will get her noticed, that much is certain. Whether the notoriety translates into votes is another story. But for us, here in America, Sara May's poster should cause us to reassess our desire for more openness from our own politicians. Imagine Nancy Pelosi, Diane Feinstein, or Barbara Mikulski adopting Sara May's nothing to hide campaign philosophy. Now there's a standard for mean-spiritedness that would make even Rahm Emanuel cringe.

The mid-term elections are over. Republicans celebrate their victory while Democrats chase their tails, apparently in a state of denial. The GOP won 239 House seats and control 46 Senate seats with the Alaska race still undecided. Even if Lisa Murkowski prevails she is a Republican who will be at least as dependable as Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe.

Republicans also hold 29 governorships and a majority of statehouses, which means they will redraw the congressional districts following this census year. If Republicans have the fortitude they can align congressional districts to favor conservative candidates for the next decade.

Even seat counts don't tell the whole story of the Republican's November 2nd dominance. No Republican incumbent lost their Senate seat while Democrats struggled to hold serve in Regressive heavy Washington and Colorado. House Democrats lost one seat in which their candidate was a prohibitive favorite and five where they were expected to win with ease. Republicans lost nary a House race they were favored to win. Republicans won 30 tossup races, unseating Democrat incumbents in 29 of them. Democrats won only 12 such elections. Democrats unseated just three sitting Republican representatives, and one of those was in Hawaii where a Democrat victory is about as rare as spotting a corn stalk in Illinois.

What happens now? Winning elections is one thing; wielding power is quite another. How should the GOP proceed? Where should they flex their newfound muscle? What must Republicans do to prove they are a genuine conservative alternative to the defeated Democrats? Follow the five-step program.

First, Republicans must realize that America voted for conservatism, not liberalism. When a confident football team intercepts a pass or recovers a fumble they try to capitalize immediately on the momentum shift. The GOP's strategy should be similar. Why allow the losers to define the debate? Introduce legislation to repeal Obamacare. It's won't pass the Senate, although some Senate Democrats--like Joe Manchin (WV)--may buck their party and the administration. If repeal does survive the Senate the President will certainly veto it, which Republicans can't override. So what? Introduce the bill again and again and again. Force the Democrats to defend their collectivist programs.

Second, avoid appeasement; it offers nothing for Republicans. Losing doesn't equal defeat in the Regressive's dictionary. In fact, Democrats are likely to be aggressive in defeat. What do they have to lose? Meet the lame duck Democrats with a hefty dose of obstructionism and gridlock. Republicans hold enough Senate seats right now to stonewall Democrats until the 112th Congress is seated. Just do it!

Third, ignore the Democrat's character assassinations and obtuse rhetoric. Any conservative knows, or should know, that these tactics are the first options for Regressives and their media allies. Deal with it; it's as common to politics as sand to the Mohave Desert. Conservatives have few friends in the media and none in the Obama/Reid/Pelosi Cabal. Why try to impress them? Cater to the people who've granted the GOP a second chance at governing, not the Washington elitists. Their agenda is the one you were elected to stop.

Fourth, forget about bipartisanship for bipartisanship's sake. There's no compromise with Regressive Democrats. If the electorate wanted the snake oil Democrats have been peddling they wouldn't have swept them from power. Obama himself has said that elections have consequences and that victors set the tone. Go for their jugular; don't give them a hand up. Let the Regressives “reach across the aisle” for a change.

Fifth, the Republican Party must remember where their new lease on life came from. Conservatives are wary and watching for signs of betrayal. If Republicans promote big government, as past Republican Congresses have done, voters have no reason to trust them in 2012.

Republicans aren't as devoted to statism as are Democrats. But the slow boat to socialism eventually docks in the same harbor. The GOP has a chance to prove that they aren't a watered-down version of the Regressive Movement. They better make a good showing.

Sometimes you have to hand it to your enemies. Regressives are masterful at portraying themselves as the administrators of “economic fairness.” No Regressive oration would be complete without a splash of class envy. Be it “tax cuts for the greedy rich” or “the rich getting wealthy on the backs of the poor,” the message is the same. Conservatives benefit from keeping poor Americans impoverished. But the Left's advantage is nullified when conservatives meet their charge head-on.

Conservatism finds no joy in anyone's economic suffering. Rather, conservatism promotes attitudes that loose people from poverty's chain. Optimism, resilience, self-reliance and ethics are the qualities that build successful and enduring futures. While setbacks are common they aren't cause for surrender. The individual remains superior to politicians, bureaucrats and busybody activists who display their so-called generosity in the redistribution of their neighbor's earnings. These qualities are fundamental to conservative thought.

The notion that honor resides in effort and ingenuity is neither foolish nor outdated. And poverty isn't a cause for shame but for resolve. Conservatives embrace this concept because the benefits are demonstrable, having lifted some of America's highest achievers to unimagined accomplishments. That's why conservatives resist expanding the so-called social safety net. There's no enmity toward the poor, just toward the entitlements that encourage their economic stagnation.

The old fishing adage fit's the conservative outlook perfectly. Give a man a fish and you've fed him for a day. Teach him to fish and you've fed him for a lifetime. Conservatives enjoy teaching people to fish.

Regressive policies ensure that the poor remain poor. According to the Cato Institute, 32-percent of America's population was impoverished in 1947. The poverty level fell to 13.9-percent by 1965. That's when Regressives launched Lyndon Johnson's infamous War on Poverty. Since 1965 the poverty rate has remained relatively constant, hovering between 10 and 15-percent.

If discussing poverty with a few quick statistics sounds cold and impersonal, it shouldn't. Each number represents millions of Americans whose faith has been diminished and whose futures have been damaged by Regressive policies.

The grandiose promises of the left's anti-poverty crusade remain predictably unfulfilled, a vapid collection of shell games, pipe dreams and collectivist utopianism. Instead of eradicating poverty, as advertised, Regressives have stifled initiative, fostered dependency and encouraged stagnation. The role of father has been swallowed in statist bureaucracy, the family unit is fractured and inner cities--ostensibly the target of the War on Poverty--are economic disasters.

Regressives toss fish to the poor, much like a marine biologist feeds a seal, thereby ensuring that destitute people, like seals, look to Regressives each time they have a need. There's nothing compassionate about it. In fact, it's a heinous immorality.

A recent article discussed how Pontius Pilate would react to the climate change debate. Conclusion: If Pilate were alive today he would be more confused over climate change than he was about the Jewish teacher who stood trial before him. And if he couldn't identify truth in Jesus Christ and would be confused over climate change, what chance would he have to recognize truth when the debate turned to the economy?

Government growth and its associated demands on private resources exhibit contemporary truth's subjective nature. For instance, the United States' national debt equals nearly a year's gross domestic product. Promised expenditures have escalated to a number that exceeds the capacity of the rational mind, topping $100 trillion in some estimates. Despite the enormity of government's demand on private production, the Keynesian disciple insists that an even greater governmental involvement is warranted. Government can, and should, borrow its way out of debt and spend the United States to prosperity. This is the economic stimulus, we're told, that spurs private sector growth. But this act has played out before, and to an unsatisfying climax.

The Roosevelt administration emphasized government in its economic philosophy throughout the Great Depression. Their collective approach failed to increase employment or promote actual growth. Ask today's Keynesian apostle to explain why similar methods will produce different results today and they'll greet your questions with shaking heads, rolling eyes and condescending smirks. Roosevelt, they will counter, didn't release sufficient cash nor did he supply cash in a timely manner to generate positive results. FDR simply didn't go far enough.

Government spending may spur targeted economic sectors for the short term. However, government cannot continue drawing capital from the marketplace and expect the market to grow, or devalue currency and expect wealth to increase. It's akin to letting air out of a balloon and expecting it to get bigger. Also, to accept this premise ignores a basic fact: while targeted economic sectors benefit from stimulus spending other sectors are denied access to that capital. The latter industries are the unseen consequences of artificially directed stimulus spending. Instead of allowing capital to seek its natural and most effective course, as does water and electricity, it is deflected. Stimulus builds, at best, a house of cards. The next stiff breeze will send it tumbling.

Keynesians seldom, if ever, acknowledge that government spending must originate from devalued currency or from confiscatory taxation, fees and similar impositions on private production. Government stimulus is simply the redirection of assets according to legislative diktat and bureaucratic preference. Free and voluntary exchange--the most efficient method for allocating assets--is ambushed and incapacitated.

If the Keynesian model is indeed workable, failing only due to insufficient funding, what percentage of GDP would the Keynesian consider adequate for success? The question is unanswerable. No matter the percentage of national wealth government is allowed to control it is never sufficient. Failure is explained as the result of too little funding having arrived too late, which leads to more demands for government interference. It's a self-perpetuating cycle with government and bureaucracy being the winners and the free markets being the loser.

However, Keynesian economists consider it totally rational to call on government to rescue the ship it just torpedoed. Pilate would surely ask, “What is truth?”

Even though private enterprise drives expansion in both the private and public sectors, the Keynesian holds the public sector to be a better determiner of where capital should flow. The more money government borrows and the more wealth government draws from the private sector, the more government can stimulate the economy. Yet the economy remains sluggish and we're encouraged to trust government to solve the issues that its previous meddling created.

It's difficult to declare one political race the definitive contest of an election year. There are numerous variables for which to account. Furthermore, regardless of who wins a particular seat, the seat itself carries but one vote in Congress. Yet there is a definitive election this mid-term. It's the Nevada Senate race, and for more reasons than most experts think.

Harry Reid's pending unemployment represents a watershed event for conservatives. Reid is as devoted to Regressive politics as Mother Teresa was to Catholicism. He is a consistent proponent of racial discrimination packaged in the non-threatening moniker, affirmative action. His record on education indicates a history of support for federal tinkering with erstwhile local school systems.

Sen. Reid has resisted virtually all education initiatives that have recognized local authority and parental control above federal mandates and teacher unions. Educational savings accounts? Reid opposes them. Ditto for allowing flexibility in how state and local boards administer federal regulations. Reid is beholding not to parents, who naturally desire the greatest opportunities for their children, but to an educational establishment built upon tenure rather than accomplishment.

Reid is a staunch ally of organized labor. He opposes personal decisions in employer-employee relationships and his support for card check unionization has earned him a perfect rating from the AFL-CIO. The AFL-CIO, by the way, was a primary supporter of the “One Nation Working Together” rally in DC earlier this month. That rally drew not only the “normal” leftist organizations but also the Socialist Workers Party and the Young Communist League. Birds of a feather, Sen. Reid. Birds of a feather.

Pick the issue and Harry Reid will consider government its most efficient manager. Reid's Senate record demonstrates his unbelief in the people's ability to manage their own affairs and accept life's basic responsibilities. It is apparent that he has contempt for the “regular” American's intelligence.

To send Harry Reid down in flames is no small feat, especially considering that the Senator was once quite popular. He won his last election (2004) by a convincing 26-percent of the vote. Now he could lose his seat to the upstart Sharron Angle? That represents a repudiation of the Democrat Party and the Obama administration that should warm conservative hearts from Miami, Florida to Cape Flattery, Washington.

Reasons to oppose Harry Reid are ample and apparent. But are there reasons to vote for his challenger, Sharron Angle? The mainstream media has made numerous attempts to paint Angle as the worst kind of kook. For instance, Angle has taken flak for criticizing government mandated autism coverage in health insurance policies. Funny thing, despite howls of protest from ginned-up autism activists, Angle never dismissed such coverage for people who desire it. Angle's position holds that individuals, not government, should decide if autism coverage--or any coverage for that matter--is worth the corresponding premium. It is a free market approach that would help control healthcare costs overall.

Healthcare isn't the only area where Sharron Angle's limited government positions have left her wearing the radical brand. Angle has said she'd like to eliminate the Department of Education, garnering more than a few snickers for her trouble. But realize this: she's on solid ground. There's no constitutional authority for federal involvement in education, rendering education a Tenth Amendment issue reserved for the states and the people.

It's odd how many Americans have accepted that federal involvement is required for children to receive a proper education. Actually, there was no federal education department at all for the first 90 years of our republic and education didn't become a cabinet department until 1980. Yet children were educated, often better than today. Angle's nod toward less federal involvement in education offers a distinct alternative to Reid's cater-to-the-NEA approach.

Truly, politicians are like grab bags; you don't know what you'll get until you buy one. But Sharron Angle presents sound conservative positions on issues ranging from abortion to social matters. She's not concerned with coddling convicts, growing the federal government, or compromising the Second Amendment. Angle supports forcing Congress to cite constitutional authority for the bills it proposes and auditing federal agencies for fraud and waste. These issues resonate with the “great unwashed” who live outside the Washington Beltway.

Sharron Angle is the antithesis of Harry Reid, who lives in a world where wastefulness and collectivism are considered résumé enhancements. Is she a loose cannon? A radical? Perhaps, to a degree, she's both. But the men who founded this nation were somewhat radical, too. While Sharron Angle isn't the reincarnation of Thomas Jefferson or James Madison, she's closer to both than Harry Reid will ever be.

Let's recap. For Angle to defeat the Senate Majority Leader is a big deal. It's a repudiation of the Regressive platform in general and the Obama-Reid cabal in particular. An Angle victory sends a message to the Democrat political establishment. But it sends a greater message to the Republican establishment, from which she's drawn hefty criticism.

The greatest good an Angle victory serves is to focus the conservative base's shout of “Enough!” upon the deaf ears within the GOP hierarchy. Elected Republicans have too long ignored their conservative base and adopted a whipped dog approach to governing alongside Regressive Democrats. Thus government is larger, the debt has escalated and the GOP has become Democrat-light.

The Republican Party leadership has lost its way on a host of core party principles: fiscal discipline, limited government, national sovereignty and war strategy. These failures to govern conservatively opened the way for Democrat wins in 2006 and 2008. Continuing down this path will relegate the Grand Old Party to ultimate irrelevance. A Sharron Angle victory in this high profile race warns the coming Republican majority--if indeed it materializes--that conservatives are tired of being treated like the party's secret mistress, used when needed then shuffled off to a sleazy apartment on the seedy side of town.

Sharron Angle should become Nevada's next U.S. Senator. She's an appropriate renouncement of the Obama administration, the Reid Senate and the Pelosi House. She openly represents a conservative, anti-statist philosophy. What if Angle does prove to be a kook? So what? She can be no loopier than the media-approved politicians who've deliberately ignored the Constitution and driven the United States to the brink of fiscal insolvency.

Angle's outcome is a bellwether on America's future. Are we ready to reestablish the proper citizen-government relationship? Or are discontented voters merely blowing smoke? Nevada is a giant step toward answering those questions.

Tea Partiers have waited nearly two years for this Election Day. We've dreamed about it, worked toward it and suffered unsubstantiated slanders for our efforts. Our opponents, who live for the Washington establishment, call us racists, xenophobes, homophobes, Islamophobes and the sexually derisive “tea-baggers.” We're Limbaugh's, Beck's and Hannity's puppets, intellectually vapid and thoroughly Neanderthal.

Such derision is unwarranted but not surprising. When an ideology is under assault its adherents will fight. Therefore the Washington establishment--well represented in both dominant parties--is retaliating against the Tea Party, for we threaten to tear the playhouse down.

We've traveled a long road to this day and many a long road lies ahead. With polls showing large conservative gains across the electoral spectrum complacency becomes a danger. We must send a loud message on November 2nd. And our motivation lies in the reasons the Tea Party was born, why it grew, and why it's redefining the two party system.

Our national balance sheet is corrupt. The debt is $13 trillion, give or take a few hundred billion. That's roughly an entire year's worth of national production. Obama, who campaigned on reducing deficits, has proposed a $9.7 trillion increase in debt over the next ten years. Yet our federal “representatives” claim the answer lies in more government, higher taxes and an expansive cradle-to-grave welfare state. Therefore we go to the polls.

Social Security and Medicare are runaway trains hurtling toward a washed-out bridge. There is no Social Security trust fund and the touted “surplus” is but an accounting gimmick backed by worthless IOUs. Medicare is just as bad, if not worse. The Part D prescription drug plan and Obamacare only expand the problem.

Productive Americans--rich, poor and in between--are taxed to fund programs for the dependent. Politicians tantalize ignorant voters with promises to soak “evil” corporations and institute mythical visions of regulatory “fairness.” Yet the costs of such measures are paid by people, not legal entities. Each tax, each burdensome regulation is absorbed by the people, for the cost is passed to the consumer. Economists call this phenomenon the “unseen consequence.” It's time we, the unseen consequences, were both seen and heard. Therefore we go to the polls.

We must repeal the onerous healthcare bill that promises high costs, poor service and shoddy results while granting enormous power--and the probability of abuse--to the central government. A majority of Americans, even if those who aren't Tea Party activists, want this law repealed. Furthermore, it is another unconstitutional program sold to us “for our own good.” Therefore we go to the polls.

We are tired of arrogant “public servants” like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who invents Bible passages to promote her global warming agenda. She holds our freedom, the U.S. Constitution and her duty to both in utter contempt. Truth and honesty aren't character traits for Nancy Pelosi; they are obstacles to overcome. This woman is unfit to hold public office, much less the Speaker's gavel. Therefore we go to the polls.

Sen. Harry Reid thinks you and I stink. We, the great unwashed, are just too gamey for his aristocratic olfactory. When the Capitol Visitors Center opened Reid expressed his joy. A sensible, reasonable person would've been happy for the Americans who would no longer wait in the broiling sun to tour Congress. Not Reid! The air conditioned center meant no more smelly peasants near his office. Frankly, a herd of filthy goats couldn't stink up the Capitol like Sen. Harry Reid and his ilk have done.

Reid ramrodded the healthcare overall into law despite deep objections from a sizeable number of Americans. Oppose amnesty and you're racist in Harry Reid's world. He is arrogant, unresponsive, sanctimonious and insulting. Even Reid's own son views him as damaged goods, shunning the family name while running for the Nevada governorship. Therefore we go to the polls.

On Tuesday we strip power from the tyrants who kept the healthcare bill hidden, changed it indiscriminately, lied about its content and their pledge for an open review, and then passed it via a secretive, backroom vote. The bill itself was unreadable; a labyrinth of legalese, vagaries and cross references intended to prevent public understanding. Supporters of Obamacare blithely told us how wonderful the legislation would be for all Americans, yet said that the bill must pass before we can know what's in it. Not even Sen. Max Baucus, the bill's alleged author, bothered to read this nonsense before it became law. It's naïve to think Congressmen and Senators read these large bills. But their contempt for our intelligence can't go unchallenged. Therefore we go to the polls.

We go to the polls to prevent cap and trade from sacrificing our economy to an unproven theory. We go to the polls so card check won't transform employer-employee relationships into one-sided AFL-CIO/SEIU playgrounds, which will ultimately fund our further demise. We go to the polls to correct our fiscal future and secure our national sovereignty.

Government is too large. It is unmanageable and unrestrained. Our representatives have stretched government far beyond its constitutional limits while scoffing at the Tenth Amendment, state sovereignty, property rights and individual liberty. We go to the polls to save the greatest hope for human liberty from a destructive Marxist agenda.

Ultimately, the reason we go to the polls is to fire the first salvos in a long and arduous revolution--fought each election cycle, as our Founders intended--to restore constitutional principles, fiscal sanity and common sense to American government at all levels. And we do this not only for ourselves. We go to the polls for our posterity, that future Americans may live as government's masters, not its servants. We go to the polls because we are liberty's last line of defense.

Of the questions posed throughout human history few are more pertinent to contemporary culture than one from Pontius Pilate. Pilate, the Roman governor of Judea who presided over Jesus Christ's trial, uttered the far-ranging query: “What is truth?”

Varied opinions are the norm concerning Jesus Christ. Some people see him as a good man, a wise teacher, or an extraordinary prophet. He is Savior to others. Despite such divergent opinions few people argue against Jesus being a keen judge of humanity. If Pilate failed to recognize this truth, face to face, how could he distinguish truth in today's climate debate?

Governments, scientists and journalists have declared the global warming debate settled. It's happening; man is the culprit and regulation is the cure. But journalists are generally sympathetic to an expansive government. The global warming scientific community receives funding from government organizations. And government itself stands to strengthen in scope and influence with each environmental regulation.

The climate debate is an example of supplying half the story while silencing opposition. And half of a story is misleading at best. At worst, it's a lie. Could Pilate grasp truth in the media/science/government climate triumvirate?

Not even the title, global warming, has survived the spin machine. Global warming evolved into climate change until the current White House dismissed both terms in favor of global climate disruption. Each title sounds menacing. But do any of the three carry a substantive meaning? Or, would they leave Pilate asking, “What is truth?”

Following the climate debate in the traditional media, print or broadcast, leads the non-scientific observer to accept global climate disruption as settled fact. Every expert in climate-related scientific fields, reports claim, accepts the idea of climate change. Science is of one accord, human activity is driving this world toward an apocryphal environmental calamity. That is the truth, settled and sure. Yet Pilate would do well to retain his skepticism.

Earth's temperature and climate hasn't remained static through the eons, having ranged from ice ages to tropical periods. And who's to say if Earth has deviated from its optimum temperature, or what that prime temperature should be? Furthermore, there are credible scientists questioning the “consensus” regarding climate change. In fact, there are many who shun the theory that modern living is the instigating factor in what climate and temperature fluctuations may have occurred previously, are happening now, or will in the future.

The late physicist Frederick Seitz initiated a petition that netted over 30,000 signatures from scientists skeptical of manmade global warming. The signers represent diverse scientific disciplines, from climatologists to medical doctors. But with few exceptions the signers are credible professionals representing scientific fields. Yet such climate change skeptics are assailed or ridiculed. Their professionalism is impugned and their opinions are dismissed with rolling eyes and deep sighs.

Skeptics are labeled shills for “Big Energy” and “Big Oil.” Their views are declared biased, since energy and oil interests stand to profit from debunking climate change theories. However, climate change proponents receive funding from government interests. And governmental organizations, from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, expand their influence with each anti-global climate disruption initiative.

So scientists are in total agreement. Mankind is the global warming culprit, except that a large number of scientists don't accept the manmade climate change theories. And skeptics are ridiculed as stooges if they receive one dime from energy interests while green church apostles are considered unbiased even though governments funds their research.

Climate change centers on the carbon dioxide generated in fossil fuel combustion, ranging from coal-fired power plants to grandpa's wood stove. Carbon dioxide is treated as the most noxious gas since methyl isocyanate (of Union Carbide fame). The Environmental Protection Agency has even declared CO2 a dangerous pollutant.

Carbon dioxide is portrayed as the most dangerous element known to man, a veritable death sentence for anyone exposed. Yet no one can escape its presence, for humans produce CO2 with each exhale. Are we then healthier when we aren't breathing?

Let's examine the scorecard. All scientists agree that manmade global warming is settled fact, except for the scientists who disagree. Climate change science is prejudiced when the research funds come from energy interests, but are pristine and unbiased when funded through governmental entities. Finally, carbon dioxide is the hazard of our era, a lethal pollutant that must be controlled. Only CO2 can't be controlled because life doesn't exist without its production.

Whenever conservatives comment on racial issues they're immediately compared to the Grand Dragons of the Ku Klux Klan. Such an accusation would be laughable if it weren't so egregious. In reality conservatives are the colorblind idealists. Since all that's rightly promised to free people is an opportunity to use their talents for their own benefit, conservatives recognize that preferential treatment based on race or ethnicity are themselves discriminatory. Quotas aren't necessary for success, nor are head starts required.

In reality, applying quota and preference programs to people of color is condescending. Racial quota systems promote the idea that minorities are inferior and needful of preferential treatment. Conservatives recognize the duplicitous fallacy in this argument. Therefore, under conservatism, people are evaluated on their merits, with financial compensation and cultural status reflecting each individual's contribution to society.

In conservative thought equality means a known starting point, no more. No one is elevated or relegated based on race and no preference is given beyond that which is due to the skills and attitudes a person presents.

The left is correct in one thing; racism does endure in America. However, its home is on the political left. Liberals have no faith in minorities regardless of the preening and crowing they do on behalf of the disenfranchised. Minorities cannot succeed without the left-wing do-gooder's social justice activism and government assistance. Success can result from welfare and entitlement programs, hiring quotas, college admission preferences, or some other means. But success must be attributable to government.

The true crime of political racism is perpetrated daily on the left. Liberal politicians work diligently to convince minorities that life is worthless and unlivable without expansive government programs, thereby maintaining their grip on power. The fact that these programs are a proven snare, trapping recipients in an endless stream of dependence is immaterial. All that matters is the electoral power that can be attained and the governmental control that can be expanded.

If there's an area in which U.S. Senators excel more than tossing tax dollars down rat holes it must be in blowing hot air. List grandstanding and pandering among their attributes, too. The recently passed Commercial Advertisement Loudness Mitigation Act (CALM, S. 2847) displayed these Senatorial “skills” for all to see.

If you watch television you've noticed the difference in volume between programming and commercials, with commercials being much louder. Condemn those blaring commercials as annoying and I'm right there with you; they're like raking your fingernails across a chalkboard. But does an annoyance warrant congressional action? Let's think about that one for a moment.

Congress may claim authority to regulate a television commercial's volume through their typical mischaracterization of the Constitution. Perhaps they'll cite the commerce clause, which Congress routinely abuses to legitimize its unwarranted meddling. However, if we look at the Senate's action in light of how the Founding Fathers viewed proper government we must conclude that Senators missed the mark on the CALM Act.

Governments exist to protect life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. But CALM achieves none of those goals beyond what we can do for ourselves. It doesn't defend our lives, as no one has died from an obnoxiously loud used car commercial. Our liberty isn't protected since we can mute offending commercials, turn down their volume, or change channels. CALM doesn't secure our pursuit of happiness, either. We can pursue happiness with or without television and its advertisements.

The CALM Act isn't about protecting consumers at all. It's about providing a populist stage whereupon grandstanding politicians can crow to voters about how they stuck it to the Madison Avenue man, as the bill's sponsoring Senators inadvertently attest.

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) claims CALM reduces the stress Americans face. Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) says this “common sense” bill “prevents airing ads at unbearable volume levels.” Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) explained that viewers shouldn't fear “losing their hearing” during commercials.

My! Aren't they the champions of the public interest? Maybe not. Genuine common sense (not the kind Rockefeller touts) shows this bill for the pandering twaddle that it is.

No one has fallen deaf due to an overzealous word from the sponsor. Furthermore, there's quite a distinction between an annoying noise and an unbearable one. Whining jet engines are unbearable. So are blaring train horns. Include any form of rap music in the mix, too. Television commercials are actually quite tame by comparison.

The most indefensible position comes from Sen. Whitehouse, the bill's primary sponsor. So, loud commercials add “unnecessary stress” to people's lives? Talk about an oxymoron. Sen. Whitehouse and his colleagues should look inward if they seek the source of America's stress.

Congress--your Congress, Sen. Whitehouse--has spent this nation into a black hole. No tax rate can satisfy Washington's insatiable spending lust. Each American's share of the gross federal debt is $45,000. Focus solely on children under 18 and each is saddled with $119,000 in unsecured debt. Americans fight radical Islam overseas while politicians seem content to tolerate it here. Healthcare “reform” is a pig in a poke that will increase the aforementioned debt while promising performance similar to Medicare, Social Security and Walter Reed.

Are Americans uneasy, unnerved, and perhaps stressed? Yes Sen. Whitehouse, and justifiably so. But of the problems we face loud TV commercials aren't high on the stress-o-meter. In fact, they're almost a respite from the harsh gale emanating from blowhard politicians.

Don't fall for the Senate's feint. CALM isn't about TV viewers. It's about creating a populist position for politicians seeking public approval. It's an overblown reaction to a miniscule problem, one that Congress should have no authority to address. That S. 2847 passed unanimously is all the more discouraging. Considering the problems our country faces the Senate should find better things to do with its time.

Sen. John Thune (R-SD) summarized his Deficit Reduction and Budget Reform Act on the Hill website. His purpose was to outline his ideas for restoring fiscal discipline to the federal government. Not once did Sen. Thune mention “American exceptionalism,” the laws of science, religion, or race. But that didn't stop an obvious Regressive from taking the Senator to task on each subject.

The Founders did not embraced [sic] a "spirit of American Exceptionalism." Unlike you, they were not arrogant. There is nothing in their writings to suggest they believed they were better than anyone else. In fact, to the contrary. The Founders were rational people. They rejected delusional psychosis. At no time did they claim America was above the laws of science. I do understand, Johnny, you belong to a party that rejects rationalism and science, while embracing religious delusions. That your proposal would double the poverty rate in the USA in 24 months demonstrates the GOP's agenda for rich white folks. You nearly make me ashamed to be white.

Unsubstantiated claims accompanied by race-baiting and ignorance of the Founding Fathers. “PGBACH” is a vapid talking point, a Regressive through and through. But it's the total misconstruction of “American exceptionalism” that warrants response.

The respondent's hostility toward "American exceptionalism" reveals a colossal ignorance of how conservatives utilize the term. “Exceptionalism" rises not from American citizens being better than citizens of other nations, but from our society and culture being based on a more solid foundation, namely personal and economic liberty and property rights. These inalienable rights have created a greater opportunity for success in America than in nations where such ideals are uncommon or suppressed.

“PGBACH” has equated exceptionalism with attitudes of superiority, the latter being more common on the American Left than on the American Right. The Left claims the understanding necessary to dictate everyone's affairs. It is the Left that encourages Americans to surrender their rights and decisions to government. Healthcare? Retirement? Defense of self and property? How we build our homes? The kind of car we drive and the fuel economy we receive? Energy production? All are mandated, to some extent, through legislation and bureaucracy. Some such rules are warranted, but not all.

Before taking conservatives like Sen. Thune to task the respondent should've gotten the facts in order. Understanding Sen. Thune's arguments and presenting a sound opposition would've been a start. Knowing the difference between exceptionalism and superiority would've helped, too. It's likely “PGBACH” would've remained wrong. But there's no excuse, aside from stupidity and laziness, to have looked so foolish in the process.

On Columbus Day it is appropriate to discuss Christopher Columbus's legacy. Critics seem emboldened on the day we recognize the famous mariner's arrival in the New World. Was Columbus the barbaric sadist his detractors claim? Or was he a great explorer and discoverer?

Columbus lived an impoverished, unspectacular childhood. He spent his youth studying geography and developing his love for sailing. In manhood Columbus was relentless in peddling his belief in a spherical earth and westward sailing route to reach India. His audiences with the Spanish royalty are legendary.

However, the concept of a round world didn't originate with Columbus. Neither was a westward trade route to India his idea. His desires to prove these theories weren't rooted in scientific advancement. Columbus sought personal fame and fortune, expressing an entrepreneurial, capitalist attitude, which could partially explain why the modern Left hates him so.

Ultimately, Christopher Columbus never amassed the fortune he sought and died in poverty just 15 years after a discovery he never realized. He secured fame, but not in his time. Columbus never sailed west to India. Actually, he believed the New World was India. According to modern standards he would be an ignorant failure. But Columbus didn't live by modern standards.

Columbus was an excellent navigator, a courageous explorer and an able captain. He discovered a land unknown in his world and returned home across a trackless ocean. He commanded sailors who believed the Atlantic Ocean was full of sea serpents intent on devouring the wayward seaman. They thought the Atlantic an infinite sea that boiled at the equator. Christopher Columbus' accomplishments were remarkable considering the obstacles he faced.

Then there's the other portrayal of Columbus, that of the murderous, slave-trading ogre that detractors use to besmirch his memory. Not content with his true faults, Columbus haters accuse the Genoa mariner of destroying the peaceful paradise that was the Caribbean.

Columbus, his antagonists allege, sparked a genocidal avalanche of misery and mayhem that decimated the Arawak Indians. In fact, the entire European exploration and settlement era exploded into an imperialistic inferno with Christopher Columbus holding the match. Yet the idea that the Western Hemisphere was the Garden of Eden prior to 1492 is fairly naïve. Some European explorers were brutal, and the Taino Arawak tribe suffered at Spanish hands. But to lay all violence at the feet of Columbus ignores the New World brutality that existed before his arrival.

The Taino were rather passive. But the Caribs were a fierce people who abused the Tainos and took their lands before Columbus arrived. The Caribs made wives of captured Taino women (slavery, anyone?), fashioned necklaces from their vanquished enemy's teeth and may have practiced cannibalism.

The Caribs may have decimated the Ciboneys who once inhabited the Caribbean. The Ciboneys descended from a prior culture that was all but exterminated by yet another people. And if the Caribs themselves weren't cannibals, the Tupinamba Indians were. Finally, these tribes were indigenous Caribbean Indians; they migrated from the mainland. Thus the peaceful natives Columbus assaulted were neither peaceful nor native, but warrior explorers and conquerors.

Each person must render an individual judgment on history. Make what you will of Columbus and his successors. But remember that many civilizations originated in other places and expanded their holdings and influence through force. Mankind has explored, fought, conquered, settled and lost throughout world history. That reality isn't going to change just to suit the unrealistic notions of Utopian fantasists.

Christopher Columbus is neither as pure nor as despicable as he is portrayed. He was human, a walking paradox whose life was filled with flaw and virtue, success and failure. He accomplished more than he knew while never quite realizing his dreams. Why not celebrate Christopher Columbus' courage and contributions while learning from his faults and failures?

A viral infection can be dangerous to an 86-year old man, even if that man is a former United States President. Best wishes to Jimmy Carter for a full recovery. However, that sympathy doesn't exclude a hope that he will keep his mouth shut.

Carter was making headlines even before falling ill. During an interview to support his new book, White House Diary, Carter belied the humility for which he is credited. “I feel that my role as a former president is probably superior to that of other presidents,” he meekly declared. He also blamed the late Ted Kennedy for preventing his administration from imposing socialized medicine in 30 BO (Before Obama).

Such ranting does nothing for Carter's thoroughly tarnished image. He whines because his administration didn't implement health reforms that have endangered the Obama presidency if not the entire Democrat Party? And his one alleged quality-humility-he tosses aside like an oily rag. That's not a great day at the office, Mr. Carter.

Carter apologists and history revisionists tout his presidency as one of international accomplishment and domestic reform. But there's precious little evidence to support those claims. Carter's presidency was fraught with poor decisions, so much so that political jokesters labeled his administration the “Carter Error.”

In fairness, Carter brought Israel and Egypt to the peace table at the Camp David Accords. But the Iranian Revolution and hostage crisis generated his greatest international fame. Under Carter our military preparedness degenerated until we couldn't get our helicopters off the ground. He also surrendered control over the strategic Panama Canal at a time when the Soviet Union's influence was surging in Central America.

His direct dealings the Soviets left much to be desired, too. Carter apologists point to his administration's negotiation of SALT II as instrumental to world peace. Instrumental it was, but to Soviet superiority, not peace. Basically, this Carter “victory” banned nuclear weapons systems in which we held an advantage--such as depressed trajectory missiles--while allowing the Soviets to develop and deploy their advanced technologies. Some deal.

Domestically, Carter is better remembered for 20-percent interest rates, double-digit inflation, a stagnant economy and the misery index than educational and environmental reform. His “superior” post-presidency includes the Oslo Accords, a one-sided Israel-Palestine peace agreement that the PLO and Hamas violated before the signatures dried. And his nuclear negotiations with the North Koreans during the mid-90s lulled the world into a false sense of security. We soon learned that the communist regime had developed the very nuclear technology Carter was credited with preventing.

Neither Carter's health nor his age requires us to ignore his self-aggrandizement or his attempts to reform his abysmal presidential legacy. I don't wish him poor health. But if he must fall ill, why not a case of laryngitis? His silence would make his supporters' chronic amnesia slightly more tolerable.

Is nothing sacred? Is there no limit to the lengths busybodies will go to rule every aspect of our lives? Apparently there isn't. Not even baseball, America's pastime, nor a victory celebration can escape the bureaucrat's oversight or the anonymous meddler's nosiness.

The Cincinnati Reds are the National League's Central Division champions, heading to the playoffs for the time since 1995. It's a monumental accomplishment, the culmination of a dream shared by innumerable ballplayers since Little League. A celebratory moment is warranted following their successful march through the tough slog of the Major League season. So Reds owner Bob Castellini distributed cigars in the Reds locker room after the team clinched and players puffed a smoky salute to their triumph. That's where the fun ended.

The Reds' cigar party occurred inside the team clubhouse and was broadcast on television. Five “whistleblowers” saw these outlaws and phoned Ohio's smoking ban hotline to report their dangerous assault on public safety. While it's possible that jealous Cubs or Cardinals fans are behind the complaints, that doesn't mitigate the nature of the anti-smoking “whistleblowers.” They are meddlesome tattletales in desperate need of a mission other than snooping in their neighbor's business.

The Reds' cigar party violated Cincinnati's indoor smoking ban. City inspectors will now investigate--including possible undercover trips to Cincinnati's playoff games--to determine if the scofflaw Reds will continue sneaking illicit smokes. Just how many murderers, rapists, burglars and assorted thugs will wander Cincinnati's streets while taxpayer's money is used to ensure public safety inside the Cincinnati Reds clubhouse?

How long should we stand for such lunacy? How long should the blatant waste of resources remain acceptable? Is there no end to the gullibility that allows government to transform erstwhile private citizens into bureaucratic stooges, anonymously spying on our neighbors? Above all, how long will we tolerate the incessant assault on private property and personal decisions that pass for “public safety” initiatives?

Obviously the clubhouse at Great American Ball Park isn't the only place to find “Reds” in Cincinnati. It isn't the only place to find “Reds” in America. Tyranny is expected from the Nancy Pelosi sect. But it's unnerving when “everyday” Americans consider it good citizenship to snitch on their countrymen's private affairs. Isn't it time to root out these useful idiots among us, these petty tyrants, and expose their treachery?

Anonymous tip lines that encourage people to tattle on their neighbor have become all too common. If the Reds' cigars are such a serious offence, let the offended come forward, like adults, and openly air their grievance. Since they obviously lack the courage to take a public stand, let these mice return to their holes.

Move aside cowards and let the bold dogs can bark. Let the barking commence at the Reds' first home playoff game. I'd like to see the entire Cincinnati starting nine take the field with stogies in their mouths, just for a show of solidarity.

Although I'm a non-smoker and a Yankees fan, I'll put my head on the block alongside the Reds. I will smoke a cigar--indoors, of course--if Cincinnati wins the World Series. What's more, I will video my tribute and send a copy to the Cincinnati Health Department. Consider it the “puff heard around the world.”

Why Colin Powell remains a favored interview on Republican electoral strategy is inexplicable. Powell's personal achievements are indeed exemplary. But his conservative credentials expired long ago. He continually proves that he--like too many Republicans--is a small “d” Democrat with an “R” beside his name.

Powell's inside Washington philosophies were apparent during a recent appearance on NBC's Meet the Press. He criticized conservative ideas, projecting instead the mindset that has transformed the GOP into Democrats Light.

Powell instructed Republicans to support immigration. “We've got to find a way to bring these people out of the darkness and give them some kind of status,” the General declared. His comment raises two points of contention.

First, Powell is assuming that conservative Republicans oppose immigration lock, stock and barrel. Not so. According to a Rasmussen poll Republicans favor a welcoming immigration policy more than do Democrats. Legal immigration is not a problem for conservatives.

Gen. Powell, the people you say need “some kind of status” have a status now. It's called “illegal alien.” Those are the so-called “immigrants” conservative Republicans oppose. Illegal aliens and legal immigrants are synonymous and no one need pretend that they are. Such a comparison disparages legal migrants in favor of aliens who've shown contempt for our laws, borders, sovereignty and culture. That's no winning strategy.

The Tea Party is a question mark for Gen. Powell, too. He thinks the movement will dissipate, having become too entrenched in ideological discourse. The Tea Party will lose its momentum because it offers nothing voters can see, touch, or believe in. Too much time is spent promoting ideas like fiscal sanity and constitutional government. Such a thought wouldn't raise an eyebrow if it came from Rahm Emmanuel, but it's appalling coming from a Republican.

Where, Gen. Powell, would you have Americans place their faith if not in fiscal responsibility and constitutional principles? Federal spending is a case study in how not to manage a budget. Washington's “success” stories, Social Security and Medicare, are train wrecks hurtling toward derailment. Budget deficits are ballooning under Obama's “change.” The national debt consumes nearly a year's worth of GDP and unfunded entitlements stretch from here to Alpha Centauri.

Let's also remember that adherence to the Constitution is a federal representative's prime duty. Elected officials swear no oath to provide cradle-to-grave public assistance. They have neither duty nor authority to subsidize individual retirement or medical needs. However, representatives do swear an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution.

The Constitution restrains the central government and safeguards our liberty and sovereignty. When it's ignored, as the ruling class routinely does, Americans lose. Adhering to the Constitution is an idea that everyone should believe in. If not, let us fold our tents; this experiment in self-government has failed.

If disciplined, constitutionally responsible government and national sovereignty aren't priorities for Gen. Powell, what direction does he prefer? Should we support amnesty for illegal aliens and oppose lower taxation? Would Powell's ideal Republican, one Americans “can believe in,” sacrifice conservative ideals to attain bipartisan cooperation? Republicans fielded such a candidate in the 2008 presidential race. Powell promptly shunned that candidate, John McCain, and endorsed the Democrat opposition.

Republicans were once the voice for fiscal restraint, personal responsibility, liberty and Constitutional principles. But the blind guides within the Beltway hierarchy have too long driven the party platform. Thus the GOP has adopted big government philosophies, only to a slighter degree than do Democrats. Healing the GOP means rejecting the advice of pundits, like Powell, who see legislation and bureaucracy as a cure-all.

Colin Powell rose from humble beginnings to craft a successful life. Let's admire his tenacity and work ethic. Let's certainly respect his extensive military service. But he places far too much faith in government to suit the cause of liberty. From that standpoint he has outlived his usefulness as a Republican strategist.

The Richter scale measures the magnitude of subterranean movements. But any recent seismic activity is more attributable to our Founding Fathers rolling in their graves than to tectonic shifts. Free speech has been sacrificed and it's doubtful the Founders would be pleased.

Molly Norris is a former cartoonist for the Seattle Weekly newspaper. I say “former” because Molly no longer exists, at least not in her original form. At the FBI's encouragement she has become something of a non-person.

No, Molly didn't witness a mob hit nor will she provide key evidence against a drug lord. Molly Norris merely expressed an opinion, offended the “religion of peace” and became the target of an Islamic assassination order. What on earth could she have done to earn such ire? Nothing, really.

Norris satirically declared an “Everybody Draw Muhammad Day” in response to the censoring of the Muslim overseer's depiction on Comedy Central's South Park. She never declared an actual event. She wasn't trying to spark a “Draw Muhammad Day” movement and she apologized for any offense. Too late. Cleric Anwar al-Awlaki declared her a “prime target” fit only for hell's fire.

What this episode says about our society, our courage and our dedication to our founding principles is deafening. An American citizen is worse than exiled--at the behest of our government--because some Muslims don't like her views. The federal government has thus admitted that it can't, or won't, protect our Constitution or our people against militant Islamic threats. The politically correct atmosphere in Washington is more inclined to appease radical nutcases than to defend our culture and liberty. It is disgraceful!

Can Americans truly be as spineless and weak as this situation indicates? If so, we should admit defeat for we're doomed where we stand. But it's doubtful the public knows about this egregious assault on the First Amendment, from both Islam and Washington. Except for Fox News, Molly Norris' demise has received scant attention at best. Frankly, it's being ignored. She and the First Amendment have been sacrificed to Islamic radicalism.

Benjamin Franklin once said, “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” We have less liberty and safety whenever we, and our government, surrender to animals like al-Awlaki and his cutthroat followers. Molly Norris certainly has no liberty or safety. She's not even allowed to exist.

Our Founder Fathers would hold us in utter contempt. The depth of their repudiation echoes across two centuries. In fact, I can almost feel the ground trembling from their restlessness.

Foster Kamer has an interesting blog post on the topic at the Village Voice. It's an enlightening journey into the mindset that thinks building a mosque within spitting distance of Ground Zero signifies tolerance and outreach. Kamer also proves that Regressives can't present an argument without an expletive-laced tirade intended to cow their opponents into silence.

Kamer argues that you're a fool if you oppose the Ground Zero Mosque because the mosque isn't sitting on the World Trade Center site. He concludes with this intellectual masterpiece: "But now you have a map to see how wrong you are, okay? Now: F**k you. F**k you and shut up, you a**holes. Shut up and leave New Yor(k) alone."

Admittedly, Kamer's article raised some interesting points. Americans have squabbled childishly over what should be done at the World Trade Center site to properly memorialize the dead. And there are adult establishments, fast food restaurants and other businesses that add nothing to the solemnity of the location. However, three key truths waylay Kamer's claims.

First, such businesses existed in and around the WTC before 9/11. Second, let it be remembered that topless dancers, wholesale jewelers, street vendors and Burger King cooks didn't fly aircraft into the Twin Towers. Third, the people who died at Ground Zero weren't defending religious freedom, as Kamer alleges. They weren't defending anything; they simply went to work and died at the hands of assassins who considered them infidels.

Kamer says that Muslims, also, were killed on 9/11. Has anyone claimed otherwise? There were at least 18 Muslims killed, as I recall. What's more, among those who died in those skyscrapers, the Pentagon and Flight 92 were likely Christians, Buddhists, Sikhs, Wiccans, agnostics, atheists and a Satanist or two. What's the point? Adherents to these beliefs weren't represented on “the Muslim street” following 9/11-firing celebratory bursts from their AK-47s-now were they?

Sorry Village Voice, your writer's argument is empty. No one has claimed that the mosque in question sits on the actual site of the Twin Towers. But the Park 51 area is a part of the site, a place where debris from the WTC reigned on innocent people. Therefore, if Imam Rauf were actually interested in "healing" and “building bridges” he would've planned his project in another NY location, which he has admitted. Yet, he says he can't change plans now or Islam will be offended, which raises more questions.

Hasn't Imam Rauf now confessed to the radical hatred within the religion he teaches? Hasn't he said that his Islamic brethren can't be trusted to behave civilly? Yes, he has admitted just that, and with clarity that can't be misinterpreted.

Funny, too, how the Village Voice writer claims to defend religious freedom and yet tells everyone with a different view to "shut the f**k up,” as the previous quote indicates. Where is his appreciation and respect for free speech? Where is his tolerance? I will defend religious freedom until it's used to attack our nation, culture and civilization, or to kill our people. At that point the tolerance ends. There is no more.

I will also defend Foster Kamer's ability to speak freely and convey the opinions he wishes. But I'll admit that my reasons are selfish. Foster must speak because the best thing to do with fools is let them have the stage. They will invariably prove their lack of worth.

Our politically correct media culture demands immediate confession. Any offense, real or perceived, sends damage control teams rushing for microphones, issuing apologies in all directions. Seldom will common sense prevail, especially if it contradicts a good story. Bring in Ines Sainz.

Inez is the female sports reporter who became the target of “locker room” commentary when she entered the New York Jets' locker room. The PC media culture immediately circled the wagons around Inez, condemning the crude and boorish behavior the Jets players and coaches exhibited.

Yet the question remained, was Sainz harassed or not? At first glance she appeared to be offended by the various hoots and whistles that hailed her arrival in the world of the New York Jets. But, within a few days, Sainz refuted the harassment claims. She told the New York Daily News, “I want to make clear that in no moment did I even feel offended, much less at risk or in danger while there.”

Now let's be frank. Ines Sainz is a woman of rare features. She's exceptionally pretty with a gorgeous figure. But none of those qualities is an excuse for grown men to behave like horny high-school kids. Jets personnel are responsible for their actions regardless of the situation.

In a perfect world Ines Sainz could strip naked and wiggle her caboose through the darkest subway station without fear of rape, assault, abuse, or accost. Also in a perfect world I could don a Confederate Army uniform and carry the Rebel Flag through South Central L.A. while singing Massa's in de Cold, Cold Ground. But our world isn't perfect and neither act represents a prudent choice.

Ines Sainz wasn't assaulted in any substantive way. No one groped her or offered her an evening to remember. Her person wasn't insulted; her professionalism was. On this point Ines cannot claim innocence. While a provocatively dressed woman doesn't excuse a man's loutish behavior, such behavior is no surprise. And it's equally true that professionalism begins with the person. Has Ines cultivated a professional image?

Sainz looked rather comfortable in her body-hugging denim Capri's and low-cut blouse while cavorting with two Indianapolis Colts linemen at last year's Super Bowl. When she visited the Jets her jeans were again seductively snug. This is her rule, not her exception. Sainz routinely packages her assets in jeans tighter that those worn by the lead singers of 1980s hair metal bands. Her bikini photos aren't unspectacular either.

Not being someone who's offended by a pretty woman in sexy clothes, let me be the one to go out on the limb. Yes, Ines Sainz looks great in her Frederick's of Hollywood wardrobe. Her bikinis are fit for the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue and her jeans superb for trolling the club scene. But, if she wants professional treatment she should dress professionally while on the job.

When someone presents a serious, professional image their chances of being treated seriously and professionally escalate. Yes, woman can dress attractively and still present a professional appearance. Fox News' Megan Kelly and Gretchen Carlson prove it everyday. But when a woman dresses provocatively on the job it should surprise no one when she's ogled.

Researching Ines Sainz's wardrobe choices and pontificating on who is at fault and why is easy. Solutions that prevent similar episodes are more difficult. Fortunately, I have an answer. Since locker rooms and clubhouses are filled with athletes in various stages of undress no reporter, male or female, belongs there.

Locker rooms and clubhouses are the athlete's refuge, their haven to concentrate on the game ahead, reflect on one completed, or simply unwind. Locker room reporters are a distraction whether they come in the form of sexy women in skin-tight jeans or bald men in sport coats. Reporters have ample opportunity to interview athletes outside the locker room.

Ines shouldn't have received a stripper's reception at the Jets' facility. However, her choice of attire was imprudent. She didn't present the image of someone who wants to be taken seriously. In fact, the Redskins' Clinton Portis was quite correct. Ines looked more like a teenager seeking a date for the prom that a reporter conducting an interview.

When a renowned physicist like Stephen Hawking speaks people will listen, and Stephen Hawking has declared that God did not create the universe. He argues in a soon-to-be-released book that the law of gravity enabled the universe to create itself from nothing. However, it seems that Mr. Hawking has contradicted his discipline.

Physicists can't agree on the concept of nothing, on whether “nothing” is even possible, or even if “something” has an opposite. That is to say that nothing cannot exist where there is something and something is ever-present. If there weren't something there would be nothing, which doesn't exist. So while Mr. Hawking says the universe self-generated from nothing, other physicists believe there's never been “nothing”, even at the beginning.

Whatever I just wrote can likely be expressed in an intricate equation that resembles Egyptian hieroglyphics on steroids. Therefore, I have no intention of crossing swords with mathematicians and physicists who might produce an overly technical conglomeration of signs, symbols and letters that prove I really don't exist. I can only counter their equation with the words of Descartes, “I think, therefore I am.” But do I really think? Or, do I merely believe that I am thinking? Perhaps I only exist within my own imagination, which should stand for something.

So goes the universe, swirling, spinning and expanding in a way that only God knows. Except for one small flaw; Stephen Hawking has declared that God is a nonessential factor, if He exists at all. So, is it not fair to wonder if Stephen Hawking exists? Perhaps the Stephen Hawking the world knows, or thinks it knows, lives only in the voice simulations his computer system generates. Who knows but what those simulations are manipulated?

I don't mean to minimalize Mr. Hawking's physical impairments. But, if the messages attributed to him aren't his own, what could he do to correct it? He can't speak. He can barely move, if at all. Were his persona manipulated against his will he could do nothing to clarify his position.

The laws of physics unquestionably exist. Anyone needing proof can look at how splitting atoms affected Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But when it comes to ideas like time travel (Hawking suggests it's possible), cosmic radiation a few billion light years from Earth and what lies beyond the universe (If the universe ends there is nothing beyond, and nothing can't exist, remember?) I remain skeptical. The answers exist only within the theories and equations emanating from the human mind.

When a believer points to God, the physicist demands hard evidence to prove God's existence. Well, if time travel exists send me to Philadelphia on July 4, 1776 so I can watch John Hancock sign the Declaration of Independence. Or to next February so I can return in time to bet on the Super Bowl. Take me to the center of the universe, or to one of the 30 billion trillion visible stars.

Since we can't accomplish those tasks I'm left to take the physicist's word that they are possible. In other words, I must have faith that physicists know what they're talking about. And that word, faith, sticks in the scientist's craw like rotten seeds. To have faith means to believe in something for which there's reasonable doubt.

For example, if we view a star that is said to be two billions light years from earth, is it still there? I must have faith that the star still exists, since our view is from two billion years ago, and much can transpire over two billion years. What's more, since stars can't think must we conclude that they are not?

Yes, I'm rambling. But there is a point. Mr. Hawking's disciples are as committed to his defense, and to defending astrophysical theories, as are Creationists to defending God's seminal role in our existence. To question scientific declarations on the universe and how it began are as much heresy to the science community as questioning Genesis is to the Creationist.

Faith is required to believe Mr. Hawking, just as faith is required to believe God. Yet God encourages faith whereas physicists expect humanity to abandon the very quality required to believe them. Therefore, I must conclude that physicists present the greatest contradiction. Score a point for God.

There's an old adage common to rural America: He comes around with his hat in his hand. It means that one person has granted deference to another. When the subservient person meets the one who's considered superior the hat is removed in recognition of that status. That adage can apply to relationships between entities and nations, too.

America certainly takes the “hat in hand” approach to dealing with the Islamic theocracy in Iran. But we must alter the classic phrase to properly recognize the moment. Instead, America comes around Iran with our breasts in baggy t-shirts and our legs concealed.

Well, how would you explain it? When the U.S. met Iran at the World Basketball Championships the American cheerleaders were required to tone down their normally skimpy outfits. Organizers said it was a “nod to Muslim law.” I say it was a nod to politically correct cowardice. Frankly, I'm more than tired of catering to “Muslim law” and Iran's delicate sensibilities.

Make no mistake, if Catholics, Baptists, or Methodists expressed offense at the cheerleaders' (un)dress code they would be met with howls of protest and accused of harboring repressive attitudes toward both women and sexuality. Prudes and religious zealots they would be called. Each charge, every last one, would come from the same ideological nut tree that bends to every hot breeze emanating from the truly repressive, sexist, Islamic states.

I'll admit that American cheerleaders often dress in a way that makes a Frederick's of Hollywood catalog look like a high school yearbook. Yes, we could stand to tone down some of those outfits just a wee bit, at least to the point where they're suitable for the local strip club. But this isn't the time, not if done to appease Iran and Islamic law.

Iran's ruling cabal of asinine ayatollahs, maniacal mullahs, insolent imams and crazed clerics have despised everything to do with the United States since the days of the Shah. Iran considers stoning a normal form of capital punishment and treats women like livestock. They are a state sponsor of Islamic radicals ranging from rocket wielding jihadists to suicide bombers, and Hezbollah is a de facto wing of the Iranian army. Why should America cater to Iran as if their culture has achieved some higher plane of moral superiority?

In this case I say less is more. If cheerleaders appear at future U.S.-Iran sporting events they should do so in their entire decadent Western glory. Instead of covering up, let's redefine the word “skimpy.” Our "hotties" should be encouraged to flaunt their forms in a fashion that will leave Nevada madams blushing like schoolgirls. Outfit the cheerleaders with micro-thongs, give each a shiny silver pole and crank up the neon.

Dance ladies! Spin, twirl and dance some more. Dance your pretty little hearts out. And what if the offended Iranian rulers storm out of the arena? Well, don't let the door hit you in the bisht on the way out!

Few stones are left unturned in the debate over the Ground Zero mosque. I've tipped a few of those stones myself. But there remains one stone that, to my knowledge, has been left undisturbed. I discovered this stone today (tripped over it actually), on the anniversary of al-Qaeda's greatest strike to date against their “great Satan.”

Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf's building near Ground Zero will house more than a mosque; that much is true. But let there be no question, it will house a mosque. And where there is a mosque there is the adhan, the Muslim call to prayer. The adhan will sound from Rauf's mosque five times each day, meaning that the Muslim call to Islamic prayer will reverberate around the World Trade Center site on a daily basis, and be heard quite clear. But that isn't the worst part.

Each 9/11, on each anniversary of the attack on our homeland, while the names of the dead are recalled and the nation remembers, the Muslim call to prayer will be heard at Ground Zero. It will mingle with the solemn roll call of victims and the haunting memories of the burned and dying. The climactic event will come on September 11, 2015. That's when 9/11's anniversary next falls on a Friday, Islam's holy day.

I've never felt the cold steel of a sword pierce my heart. But I can't imagine it being much worse than hearing a Muslim incantation recited via loudspeaker at Ground Zero, on their holy day, on our 9/11.

Don't think our shame will be private. Don't think it will be lost on the Islamic world. They will see our solemn memorial yield to the tune of the adhan and they will be pleased. The much-feared “Muslim street” will rally in Syria, Afghanistan, Iran and anywhere fanatical Muslims gather, rallying to laugh at Western Civilization's “paper tiger” and jeer at our tolerance.

Are we so tolerant, America? Will we stand meekly, prideful in our open-mindedness, while radicalized Muslims trample our neighbor's graves? Can we sit idly while Muslims blare their call to prayer on the very block where their brethren presented our countrymen as human sacrifices to the god toward whom they pray? Are we so weak and spineless?

I hope not, for all that is holy I hope not. For if we are prepared to tolerate such an insult we are doomed as a culture, relegated to the ashbin of bygone civilizations. Who could argue that we won't deserve it?

The headline reads like an al-Qaeda recruiting poster. You know, “Death to the infidels,” and all. But this headline wasn't ripped from a suicide bomber's blog. It's simply another celebrity's attempt to confirm that Hollywood's orbit is somewhere beyond the arc of Pluto.

This time it's John Cusack--hero of stage, screen and stupidity--proving that Tinsel Town's brightest lights are the dimmest of bulbs. Using his Twitter account Cusack wrote, “I am for a satanic death cult center at FOX News HQ and outside the offices of Dick Armey and Newt Gingrich, and all the GOP welfare freaks.”

The easy reaction is to tell Cusack to button his lip. Yet the Constitution's First Amendment protects his right to trumpet his witlessness. What's more, the most effective method for proving someone a fool is to grant the fool a stage. Fools can no more resist the urge to display their lunacy than Barack Obama can pass a teleprompter without reading the words on the screen. So John, I'd like to encourage you to keep talking, by all means.

Hollywood tradition holds that image is everything. Well, Cusack's vitriolic rhetoric is cultivating an image; make no mistake about that. But what kind of image? Cusack would do well to recall the damage that outlandish behavior has wreaked on his contemporaries in the entertainment field.

Does anyone pay attention to Susan Sarandon these days? Or to Tim Robbins? Or Sean Penn? The tone of their anti-war protests offended large numbers of their fans. The Dixie Chicks, once the hottest thing in Nashville, are less popular than the Confederate flag at Rev. Wright's church picnic. And let's not forget the outspoken but otherwise irrelevant Jane Fonda. Is she recognized for anything other than being Henry's daughter, marrying Ted Turner and manning North Vietnamese artillery? John Cusack, you've made great strides toward joining them in the land of who-cares-about-you.

Cusack's ranting “tweet” could be a gimmick designed to keep him in the public eye. But toward what end? Outrageousness has undoubtedly kept Lindsay Lohan, Paris Hilton and Brittney Spears visible beyond their significance. However, their greatest exposure is in supermarket tabloids and police line-ups.

So keep talking, John, or tweeting, or blogging, or Facebooking, or My Spacing; whatever you choose. You're on the path toward the intellectual credibility of Hilton, Lohan and Spears, the irrelevancy of Sarandon, Robbins and Fonda and the insignificance of the Dixie Chicks. It's your choice. Whatever course you take I remain confident that you'll reveal the fool within.

Palestinian gunmen open fire on an unarmed, civilian vehicle in the West Bank (Allah be praised). Four Israelis are killed (Allah be praised). Talk about déjà vu. The latest violence comes just as the United States launched a new round of peace talks between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. Now that's déjà vu all over again (sorry Yogi).

Violence on the eve of Middle East peace talks is about as difficult to see coming as a freight train on the Kansas prairie. It carries all the surprise of a stone sinking in still water or ice melting on a hot sidewalk. However, the Palestinian attack will shock someone. If it's you, come forward and be recognized. It's not everyday we have the opportunity to meet someone so amazed by normality.

A Hamas spokesman, quite predictably, praised the gunmen for their “heroic operation in Hebron,” for which Hamas has claimed credit. And Hamas didn't celebrate their great victory over the dogs of Zion alone. Three thousand fellow Palestinian zealots rallied in Gaza to praise this courageous triumph (Allah be praised).

Apologists will label this attack an isolated incident perpetrated by a radical fringe element. Yet Hamas and their allies are far from the fringe in Palestine. In fact, they're as common to Gaza and the West Bank as are Southern Baptists to North Carolina. Would-be peace brokers, like Mahmoud Abbas, are the exception.

As for Abbas, he is fast becoming the “Uncle Tom” of the Palestinian Liberation Organization. Factions within the PLO consider him weak and have threatened to depose him if he makes concessions to Israel. But how any rational Westerner has considered the PLO a peaceful group defies explanation.

In the years following the last “successful” Middle East peace agreement--the Declaration of Principles signed in Oslo in 1993--there have been at least 112 attacks carried out by various factions within the PLO. If Israel and the United States have a friend in the PLO, well, we're up to our eyeballs in enemies.

The only people who can possibly claim shock at the deaths of four unarmed Israeli civilians at the hands of Palestinian cutthroats on the eve of peace talks are those who've had their heads buried in the Daily Kos.

Jews and Arabs have been at each others throats throughout their histories. A lasting peace between them is even less probable than between other colliding cultures and peoples. And when one side celebrates cowardly murderers as courageous heroes the chance for peace becomes as undesirable as it is unlikely.

The Ground Zero Mosque has generated a commentarial swirl commensurate to the controversy over its location. Central to that debate is the religious element. Mosque opponents, regardless of their motivations, are accused of bigotry based on religious preference, primarily Christianity. But those charges are inapplicable.

Governments can legitimately recognize cultural norms through the honoring of religious expressions. However, unless a person worships government they won't need government to defend their god. Furthermore, when a religion seeks government's endorsement to legitimize their religious loyalties their worship has been compromised. This is true of any religion, especially Christianity, which is more a faith than a religion.

The fact is that constructing a mosque in New York isn't what generated the protests and opposition. There are 100 mosques in New York City right now and thousands more across the United States. None sparked the outrage that the planned Cordoba Mosque and Islamic Cultural Center has created. It's not the building; it's the location, plain and simple.

The propriety of a mosque near the World Trade Center site has been sufficiently addressed and rebuffed. Ample polling data exists to prove that mosque opponents are mainstream Americans, not the bigoted “Islamophobes” the left portrays. Claiming otherwise is sheer political spin.

However, an interesting element that's received scant attention is the left's sudden willingness to defend religious liberty, a freedom for which they have great disdain under most circumstances. What if the controversy surrounded a different house of worship, at a different site? Would the left and their media allies be so supportive of religious freedom then? Doubtful.

Enter Matthew Shepard, the homosexual man who was robbed, beaten and tied to a fence outside Laramie, Wyoming in October, 1998. He died a few days later, becoming a symbol of homophobia and a rallying cry for gay activists. The fact that money and drugs, not homosexuality, motivated Shepard's murderers didn't matter. He remained a focal point for gay activists . . . and a target for Fred Phelps.

Phelps leads the Westboro Church in Topeka, Kansas. He and his group are infamous for protesting funerals and carrying “God hates fags” signs. Now suppose Phelps and his congregation decided to construct a church--under the guise of building a bridge to the gay community--across the road from where Matthew Shepard's body was found?

The same leftists who decry intolerance among Ground Zero Mosque opponents would condemn Phelps' plans. In fact, I'll wager that leftists would spare no expense in halting construction. Why? For the same reasons Americans oppose the Ground Zero Mosque.

The left would claim that a Phelps church near where Shepard died would exploit his memory and offend homosexuals. A Phelps congregation at that spot, the left would argue, would be insensitive and inappropriate. So why can't mosque defenders see the reasons mosque opponents hold the opinions they hold?

Granted, Phelps is an authentic nutcase. But Feisal Abdul Rauf--who will lead the controversial mosque--has skeletons in his closet, too. He blames the United States, at least in part, for Islamic terrorism and for Muslim hostility toward the West. He refuses to recognize Hamas as a terrorist organization. Plus, there is a much closer tie between violence and mainstream Islam than between Fred Phelps and mainstream Christianity.

And the debate doesn't end with Phelps. If any Christian church that considers homosexuality immoral were to build near where Shepard was found there's little doubt the left would protest, claiming the church's opposition to homosexuality renders their presence inappropriate. But Christians didn't plan, participate in, or celebrate Shepard's death. Muslims around the world celebrated the collapse of the World Trade Center. The difference is distinct.

The left's use of religious freedom to defend the Ground Zero Mosque is decidedly empty. In fact, it is reprehensible. They have no interest in defending Muslims' religious liberties. Leftists are merely using Muslims and religious freedom to further their agenda, which is pro-anything that is anti-Western Civilization.

Iran is modernizing, having recently joined the nuclear age. And if you're concerned that their atomic agenda could prove less than peaceful, take solace. Russia is on the scene, monitoring the program to ensure the Iranians play by the rules.

Of course, Russia's presence may not quell the angst within the prudent Westerner's soul. Cold warriors will remember Russia as the black heart of the defunct Evil Empire. The Soviet Union won no prizes for transparency and square dealing when it came to nuclear arms. So trust the “Russkies” if you like. But believing Russia will prevent Iran from going nuclear is akin to trusting Bill Clinton to safeguard both your girlfriend and your finest cigars.

Nuclear technology isn't the only area where Iran is advancing. The ruling ayatollahs, mullahs and imams are instituting social reforms, too. Thanks to their foresight and open-mindedness, Iran will soon be only a millennium behind the civilized world, give or take a century.

Take the case of Sakineh Ashtiani. Like the woman the Pharisees brought before Jesus, Sakineh is charged with adultery. Also similar to the biblical story, her accusers presented no co-conspirator. Even so, Sakineh has been flogged, imprisoned, denied access to family and counsel, convicted and sentenced to death by stoning; all in a manner that makes the biblical Pharisees seem like America's Founding Fathers.

Ironically, this is where Iran's Islamic courts prove their nation's cultural development and social advancement. In response to international pressure Iran has rescinded Sakineh's stoning sentence. You heard right, no state sanctioned stoning for Sakineh. They'll hang her instead.

I've nothing against a good hanging, mind you. The gallows served our own country well in dealing with murderers, rapists and other assorted ne'er-do-wells. But adulterers? We'd have to hang half of Congress. Okay, so that's another point in favor of the noose. But in Iran, exchanging the stone for the rope is decided progress.

If Iran continues down this road they may achieve Genghis Kahn's level of genteel sensitivity, Medieval Europe's social harmony and King George the Third's regard for the rights of man. Who knows? With a little coaxing Iran's ayatollahs might even become as enlightened as the 20th Century's greatest humanitarians, men like Pol Pot, Chairman Mao, and “Uncle Joe” Stalin.

Who could've foreseen, just a few years ago, Iran becoming so contemporary that they would forego stoning for hanging. At this rate, Tehran is destined to become a tourist haven. Can't you envision the sign in the travel agent's window? Visit Iran: Gateway to the Dark Ages.

When it comes to pontificating on the contemporary political scene Chris Varano might make a pretty fair sports broadcaster. Sports broadcasting is, after all, the Dallas native and Texas Christian University sophomore's major. As such, his next editorial for TCU's online newspaper should touch on Brett Favre's myriad retirements, leaving politics alone, lest he become another (God forbid) Keith Olbermann.

Varano believes opposition to the “ground zero mosque” is Islamophobia in the first-degree. And he quotes Al Franken--Minnesota's dubiously elected, self-proclaimed expert on everything--to validate his claim. That Mr. Varano, is strike one. Citing Sen. Franken on serious matters is akin to heeding Terrell Owens' advice on improving team chemistry.

Varano states, unequivocally, that the proposed--and already financially troubled--Islamic center in lower Manhattan is peaceful. “It is not going to (be) a training ground for terrorists or a symbol of victory on 9/11,” writes Varano.

So, Chris, is that a Namath-like guarantee? Can we sue you if you're wrong? Remember, the flight school where Mohamed Atta and his box cutter chorus trained wasn't known as a hotbed of Islamic extremism either. As for being a symbol of victory, how can America consider it otherwise? A mosque at the WTC is as much a sign of victory as the U.S. flag atop Mt. Suribachi. I doubt you'll find the famed Iwo Jima photograph hanging in many Japanese living rooms.

The fact is that Chris, like most Regressive leftists, is a walking contradiction. He's critical of “the American people” for “holding entire groups responsible for the actions . . . of a few.” Yet the phrase “the American people” is itself all-inclusive. The author has engaged in the stereotyping he claims to despise, blanketing all opposition to the “ground zero mosque” with the Islamophobia quilt.

Chris, think for a moment. Your head won't explode, I promise. Can Americans be the Islamophobes you claim when there 100 mosques in New York City, and approximately 2000 nationwide, operating freely? Plus, if memory serves (it does, thank you) Islamic radicals orchestrated 9/11. They bombed the USS Cole, the Khobar Towers, a Beirut barracks, a German nightclub and a jetliner in Lockerbie, Scotland. And that's just for starters.

If the mosque in question is to be Islam's olive branch to America, as its proponents claim, shouldn't a less controversial sight be chosen? Conversely, a mosque near ground zero is perfect for poking America's eye.

That's strike three, sports broadcaster. You're out! Yet I hope I've clarified why so many Americans oppose the “ground zero mosque.” It's not that we're murderous cannibals, desiring to kill, cook and eat every Muslim in the contiguous forty-eight states. We just never again want to wear the “paper tiger” badge.

Now, grant us a boon and concentrate on your sports broadcasting degree. Then, when you return to “Big D”, you can rail on Tony Romo's latest interception and why the Texas Rangers won't win in October. America can use good sports broadcasters. We need more Keith Olbermanns like we need relief pitchers with double-digit ERAs.

You might consider Rep. Maxine Waters' funneling of TARP money to her husband's friends and business associates at OneUnited Bank an abuse of both her office and the public's trust. Not so for her California constituents.

Arturo Yrbarra, a director at the Watts Century Latino Organization, praised Waters' for persuading banks to increase lending, thus increasing home ownership. Translated that means she helped pressure banks into approving mortgages they otherwise wouldn't have touched with ten-foot poles. Excuse me, but wasn`t that the cause of the economic downturn, which led to high unemployment and the exponential growth of our already enormous national debt? For this she receives praise from her constituents?

Waters is far from alone. Her actions are part and parcel to the Democrat Party platform, a platform congressional Republicans have lacked the courage to identify, much less oppose. Small wonder our fiscal house is out of order.

Since the Deep Water Horizon oil spill we've been treated to one doomsday scenario after the other. The Louisiana bayous would be flooded with oil, with the advancing crude ruining the delicate wetlands. The Gulf Stream would pick up the oil, spread it across every inch of Florida's beaches and deposit tar balls and sludge from Georgia to Maine. Fisheries would die and the entire Gulf of Mexico would become a giant dead zone. Communist organizers and their empty-headed zealots called for the federal government to seize British Petroleum.

The marshes are healing and the gulf is cleaning up the crude, essentially eating the oil. Marsh grass is growing through the dead plants and new growth is evident in the mangrove trees. Only a month ago both were given up for lost.

This isn't the word of Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck, Sean Hannity or some other “anti-environment” conservative pundit; it's the word of scientists. And it's bad news for environmentalists who'd hoped the BP spill would spark the public outrage necessary for them to forcibly implement their “green” agenda.

So, the earth is addressing a perfectly natural substance that has escaped its proper place, much like our bodies deal with infection. Is it just barely possible that God, the Creator of both crude oil and the Gulf of Mexico, knows a little bit more about how the two interact than does the Sierra Club and Greenpeace?

A New Zealand teenager was stripped of her beauty pageant title for conduct the pageant director considered unruly. There appears no evidence the young lady posed nude or sent compromising photographs to her boyfriend via her smart phone. She doesn't appear to be a budding Lindsay Lohan. Her transgression is far more severe; she dyed her hair. Director Barbara Osbourne confronted the girl, Olivia O'Neil, on Facebook.

O'Neil merely returned to her natural hair color. It's not like she dyed her hair the colors of the rainbow and joined the gay and lesbian liberation front (bet you wouldn't have heard a peep from Osbourne if she had). And shouldn't beauty pageants have more important worries, like their winners engaging in the aforementioned unbecoming activities?

Yes, rules are rules. But petty tyrants are petty tyrants, too. They are every bit as evil as other tyrants, save on a smaller scale. Barbara Osbourne is the one with the problem. For her to lash out at a teenage girl over such a trivial matter indicates a person with one foot outside the plane of reality and the other seated firmly in Adolf Hitler's boot.

Despite attempts to rally opposition, no one realistically expected Elena Kagan's judicial nomination to fail. She was presented by a Democrat president, reviewed by a Democrat Senate and had public support from four Republicans, meaning a filibuster was out of the question. With the confirmation secure, President Obama was free to speak candidly concerning his desire for Kagan to be a judicial activist.

A White House press release expressed Obama's pride in how Kagan would make the SCOTUS “a little more inclusive, a little more representative, more reflective of us as a people than ever before.”

May I remind Obama and Kagan that the Supreme Court's job isn't to be inclusive, or to be “reflective of us.” And we have the House to represent us, in theory at least. Those qualities aren't prerequisite to sit on the Supreme Court. Justices are to apply the U.S. Constitution to the cases brought before them; no more and no less. But, admittedly, that notion's a little quaint these days.

Does anyone remember when Harry Reid complained about visitors to Congress smelling of body odor? He's at it again. Reid said, “I don't know how anyone of Hispanic heritage could be a Republican, OK? Do I need to say more?”

Frankly, I don't see how anyone with the requisite mental capacity to tie their own shoes could be a Democrat. I don't know how anyone could vote for a man who rammed a mammoth, unread healthcare bill down our throats and then bitched about its contents. That would be you, Senator Reid.

I don't know how any poor person could be a Democrat when the party's policies have ensured a perpetual underclass the sole purpose of which is to ensure Democrat electoral victories. I don't know how any poor person can be a Democrat, Sen. Reid, when you and your ilk have robbed the poor of their independence and their self-esteem.

I don't know how any urban black person can be a Democrat when the problems urban black people face--drugs, blight, illegitimacy and family decline--are as bad, or worse, as when your party first promised to fix them.

Everyone knows about the brutal execution of ten Christian medical missionaries in Afghanistan (peace by upon it). Essentially, these people were treated with less respect than the cattle at your local abattoir. Not only were they executed, their bodies were unceremoniously dumped in a wooded area.

The Taliban (peace be upon it) claimed responsibility for the killings. Taliban spokesman Zabiullah Mujahid (peace be upon him) said the Christians were killed for “preaching Christianity.”

Well, at least there was good reason to systematically shoot these dangerous, although unarmed, subversives. And if that's not enough reason to kill the infidels, they were found in possession of Bibles translated into the local language. Hmmm? Perhaps shooting was too good for them after all.

This is done in Afghanistan (peace be upon it still) in the name of Islam (peace be upon it) while the American Left (no peace be upon them) gives itself a collective pat on the back for its tolerance and open-mindedness in approving construction of a mosque within spitting distance of Ground Zero. We wouldn't want Muslims (peace be upon them) to soil their prayer rugs (on them, too), hijabs (once more) and burkas (ditto) during a long trip to spit on our 3000 incinerated countrymen, would we?

Regressives claim that conservatives never say anything positive about the Obamas. Well, when you can't think of something nice to say it's better to remain silent. Therefore I'll say nothing about Her Royal Highness Michele Obama's trip to Spain, the taxpayer funded entourage that accompanied her, or the Spaniards who were shooed from their beaches so Her Highness could frolic in the surf. Consider my silence an act of tolerance.

One sure way to draw a crowd is to offer a benefit paid for with someone else's money. That's why 30-thousand people congregated in Atlanta to apply for taxpayer funded federal housing subsidies. You needn't be an Old Testament prophet to foresee how such a gathering would unfold. There was shoving, pushing, cursing and a mob scene or two. Big surprise, huh?

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution attributed the lack of public decency to impatience, frustration and confusion brought on by the high summer temperatures. The mercury hit the low 90s before the crowd dispersed around 2 PM.

You know what? Summer temperatures are hot in most cities at two in the afternoon. In fact, on the day Atlanta's Section 8 housing chaos unfolded the temperature reached the mid to upper 90s for quite a few people whose day didn't end at 2 PM. They were at a place they visit each and every day. It's a place that helps them provide for their families and meet their financial obligations; a place called work.

Work serves another purpose, too. It's allows productive people to earn the money their government will confiscate to construct the dependent mentality that prompts 30-thousand people to gather in search of a slice from their countrymen's pie.

Yes, the economy is tough and I'm quite thankful for gainful employment during these down economic times. But the incivility and near-riots on display in Atlanta aren't the result of the recession or of industrious people who've caught some bad breaks. They are the result of a long-standing problem that was created, apparently with malicious intent, when the welfare state was initiated.

Government has excused and rewarded a lack of productivity for so long that indolence has become a celebrated lifestyle. Subsidies, paid for with tax money, are now considered rights. The entitlement mentality these attitudes have fostered is a contributing factor to our nation's fiscal abyss. It is a death knell for personal and economic liberty regardless of how Democrats spin it.

Don't bother telling me about how your Uncle Joe spent his entire life working his fingers to the bone and is now dependent on government programs to make ends meet. The claim hasn't been made that everyone seeking government assistance--even among the 30-thousand in Atlanta--is a worthless bum. But the mentality that produces the Atlanta episode isn't compatible with people like your Uncle Joe. It is, however, compatible with your Uncle Joe if he votes based on which politician will best help him live at his neighbor's expense.

There is no question that social welfare programs have created a dependency attitude wherein government is seen as lord and savior. There are indeed women who consider pregnancy an opportunity for a pay raise and men who bequeath to government their family responsibilities. There are people who have no qualm with having government provide for them from cradle to grave.

What happened in Atlanta, similar to the scenes in New Orleans following Katrina, is the predictable result of regressive social policy. Democrats have long preached dependence under the guise of civil rights. The lack of decorum at this gathering identifies people who have lost their moral compass, disregarded their talents, ignored their purpose for living and become comfortable with entitlements funded by their neighbor. No amount of federal subsidy or government program will change their social status.

Politics and legalism have rendered matters that were once lucid complicated beyond coherence. We're no longer allowed to see situations for what they are. Instead we must analyze them through a maze of incomprehensible legal technicalities and obscure judicial rulings. Common sense is irrelevant and what was once the people's law has become the barrister's playground and the politician's hiding place.

Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is a perfect example. He was once a point man for granting amnesty to illegal aliens. Now he champions amending the 14th Amendment's birthright citizenship clause to prevent future “anchor baby” births. That's quite a reversal for Graham, who doesn't face reelection until 2014.

Graham considers birthright citizenship “a mistake.” His point is that illegal alien parents can't bear a citizen child. In that regard Sen. Graham is absolutely correct. However, his tough talk is more about whitewashing his history than preventing anchor babies. The 14th Amendment needn't be altered to clarify the citizenship language. An amendment is overkill where common sense is sufficient.

Amending the Constitution isn't trivial. The U.S. Constitution, Article Five, demands a two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress to launch a constitutional amendment. If a proposal survives Congress it must then gain acceptance in three-fourths of the states to become valid. Six proposed amendments have failed that test and the last successful amendment languished for 202 years before ratification in 1992.

Even if Sen. Graham successfully amends the 14th Amendment he will have provided, at best, a future remedy for a contemporary problem. According to ABC News sources, 10-percent of annual US births are to illegal aliens and the number of children born to illegal parents who live in the United States increased 25-percent during the five year period ending in 2008. By the time Graham's amendment clears Congress and the needed 38 statehouses millions of “anchor babies” (approx. 430,000 per annum) will be born American citizens.

A constitutional amendment requires great effort while presenting minimal chances for success. Furthermore, the promised benefit will not address a problem that needs a solution now.

The arduous amendment process is avoidable, and the birth citizenship problem remediable, if we'll apply common skills in reason and logic. The 14th Amendment declares, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens.” The “subject to its jurisdiction” phrase is the loophole that allows illegal aliens to birth anchor babies. Illegal aliens are subject to our laws whether or not they obey them. Yet if parents who've immigrated to the United States illegally can bear legal citizen offspring, how far does birthright citizenship extend?

Suppose a foreign army successfully occupied a portion of the United States. Subsequently, the foreign occupiers begin to bear children on U.S. soil. Would those children, born to parents whose presence is illegitimate in the eyes of the United States, be considered citizens under the 14th Amendment?

The invading force might regard the occupied soil as their sovereign territory. However, few Americans would view the invasion as a lawful entry, rendering the claim to land unlawful. Even if we accept the occupier's argument the 14th Amendment is a moot point since the children would then be born on foreign soil. Logically, if the occupying force is illegal then the product of their unions can't be legally recognized.

It's quite practical to apply this reasoning to children of illegal aliens. When a foreign national possesses no visa, passport, or sign of legal entry they can claim no legal status. Their presence in the United States is thus invalid and their children--born here as a direct result of the parent's illegal entry--are ineligible for birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment's provision. They are no different from the hypothetical invading army.

The primary reason for the 14th Amendment was to guarantee citizenship to freed slaves. There's no expressed or implied intent to grant citizen status to the offspring of anyone who can slip across the border on their due date. To claim otherwise obfuscates and complicates a situation that's otherwise clear and simple, just as legalism and politics are prone to do.

Few expressions are more vacant than the political elite's public displays of empathy. Empathy is a vicarious emotion, allowing empathizers to feign compassion for other people's hardships without the actual experience. It is a handy device, and one the elite class routinely utilizes.

Biden credits the administration with saving our financial system and preventing an economic disaster that would've sent Western Civilization spiraling toward a quasi-Stone Age existence. Everyone now has health care and the sewer called Wall Street--whose alleged abuses the federal government initiated, exacerbated and subsidized--has been thoroughly sanitized. These steps were necessary because Biden's opponents (meaning Republicans) “are wildly out of touch” with America.

Mr. Biden has suffered yet another recurrence of foot-in-mouth disease, a chronic malady among elitist empathizers. Biden championed the administration's achievements during a speech he delivered to $500-per-person Democrat donors in Chapel Hill, NC. How many truck drivers, welders, nurses and retail sales clerks attend $500 political fundraisers? Tell us again, Mr. Biden, who is out of touch?

The elitist's empathic expressions are a façade intended to conceal their love for the private luxuries they publicly condemn. If only Biden were alone in is condescending attitudes. Sadly, he has ample company on Empathy Hill.

President Obama stands on that hill too, sided by the wealthy real estate potentate Neil Bluhm. Don't let Bluhm's apparent capitalist successes fool you. He is a Regressive to the core, having contributed more than $60,000 to various Democrat political causes over the last two years.

Mr. Bluhm also hosted a birthday party for our 44th President. But the downtrodden, toward whom Regressives extend their boundless empathy, didn't attend. They couldn't afford the prerequisite $30,000 donation to the Democrat National Committee that Bluhm assigned to his extravaganza. If the attendees were truly concerned about the unfortunate, why not make $30,000 contributions to the nearest children's home? After all, to paraphrase ex-President Clinton, no donation to the DNC ever fed a hungry child.

The Clintons are also elitists in good standing. Chelsea's recent nuptials are estimated to have cost between $3 and $6 million dollars. Chelsea herself was reportedly adorned with a quarter of a million dollars worth of jewelry. The driveways at the wedding's plush mansion locale were widened, not to accommodate an influx of public transportation buses but swanky limousines.

The portable toilet facilities cost $15,000. Minimum wage employees--routine targets for elitist empathy--will barely earn that amount for a year's labor. Even the electricians were instructed to wear tuxedos, perhaps with a combination cummerbund and tool belt. There was no word on the dress code for stand-by plumbers.

In all honesty, the Clintons, Obama and Bluhm can spend any sum they desire on their parties; it is their business. Their extravagances would be wholly inconsequential save for one small detail: their duplicity. Elitists, illuminated in the Clinton-Obama-Bluhm triumvirate, wallow in the wealth and luxury they condemn for anyone outside their clique. Small wonder Rasmussen polling finds an extensive disconnect between “regular” Americans and the ruling political elites.

Wealth is acceptable only when the elite class controls its use. A person must adhere to the elite political ideology; otherwise their attainments are attributed to avaricious philosophies. Achievers are deemed winners in life's lottery, born to the silver spoon. The elites' strategy is to divide and conquer, leaving the elites themselves to determine for whom wealth and luxury are acceptable.

The elites who lead the Regressive Movement are experts in smugness and sophistry. They think nothing of flaunting their wealth and status while claiming empathy with the poor and obscure. Elitists then ease their consciences with “charitable” government entitlement programs funded through legislative theft.

We of the great unwashed are to stoke the elitists' egos, marvel at their wisdom, praise their compassion, beg their generosity and grovel for their acknowledgment. We are to unquestionably adhere to the diktats of our superiors, forsaking our individual goals for their vision of the collective good.

The elitists' empathy extends only to the point that their agenda is served. Actually, elitist is a misnomer. They are the contemporary royalty, bidding us live as they decree while they indulge as they wish.

Americans take pride in being the world's freest people. We celebrate freedom on Independence Day. We sing of it before our sporting events. But haven't history's most brutal regimes concealed tyranny behind veils of patriotism and rhetorical allusions to liberty? After all, dictators don't gain power while pledging chains and slavery. They gain power with glowing promises to free the masses.

Any 20th Century communist regime you'd care to name has followed this model. Hitler did, too. Islamic republics boast of the liberation wrought via their revolutions. And Hugo Chavez is utilizing this game plan to solidify his hold on Venezuela, much as did his Cuban hero, Fidel Castro.

To argue that the United States now mirrors Venezuela or the defunct Soviet Union is premature. However, it's seems clear that Americans have less regard for liberty--and less liberty for that disregard--than did our forebears. Certainly our political leadership holds individual liberty in low esteem. We have ignored Benjamin Franklin's wisdom and surrendered large chunks of liberty in return for temporary security. Just as Franklin warned, we have less liberty and security to show for our submission. To confirm the point let's look at traits common to the free and slavish mind.

Free people revere the rule of law and its role in preserving civility. Yet it's also understood that law enforcement's prime purpose is to investigate crime scenes after the fact. Seldom are police able to foil crimes in progress.

Liberty requires it's possessors to shoulder the burden of self-defense. Toward that end free people rely on some combination of mental preparedness, physical strength and weapons proficiency. These qualities, especially regarding arms, are paramount to that defense.

The slavish mentality accepts nothing related to self-preservation. Personal protection means petitioning governments to restrict or abolish the legal possession of arms. Ignored is the reality that criminals, by definition, disregard such laws. In absence of self-preservation the slavish person will demand surveillance cameras on every street corner. The just and the unjust are then treated as equals, which is the greatest of inequalities.

Freedom asks nothing more than an opportunity; a free person seeks only a chance. Liberty's desire is to utilize individual talent, ingenuity, initiative and intellect to their greatest capacity and profitability. There are no guarantees and success is unpredictable. Whatever the results may be, that which was gained was earned, not granted.

The slavish mentality wants government to alter the starting line. It isn't opportunity that slavish minds demand; it is advantage based on known or arbitrary criteria. What's more, there must be an artificial outcome. Predictability, even when producing poor returns, is preferable to the risks of an unknown future. The product is invariably the equal distribution of mediocrity, which is considered preferable to the “inequalities” of the bourgeois meritocracy.

Personal responsibility is tantamount to the free individual. Meeting obligations is as natural as drawing breath. That may mean working one job, two jobs, or launching a primary or secondary business. Conversely, one spouse may drop from the work force to raise children, accepting the corresponding loss of income and necessary reduction in expenditures.

No so for the slavish. Only so much responsibility is acceptable. They will generally tolerate the burden of providing for their leisure and entertainment. But beyond that the onus rests on government. Nearly everything under the sun has become a collective concern. It is the state's responsibility to keep human needs adequately supplied.

The fact that government can provide nothing to the slavish and indolent without first confiscating it from the free and productive is immaterial. Tragically, the demands of the willingly dependent eventually enslave the free as well, despite their best efforts to maintain independence.

Whether America remains the land of the free or becomes the home of the slavish rests on which mentality prevails. The free must love, protect and incessantly preach liberty. We haven't yet descended into irreconcilable servitude. But we stand at the precipice.

Now that the federal government has formally filed suit to block Arizona's efforts to identify illegal aliens the emotional rhetoric that has controlled the debate should take a back seat to reality. The Justice Department claims that Arizona has usurped the federal government's authority over immigration and naturalization (U.S. Const., Art. I, Sect. 8) and the Constitution's supremacy clause (Art. VI).

Odd how Washington becomes concerned with the constitutional delegation of authority only when federal power is challenged. There was little interest in the Constitution's assigned powers when Congress passed the healthcare bill. Constitutional authority isn't mentioned when card check is debated, or when Social Security and Medicare are discussed. However, despite its disdain for the document by which it is supposed to abide, the federal government seems to be on solid constitutional footing this time.

Congress has the authority to “establish an uniform rule of naturalization.” The reason the Founders granted this power to Congress was to avoid conflicts and wars with neighboring nations. John Jay argued in Federalist No. 3 that border states, the ones most likely to be affected by immigration and border disputes, were inclined to act “under the impulse of sudden irritation.” Therefore national control of the international borders provided a greater opportunity for sustained peace.

Alexander Hamilton affirms Jay's testimony in Federalist No. 32. Hamilton contends, quite logically, that if each state enacts individual naturalization laws then the “uniform rule” demanded in Article I, Section 8 would be impossible. Thus legislative authority over the borders, immigration and naturalization belongs to the United States government. This power being granted to the national government is naturally denied to the states.

The United States is apparently correct in claiming authority over immigration law. Yet there are a few flies in the ointment that lend credence to Arizona's position. Foremost, Arizona hasn't enacted a law that regulates immigration or the naturalization process. What Arizona's legislature has done is authorize state and local agents to address federal crimes. This isn't unprecedented.

Sixty-three state and local jurisdictions, seven in Arizona alone, currently deal with illegal immigrants via Immigration and Customs Enforcement's 287g program. State and local authorities are instrumental in identifying illegal aliens for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is proximity. Local police are likely to be the first officers at the scene of any violation. However, 287g is based upon ICE, a federal agency, authorizing local departments to enforce federal law. If 287g were the sole example of local authorities addressing federal crimes the case might be closed. It's not.

Rhode Island state police have been enforcing immigration law on the weight of Gov. Donald Carcieri's executive order since 2008. The Kentucky State Patrol and a local fire chief were first to investigate a possible arson at a Williamsburg, KY apartment building. Police in Amherst, NY are investigating a rape that occurred early on the morning of July 5, 2010. The New Castle County (DE) police are actively seeking leads in the June 9, 2010 abduction and rape of a young girl. Also in Delaware, the state police are investing two unrelated kidnappings and rapes.

According to Sumpter and Gonzalez website-a law firm in Austin, Texas-federal crimes include arson, rape and child abduction. This being the case, it's apparent that local police units are investigating federal crimes and have a strong interest in apprehending the offenders. Why not immigration violators, too?

For a national government to refuse to exercise an authority--in this case, enforcing the borders--amounts to abandonment. Nature abhors such a vacuum, so the United States' abdication of naturalization enforcement must be filled. Enter Arizona's immigration enforcement law. In fact, Arizona's action is in keeping with our nation's founding principles.

Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence that when a government no longer meets the needs of the governed it is open to alteration. Arizona's reaction is therefore mild. Instead of abolishing federal authority, or supplanting federal statutes, the state has upheld both in enforcing the existing national law.

States aren't obligated to tie their hands or turn their heads when Washington ignores its assignments. If that were the case, what would happen if Washington ignored its duties in other areas? Reconsider Article I, Section 8, which not only establishes the federal government's naturalization powers but also compels Congress to “provide for the common defense . . . of the United States.”

If a foreign power were to invade one of the several states the national government would be constitutionally responsible for repelling the invaders. Suppose Washington simply refused to deploy the armed forces to the sieged state? Would that state be constitutionally bound to accept the occupying force, since its defense is an established federal duty? Only the most naïve pacifist would accept such a proposition.

A state so occupied would be well within its right, and obligated to its citizens, to act against the occupiers. The same holds true when the invading force is comprised not of military personal, but of illegal aliens.

Washington's wink-and-a-nod approach to immigration is a losing position whether or not Arizona successfully defends its immigration enforcement statute. A federal victory will create a tsunami of resentment towards the national government. Congress will then be compelled--this being an election year--to reluctantly consider the best interests of the people and the states in regard to action on illegal aliens. An Arizona victory affirms a state's right to act in its own interest in areas not delegated to Congress, or in areas where Congress has neglected its constitutional charge.

The left changes monikers whenever their chosen title becomes too easily identified with their collectivist political intentions. They seized the title “Progressives” in the early 20th Century and adopted “Liberal” when the progressive image became tarnished. Today, with liberalism inextricably linked to collectivism, the left has returned to the progressive label. But one problem remains. Words have meanings that defy distortion, and neither progressive nor liberal accurately reflects the left's governing philosophy.

The case has been made, on the pages of American Thinker itself, that identifying the leftist as a Progressive or Liberal is erroneous. It has been stated that policies declared to be progressive or liberal are actually backward and authoritarian. Thus the leftist has been aptly identified, based on policy and result, as regressive.

To state the case further, not even the definition of “progressive” or “liberal” identifies with the leftist ideology. It's just that the left has manipulated those words until the distortion has become accepted. It is a common practice, for they routinely ignore reality and wear their title du jour like camouflage.

Progressive is defined as advocating, attaining, or being characterized by improvement and forward thinking. It dates to the early 17th Century, becoming politicized in the late 1800s. The modern left isn't progressive in the practical or classical sense of the word. In fact, much of what constituted progressivism during the early 20th Century is the antithesis of contemporary leftist beliefs.

Early Progressives certainly desired social change, but they regularly utilized private organizations--such as churches and charities--for effecting their transformations. Not even the Progressive Era's trust-busting government regulators were kin to today's leftists. Those reformers sought to protect the future of market competition from monopolistic mergers and thwart the fledgling communist movements. Creating a labyrinth of bureaucratic red tape wasn't their primary objective.

Nothing in the word “progressive” and little in early progressivism describes today's leftist. The left has no desire to defend capitalism, foster competition, or accomplish their vision of social justice via private channels. They have only an insatiable lust for control.

Leftists promote nothing new; their goals are those of an archaic doctrine. Forward thinking isn't featured in their agenda, the purpose of which is to repackage policies that are proven failures. Bolshevik is more descriptive than progressive, for the left shares the Bolshevik's socialistic dreams. They are mired in the past, rendering progressive an inappropriate description.

Socialist ideals quickly co-opted the early Progressive movement, giving the title a black eye. Leftists then adopted Liberal, a more inviting identifier but one that also defies their agenda.

Liberal spawns from the Latin “liberalis” and “liber” meaning noble, generous and free. A genuine liberal bristles at authoritarian attitudes and fulfills the nature of the word liberal. America's leftists, conversely, are adamant in their support for a domineering central government and generous only when distributing their neighbor's property.

Leftist liberalism defines not freedom but the welfare state. Their concept of liberalism frees one segment of society to live at another segment's expense. Leftists then pat each other on the back for their thoughtfulness and generosity. It is indeed a warped vision.

Leftists have moved from Progressives to Liberals and back to Progressives, but in name only, never in definition. Their quasi-metamorphosis results from their ever-present collectivist mentality. Once the public realizes the agenda behind the name, the name is changed to obfuscate the agenda.

The left is an immutable lie; let's call it that. Their social desires reflect a statism worthy of Marx, Lenin, or Mao. They're trapped in the past, antiquated testaments to a flawed and failed philosophy where liberty is defined as the ability to avoid responsibility. Ignored is the unassailable truth that liberty without responsibility is nonexistent. Leftists demand allegiance to a backward dependency. To call them progressives or liberals is patently false.

The left cannot be allowed the privilege of defining their nature. Today's “Progressive Liberal” desires to rob us of our autonomy and render us wards of a collectivist state. Their label should reflect their innate desire to move society backward. Leftists are regressive in every sense of the word. The Regressive label has been proposed for them before. Let it become their perpetual identifier.

Wisdom is measured in the depth of one's questions and knowledge in one's consciousness of facts. This collection of questions and thoughts is my latest attempt to improve in both areas and shine a little light into some dark corners.

Environmentalists demand that we pursue renewable energy sources and use recyclable materials. Why, then, are environmentalists so opposed to the timber industry? It utilizes and replenishes forests, one of nature's most available, renewable and recyclable assets.

Can a person claim to be free while refusing to be accountable for their actions or responsible for their livelihood? Sadly, this view of liberty has become the rule rather than the exception.

What happens if every pet owner follows the animal rights crusader's demand and has their pet spayed or neutered? Where will the next generation of pets come from?

When conservatives criticize a political opponent's positions they are accused of partisanship, mean-spiritedness, or reckless attacks. But when a liberal does the same thing--or worse--to conservatives they are praised for “speaking truth to power.” Talk about your double standards.

I find it inexplicable that government can trace salmonella to a single jalapeño pepper and mad cow disease to a barn stall on a remote ranch, but can't find millions of illegal aliens living right under our noses.

At the height of his messianic popularity Barack Obama visited the Middle East. I wondered at the time if he traversed the Atlantic by air or simply walked across on the water. If he takes a similar trip now he may have to fly coach and pay for his checked baggage.

If prostitution is illegal why are pornographic movies legal? The actors and actresses in those movies are selling sex, too. The only difference is their forum and their price.

The academics and pointy-headed intellectuals who influence public policy routinely praise the communist and socialist leaders who have starved millions of people in the name of social equality. They will also condemn capitalist farmers and grocery store owners, who have fed millions for a profit. Is there any wonder the economic world has capsized?

Driving 101: The Interstate Axiom. The driver in front of you will slow to a crawl a half-mile before reaching their exit ramp. The driver behind you will pass you like it's the white flag lap of the Daytona 500, and then suddenly swerve across three lanes of traffic to exit at the same ramp.

I doubt the people who've continually praised the historic nature of Obama's presidency would have similar feelings if J.C. Watts--the former Oklahoma congressman--had become the nation's first black president.

Here is a prime example of hypocrisy. The same people who decry the influence of money in politics totally ignored the $600 million Obama raised during the 2008 campaign.

We will trust our health, retirement and livelihood to people who spend $100 million to win an elected office that pays between $200,000 and $400,000 annually. However, we're skeptical of someone who spends $100,000 on an education to land a position that pays several million dollars per year. Will someone explain why this makes sense?

South Carolina Democrats are correct in claiming that Alvin M. Greene shouldn't be their party's candidate for U.S. Senate. Greene washed out of the army under unusual circumstances. He has no job, lives with his parents and is charged with a sexual offence. Actually, Greene should be either the Democrat's presidential nominee or their climate change expert.

Robert C. Byrd has received a much friendlier valediction than conservative Senators of like stature. When Sen. Jesse Helms died he was treated like Satan's baby brother. Likewise for Sen. Strom Thurmond. Sen. Byrd, conversely, has received praise for his work and absolution for his faults.

Friend and foe alike have hailed Byrd as the conscience of the Senate. Quasi-worshippers glorified his knowledge and use of Senate rules and his staunch defense of the chamber. His understanding of historical literature has garnered admiration, as has his perceived devotion to the U.S. Constitution.

Robert Byrd the family man should receive the kindness and sympathy due to the dead, if only for his family's sake. But frankly, even in death, Robert C. Byrd the Senator is open to satire. He was, after all, a public figure. Never shanghaied, he doggedly defended his Senate seat for half a century.

Byrd made quite a name for himself in the U.S. Senate. But he made an even greater name for himself in West Virginia. Bluntly, he should be remembered not for the qualities previously mentioned but for the notorious manner in which he manipulated the federal budget to fortify a voting base in the nation's poorest state. To accentuate the point let's examine what the Senator's funeral procession might've resembled.

Sen. Byrd's remains arrive at the Robert C. Byrd Aerodrome in West Virginia. The plane lands on runway 32-RCB, approaches Senator Byrd Terminal on the R. Byrd taxiway and stops at the Byrd Passenger Access Gate. Sen. Byrd will be then be transferred to the R. C. B. Public Railway, which will carry him to Grand C. Byrd Station in his hometown of Sophia, crossing the Robert Byrd Trestle along the way. There the motorcade waits in the Senator Robert Byrd Public Parking Lot.

The motorcade exits the parking area via the R. Byrd Ticket Booth and creeps onto Robert C. Byrd Drive to begin the journey to the burial site, Robert C. Byrd Memorial Gardens, in Charleston (he'll be buried in Virginia, but please play along). The hearse passes the Robert C. Byrd Elementary School, the Robert C. Byrd Middle School, the Robert C. Byrd High School, and BIT (the Byrd Institute of Technology). At the Robert C. Byrd State-Federal Liaison Building (a.k.a. the Robert C. Byrd Pork Processing Center) the motorcade turns onto Byrd Boulevard.

Byrd Boulevard guides the procession past the Robert Byrd Wastewater Treatment Plant, the Robert C. Byrd Water Works and the main offices of the Byrd Public Utility, predictably located in the Robert C. Byrd Business Complex. The caravan turns between the Robert C. Byrd Courthouse and the Robert C. Byrd Hospital and Blood Pressure Research Center and continues toward Interstate 64. After passing the Robert C. Byrd Honorary City Limit Sign the Senator leaves Sophia behind.

Byrd Boulevard now becomes Byrd Parkway, which carries the cavalcade to Interstate 64. The procession accesses the interstate via the Robert C. Byrd On-ramp and gains speed across the Sen. R.C. Byrd Overpass. The trip through West Virginia's mountains is scenic. There's Byrd Mountain, Robert's Hollow, Byrd's Valley, Robert Byrd Creek and the Byrd Rainwater Deluge Conduit (know locally as Byrd's Ditch). To the right is the Robert C. Byrd Dam, which houses the R. C. Byrd Hydroelectric Station and retains the Robert's Lake Reservoir.

Recent improvements to the Senator Robert C. Byrd Intermountain Expressway (I-64 until shovel-ready stimulus came to them there hills) hastens arrival at Byrd Memorial Gardens. The Byrd Off-ramp guides the procession from the expressway to the Senior Senator Scenic Highway, which the hearse follows to Byrd Gardens. Entrance is via the R.C. Byrd Access Gate.

Pallbearers escort the late Senator's remains up the Byrd Pathway to his final resting place at the crest of Robert C. Byrd Knoll, which overlooks the Byrd Bike and Fitness Trail as it winds through a majestic corner of the Robert Byrd State Forest and Habitat Preserve. Senator Robert C. Byrd is there eulogized and remanded to the custody of his Creator, interned in a pork barrel.

Utopia! It's the holy grail of egalitarian busybodies far and wide. If only outcomes were equal, as defined by the egalitarians themselves, the world would become a place of balanced chi and seamless harmony. These societal engineers have long believed in their unique intellects and superlative abilities, which qualify them to distribute wealth and contentment to a longing world. Sadly, there's no shortage of these do-gooders.

A New York State Assemblyman envisions an increased millionaire tax. If passed, high income earners--who already bear a disproportionate share of New York's tax burden--will pitch in an additional 11-percent. The broken record known as Hillary Clinton still laments how “the rich” don't pay their “fair share” of taxes. Oregon, too, has joined the chorus.

Earlier this year Oregon voters passed Measures 66 and 67, raising taxes on individuals and businesses that wealth redistributors, in their profundity, have deemed excessive winners in life's lottery. Typical class envy tactics preceded that electoral outcome. Proponents argued that education, public safety and health would suffer if the initiatives failed. The poor, naturally, would take it on the chin.

The entire premise of a perceived “fair share” is ambiguous at best. Would the egalitarian consider taxation equitable if the “rich” surrender, say, 75-percent of their income to government? Hillary Clinton, Oregon voters and New York assemblymen might think so. But anyone with a toehold on reality understands that productive people shoulder the tax burden now. The top one-percent of earners pays 28-percent of federal income taxes. Additionally, over the last 30 years the taxation on incomes above $75,000 has steadily increased while declining on incomes below that threshold.

Arguing that wealthier Americans pay little or no taxes is misleading. No, make that an outright lie. And that's not the only mischaracterization offered by the “soak the rich” crowd.

In promoting Measures 66 and 67 the Oregon Center for Public Policy claimed that “asking” Oregonians to “contribute” more in taxes would improve the state's fiscal structure. Certainly some taxation is necessary for governments to execute legitimate functions. But referring to tax increases as “asking” people to “contribute” is unadulterated spin, sufficient to strain even the strongest gastronomical constitution. And it's so typical of the egalitarian social engineer.

Charitable organizations solicit contributions, and contributors alone determine their level of participation. No such choice exists with taxation. Tax levies aren't a request on government's part, and taxes aren't contributed sans duress. Taxes are compulsory and their collection is ultimately a matter of force.

Sadly, there's little to be achieved in arguing taxation with egalitarians. Redistributionists are so devoted to equalizing all incomes and imposing their Marxist vision on society that debate has become futile. Equally futile are the protests of the productive, whose incomes are sacrificed upon the perverse altar of egalitarianism. The producer's right to their production will never match the needs of the oppressed when it comes to conjuring empathy. Therefore the “rich” are safely marginalized, demonized and dismissed.

What would happen if busybodies like Hillary Clinton, New York legislators and Oregon voters fulfill their collectivist dreams? If there were no private wealth the economy would become void of capital investment. Innovation and production would decelerate, with a corresponding decline in employment and living standards. The resulting misery would create greater demand on government, which puts the do-gooders in position to distribute the remaining wealth as they so determine. They will achieve their socialist dreams, but only for a season.

Such idealism has no foundation upon which to build. Since government produces little, and that which is produced is a case study in inefficiency, the egalitarian society is doomed to failure. Only the most influential busybodies will benefit from their societal and economic transformation. The rank and file do-gooder will be destined to impoverished servitude alongside their once-wealthy neighbors, whose property they helped confiscate.

One of the prime arguments employed to promote amnesty for illegal aliens is the alien's own fear of police. Amnesty supporters, such as the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), claim that illegal aliens fail to report crimes for fear they will be deported. A case in Charlotte, NC seemingly bolsters that argument.

A Charlotte-Mecklenburg police officer stopped a young woman for an alleged traffic violation. Her boyfriend, Abel Moreno, was a passenger and an illegal alien. During the stop the officer groped the young lady. Moreno intervened, exactly as he or anyone else should've done. Now he's in jail awaiting possible deportation.

Does this prove the pro-amnesty argument, that illegal aliens are expelled for reporting crimes committed against them? Not at all. In fact, that premise is based on a faulty assumption. If Moreno is deported it won't be for blowing the whistle on the bad cop, who's in jail with his own legal troubles. Moreno will be deported because he violated US immigration laws. The fact that he reported the officer's misconduct does not make his own actions legal.

No doubt the SPLC is correct in one aspect, illegal aliens aren't likely to report all of the crimes committed against them. That is the nature of lawbreakers; they tend to avoid contact with law enforcement with the same urgency that Christians once avoided Nero's garden parties. And this quality isn't confined only to people who violate immigration laws; it's common to perpetrators of all unlawful behavior.

Suppose a drug dealer returned home to find the house burglarized. It might be better to deal with the situation alone than to have investigators nosing around in the closets. The victimized dealer's stash could be uncovered. If the dealer chooses to call the police and the cache is discovered the ensuing arrest won't result from having reported the crime; it will arise from the dealer's own violation of the law.

Prostitutes, likewise, endure crimes rather than invite inquiry. “Working girls” conceal robberies, assaults and even rapes. Suppose a client paid his escort with a punch in the nose rather than cash. If the prostitute reports the crime she knows her own illegal activities will be exposed, if you'll pardon the pun. Her prostitution, not having reported the assault, has put her at odds with law enforcement.

The same principle applies to immigrants. Illegal aliens aren't prosecuted or deported for filing crime reports. But the justifiable decision to report crimes committed against them doesn't validate the alien's earlier decision to ignore immigration laws. The knowledge of their own illegality motivates aliens to avoid contact that could expose their status. The fault doesn't lie in an unjust society, cultural or racial bias, nativism, or any other sensationalistic charge routinely trotted out by pro-amnesty advocates. It is simply a characteristic of the outlaw.

Must illegal aliens then suffer silently so to avoid deportation? Not necessarily. Prosecutors routinely cut deals with suspects to provide state's evidence in more serious cases. Plea bargains are a viable option for aliens like Abel Moreno, if their only crime is illegal immigration and their foremost desire is to become American citizens. For aliens who would game the system and bolster their legal status with false crime reports and perjury, immediate deportation is the perfect remedy.

More than sufficient reason exists to hold illegal aliens accountable for violating our borders. No reason exists to allow organizations like the Southern Poverty Law Center to substitute mindless, racial dogma for border enforcement policies.

Aliens aren't deported because they report crimes committed against them. Aliens are deported because their own immigration choice placed them at odds with the law. Let the responsibility rest where it belongs.

What a shame for Detroit's Armando Galarraga. Veteran umpire Jim Joyce missed a call and the 21st perfect game in major league history vanished into the mystical land of what might have been. Even worse, the errant call occurred on the game's 27th out.

This could've been one of the worst moments in baseball's storied history. Instead, it's one of the finest. Joyce publicly accepted responsibility for his error and Galarraga was gracious to a fault. Both men dealt with the situation like, well, men. Joyce and Galarraga treated us to an epiphanous event that transcended sports to reflect positively upon the human soul. Predictably, there are calls to obliterate the moment by “fixing” the injustice.

On the Oakland Press website a respondent wrote, “I think that MLB should give Galarraga a 28-out perfect game.” That writer's isn't alone. However, there's no such thing as a 28-out perfect game. Therefore, awarding a perfect game where one doesn't exist is wholly unworkable.

Baseball Commissioner Bud Selig was absolutely correct not to reverse Jim Joyce's call. What would become of the 28th batter? Would he be what George Orwell referred to as an “unperson?” That batter must go somewhere. And that isn't the only reason to leave matters alone.

Suppose the bad call were made with one out in the fifth instead of two out in the ninth? Should the league office reverse that call? What if the 28th batter, Trevor Crowe, had homered and the Cleveland Indians had rallied to victory? Should that hypothetical outcome be reversed since the Tigers would've won without the blown call? There are many worms here that should be left in the can.

The way Armando Galarraga, Jim Joyce and the Detroit fans dealt with this matter is more historic than even a perfect game. Galarraga's name is forever etched in baseball lore. Not only will he be remembered for the perfect game that wasn't, but for the grace and dignity he displayed. Galarraga did everything right and yet something went wrong, leaving him without the due result of his effort. Let the play stand anyway. Players make errors, managers miscalculate and umpires blow calls. That's baseball. In fact, that's life and it's time people faced it. Life is never fair in the Utopian sense of the word.

Yet there's an insatiable human desire to correct injustice and grant everyone they allegedly deserve. This concept was evident at an NAIA golf championship. Grant Whybark and Seth Doran were locked in a playoff for their conference's individual title. Whybark had qualified for the national tournament on the strength of his team's performance. So, on the first playoff hole he intentionally drove his ball out of bounds. Why? Whybark decided Doran deserved a spot in the national tournament.

However, if Doran deserved the title he would've won without Whybark's charity. Whybark actually demeaned his opponent. He assumed that Doran's abilities were inadequate to the task. That attitude, even when well-meaning, is indicative of our cultural inclination toward an elusive sense of deservedness.

Society must escape the notion that reward is based on the perception of what's deserved. Someone can do everything right and still not receive the desired result. Behold exhibit A, Armando Galarraga. Eliminating life's basic unfairness is impossible, and such social engineering would be inadvisable even if attainable.

Doran's trip to the NAIA National Golf Championship can't be fully satisfying due to the circumstances. The same is true for Galarraga. Were he awarded a perfect game after the fact it wouldn't carry equal significance to baseball's other perfect games.

Grant Whybark manipulated the concept of due recompense. Achievement and success are cheapened when busybodies try to right all wrongs and cure all injustices. Character is built, refined and revealed in overcoming obstacles and adversity. Armando Galarraga and Jim Joyce have personified that character with dignity, class and sportsmanship. Leave it at that, and know that life is seldom, if ever, fair.

Political opportunism reigns during election years. A candidate need make only one misstep, one errant statement, for an opponent to move in for the kill. Sometimes the blunder is real. Other times it's a matter of spin and perception. Nevada's ex-Senate candidate Sue Lowden, a Republican, learned this lesson firsthand.

Lowden became a target when she suggested that patients should barter for medical treatment. The fur really flew when she spoke of how our grandparents bartered chickens for their doctor's services. Democrats seized on Lowden's apparent silliness. They launched a “chickens for checkups” website and attended Lowden's campaign events dressed in chicken suits.

Lowden's detractors never considered her accuracy. Bartering was routine in bygone days. People traded their goods and services for needed goods and services, including medical attention. However, at face value it's hard to imagine a barter system working in the contemporary healthcare market. Today's physician couldn't pay for student loans and malpractice insurance with roasting hens and bushels of corn. But what if we look beyond the surface of Lowden's statement?

Thoroughly examining the situation--a rarity in contemporary political discourse--reveals that Sue Lowden's bartering proposal wasn't as foolish as grandstanding Democrat's claimed. In fact, Lowden has touched upon a workable solution to soaring medical expenses.

Bartering is based on the principles of the free market. It is the voluntary exchange of a good or service that ultimately satisfies all involved parties. This is a common occurrence in all walks of life. For example, suppose a baseball team needs a left-handed pitcher in their bullpen. The team will trade unneeded players to a willing team for the needed pitcher. Both teams have actively participated in the voluntary exchange of held value in one area for needed value in another.

Trading a chicken for a dose of penicillin may not lower healthcare costs per se. But the free market principles that bartering represents will reduce healthcare costs significantly. Sadly, these standards have disappeared from the medical profession.

Few people know the cost of the medical treatment they consume; it has become an afterthought. We are conditioned to surrender our co-pay or file our claim and go about our business. With the consumer removed from the equation, there is no downward pressure on price.

What would happen if patients considered themselves as healthcare customers and doctors as distributors? Such a customer/provider relationship works to control prices in a host of other industries where transactions are subject to comparison shopping. Consumers naturally seek the greatest value, defined as the most return obtainable at the lowest practical cost. This process will establish median prices for various medical procedures, too.

Currently, there is no direct consumer pressure on healthcare prices. To assume a government run system will improve that situation is to believe in the tooth fairy. In fact, ample evidence has long existed to think that government involvement will only worsen the condition.

Medicare, Medicaid, the Veteran's Administration and SCHIP are expansive, expensive, and unresponsive bureaucracies, rife with fraud and inefficiency. Another bureaucracy that further removes the patient from the direct cost of basic medical care won't control costs. It will only mean less return for each expended healthcare dollar.

The quaint notion of swapping chickens for medical attention rings of nostalgia if not reality. But the basics behind old-fashioned bartering are real. Bartering represents direct involvement between market participants, in this case patients and healthcare providers. The subsequent competition between medical professionals for the patient's business will reduce healthcare costs while ensuring that treatment remains readily available.

Twenty-one states have issued “Choose Life” license plates. Four states have approved the plates and legislation is pending in sixteen others. Where does North Carolina fit in, and why do the plates draw opposition in some circles?

Legislation to issue a pro-life license plate was introduced in both the North Carolina Senate (S210) and House (H168) in February, 2009. The bills are identical. Profits from the “Choose Life” plate go to non-governmental agencies that provide counseling and assistance to pregnant women. Most important, Section 4 of both bills stipulates that funds generated by the sale of the plates cannot be given to any entity that “provides, promotes, counsels, or refers for abortion.”

The House version has gathered dust in the Rules, Calendar and Operations of the House Committee since the day after its filing. Rep. Bill Owens (D), the committee chair, has refused to move the bill. S210 has fared no better in the Senate Finance Committee, chaired by Sen. Dan Clodfelter (D) from Mecklenburg County. While Owens' opinion on abortion is obscure, Clodfelter's is crystal clear. He received NARAL Pro-Choice North Carolina's endorsement during the 2008 election cycle.

Owens and Clodfelter may have unprejudiced reasons for their inaction on “Choose Life” plates. The same can't be said for Planned Parenthood (PPFA), a vehement opponent of pro-life tags. Their disapproval is spelled out in dollars and cents. Planned Parenthood loathes the idea of proceeds from a government issued license plate supporting organizations that oppose indiscriminate abortion.

What gall! When we follow the money trail we find that Planned Parenthood has no standing to criticize “Choose Life” license plates or the money they supply to pro-life organizations.

Florida began offering the pro-life tags in August of 2000, with each tag delivering $20 to qualified recipients. By April 2010 the Sunshine State had issued or renewed nearly 360,000 “Choose Life” plates, generating over $7 million for Florida's pro-life community. That's why Planned Parenthood opposes these tags. Ironically, it's also why their protests ring hollow.

According to Planned Parenthood's 2008 Annual Report (p.9), its offices performed 305,310 abortions in 2007. At the median price of $625 per procedure, PPFA grossed more than $190 million from abortion alone. Add to that the $350 million in government grants and funding that PPFA draws annually and the monies generated by the “Choose Life” tags are but a pittance.

Each of the 50 states would have to yield annually what Florida's “Choose Life” tag produced over a 10-year period just to match PPFA's yearly government receipts. In fact, Planned Parenthood receives half of its annual revenue from the combination of abortion and government ($540 million). PPFA's opposition to “Choose Life” tags based on public funding of the pro-life message is therefore dismissible.

Furthermore, “Choose Life” plates force no one to promote a pro-life message. People who don't want to fund pro-life causes can choose another plate design. Taxpayer's don't foot the bill for the “Choose Life” tag, either. Only the profit goes to pro-life causes, meaning the issue price covers the cost of producing the special plate.

Planned Parenthood can't make that claim. Since PPFA receives funding directly from government, pro-life taxpayers are forced to finance a cause they consider utterly reprehensible.

“Choose Life” license plates are a legitimate outlet for a worthy, peaceful position. S210 and H168 shouldn't stagnate in committee. They shouldn't wither due to the inaction of biased or disinterested committee chairs. And the “Choose Life” tag surely shouldn't succumb to pressure from the duplicitous Planned Parenthood.

With respect to the wisdom of old adages, repeating a lie doesn't make it the truth. A lie is a lie. The uninformed may accept the lie as truth, but it's still a lie. And the lie is the preferred tactic for opponents of Arizona's immigration law.

Arizona's law neither encourages nor condones racial profiling. Claims to that affect are fabrications. Section 2(B) of SB 1070 states that police must make “lawful contact” with an alien before “reasonable suspicion” of legal status can be established. According to Section 2(E) officers can arrest suspects only when there's probable cause to believe that a deportable offense has been committed. Police are granted no authority to demand “papers” from Hispanics simply because of their race.

Verifying identity is standard procedure when police interact officially with civilians. Anyone who has been stopped for a simple traffic violation has provided “papers” (identification) to an officer. This is where probable cause and reasonable suspicion come into play; it's nothing more than common sense. Under Arizona's law, if a detainee behaves in a manner common to an illegal alien their immigration status is investigated. That's not racial profiling. That's behavioral profiling.

Facts and reason are inconsequential to opponents of Arizona's law, who dutifully repeat the talking points until the lie is considered truth. Even Mexico's President Felipe Calderon joined the chorus, echoing the sanctimonious twaddle that passes for a defense of illegal aliens.

Calderon stood in our nation's capital, before our congressional representatives, and belittled any attempt to control the US-Mexico border. Basically, he said that anyone opposed to an open southern border is a knuckle-dragging bigot. Worst of all, our Congress gave him a thunderous ovation for his criticism of Arizona and border control, especially when he addressed them in Spanish.

President Obama also embraced Calderon. Obama will shun the Dali Lama, ditch the Israeli Prime Minister and offend the British without a second thought. But when a foreign dignitary criticizes our country Obama welcomes him like a long-lost brother.

Yet for all this distortion, the lie still hasn't become truth. What it has become is an effective tool for constructing a political coalition of the ignorant. Democrats are betting that supporting amnesty, open borders and Felipe Calderon while denouncing immigration enforcement measures will enhance the party's standing with Hispanics.

So, can immigration law please everyone? Only if it doesn't promote America first, promote cultural superiority, or offend aliens. Reform must also be acceptable to Mexico and Calderon. That's a tall order, but not impossible. We simply treat aliens and immigrants with the same warmth and courtesy found in Mexico.

Mexico's immigration law is a constitutional matter. Chapter 1, Article 11 recognizes a right to enter, leave and travel freely inside Mexico. However, that right doesn't apply to immigrants and “undesirable aliens.” Chapter 2, Article 32 reserves preferred occupations for natural born Mexicans. Chapter 3, Article 33 authorizes the Mexican President to deport foreigners without regard to due process or legal status. That same article bars foreigners from participating in Mexico's political affairs.

Suppose America amended its immigration laws to mirror those in Mexico's Constitution? Would Calderon then declare his reverence for our laws? Would Congress reward his support with fervent applause? Don't hold your breath on either count. Hypocrisy would swell and America would be reviled as even more racist, xenophobic and intolerant than now.

Neither our Constitution nor our Congress exists to alter society for the benefit of illegal invaders, or to cater to smug windbags like Felipe Calderon. Arizona's immigration law is just what the doctor ordered. It should become the model for every state in the union, opponent's lies and prevarications notwithstanding.

Most fashion trends fade as quickly as they appear. The 1960s produced Nehru jackets and bell-bottom pants. Multi-colored toe socks and leisure suits permeated the 70s. Members Only jackets and parachute pants marked the Reagan era and black rain coats and unlaced boots ruled the 90s.

Fortunately, these trendy fashions came and went in relative short order. That is the rule for fads; they flame out like cheap jet engines. However, one fad has refused to follow the axiom. It's one that never should've begun and, sadly, shows no sign of decline. When will the youthful obsession with the saggy pants end?

Several municipalities have enacted ordinances to halt the downward migration of trousers. In 2008 the Chicago suburb of Lynwood imposed a $25 fine for exposing three inches or more of underwear. Lynwood isn't alone. Cities of diverse population and culture have enacted bans on saggy pants, with penalties ranging from fines to jail time.

Outlawing the practice, especially with incarceration, seems a bit exaggerated. Saggy pants are decidedly tasteless, but reveal no flesh. Laws already exist to deal with indecent exposure and no law can eliminate stupidity. Furthermore, if the wearer is too dense to comprehend the ridiculousness of their condition they're likely too dense to understand explanations of that fact.

Unlike politicians who pretend all societal ills are remedied with a fresh set of laws, I understand that such laws only fuel the rebellious attitude that placed saggy pants in vogue. I also understand that the opinion of a middle-aged man won't convince the saggy pants wearer that they look foolish. Therefore I enlisted the aid of some genuine experts.

Young guys have long adopted actions that older men know is ridiculous. But another constant are young men's desires to attract young women. So I asked a few such women for their opinions on saggy pants. These ladies are 18, 19, and 20-years-old, respectively. All are friendly, humorous and thoroughly attractive. They are everything a young man would like to take to a Saturday night movie. Get this, guys, your underwear doesn't impress them.

Amanda is a senior at East Lincoln High School (Denver, NC). She finds nothing cool about your saggy pants or the “bad boy” image they convey; you only appear trashy and disrespectful. If you show up at her house with your pants slung low you'll be leaving alone. “The look isn't attractive at all,” she says with a look of near disgust.

Michelle, a senior at East Gaston High School (Mt. Holly, NC) echoes Amanda's sentiments, only more pointedly. She just doesn't want to see your underwear regardless of the name on the waste band. “Saggy pants show that you have no future and don't care about your appearance,” says Michelle. The failure to wear pants where they belong also causes her to question the wearer's personal hygiene.

“It's improper and rude,” adds Haley, a recent college graduate. Haley thinks saggy pants makes a guy look thuggish, immature and lazy, especially since the pants are purposefully worn that way. Low-slung trousers win no compliments from her, making even the cutest guy “completely unattractive.”

Low ridding pants differ from previous youthful fashions only in appearance. The intent is the same, to prove independence and individuality by contradicting established cultural norms. But that is flawed thinking. How does someone express their individuality by mimicking what the group does? How does one prove independence by following the crowd?

If clothing's only purpose were to conceal nakedness we would all wear sackcloth. Clothing does convey the wearer's attitudes. Guys, wearing your pants below your buttocks informs these three ladies that you're trashy, unkempt, unmotivated and disrespectful. Do yourself a favor and pull up your pants. If not for the sake of decency and decorum, for the young ladies you try to attract.

When the Dow suffered a 1000-point nosedive some experts pointed a quick finger at Greece's financial insolvency and social disorder. I'm no international financier, but it seemed odd that such a small Mediterranean nation could so affect the U.S. markets. Are we so fragile?

Greece's population (10.7 million) is roughly equal to Ohio's, and only 3-percent that of the United States. Geographically, Greece is about the size of Alabama. Their 50,948 square miles is miniscule compared to the United States' 9.28 million. Alaska is 13 times larger than Greece and seven U.S. states exceed its population.

Greece's GDP is about 2-percent of U.S output, a drop in the proverbial bucket. Thirteen U.S. states produce greater economic activity than Greece generates. Their exports are a fraction of our own and only 5-percent of the total Greek exports find their way to American shores ($106.8 million annually). Our exports to Greece are statistically insignificant.

Given the small role Greece plays in our economy, why did our stock market react so violently to their financial and civil problems? Well, it didn't. It turned out that a trader erroneously entered a $16 million trade as $16 billion, sparking a massive sell off and the associated panic. Greek finances didn't trigger our slide at all. However, their unrest can disturb U.S. markets if America's future is seen inside this Greek crystal ball.

Greek rioters have torched buildings and lobbed Molotov cocktails at police. An Athens bank was burned, killing three bank employees. Why has incivility gripped this cradle of ancient culture and civilization? According to a union leader the Greeks are loosing their rights and their future. However, what actually fueled their rage is the imminent death of the free ride.

I hesitantly paraphrase Jeremiah Wright: Greece's financial chickens are coming home to roost. Greece has long overspent its income and juggled its books. Thus public employees enjoyed escalating salaries, extravagant pensions and numerous unsustainable perks. That gravy train has now reached the edge of the cliff and the beneficiaries refuse to let go of the caboose. The riots are the result of Greece's dependent class, people with no intention of providing for their own needs.

This should sound familiar; America is riding the same train. Just as Greece's fiscal insanity has created a dependent class of government workers, America has also. In fact, we have created an even greater entitlement mentality.

The United States has a burgeoning public sector while private sector hiring is stagnant. Life's necessities have become quasi-constitutional rights in the eyes of a gullible public and a pandering, manipulative government bureaucracy. Our government, just like the Greek government, has issued promises it can't fulfill.

Our national debt is approaching 100-percent of GDP. Social Security and Medicare are going broke, their “trust funds” depleted and their long-term obligations beyond impossible. Medicare Part D will unquestionably follow both into insolvency and now we have a national healthcare system to boot. At least Greece's politicians are attempting government austerity. Our politicians are doubling down on a pair of deuces.

The streets of Greece could be a harbinger of things to come. What happens when our government can no longer print its way into a fraudulent form of financial solvency? What happens when those who've long lived on the public dole discover that the cash cow is dry? If you think they'll sigh and say, “Oh well. Better get a job,” you're fooling yourself. They won't graciously accept the end of the free ride, meaning Greece's rioting might resemble a frat party in comparison.

Greece is a prime example of rewarding demand rather than production. Political exploitation and personal selfishness have reduced the once-proud Greeks to begging at the world's feet. Their present may be a glimpse of our future.

Examples are myriad. Reagan cut a deal with Iran's revolutionary government to detain American hostages until after the 1980 election. Neill Armstrong walked on a movie set and the Illuminati stores space aliens in cryogenic chambers at Area 51. Michael Jackson, Elvis Pressley, Timothy McVeigh and Adolf Hitler are alive and members of the bowling league in Dubuque, Iowa. There are “truthers” and “birthers” and neo-green earth-firsters, with the Kennedy assassination trumping them all. There's little that spurs America's imagination like a good conspiracy. So why not stoke the fire?

Isn't it odd for a state-of-the-art oil platform to explode at this particular time? Less than a month after President Obama pandered to the country and alienated his base with promises of offshore oil exploration there's an oil disaster of epic proportions. Just what the doctor ordered.

In fact, Phil Radford of Greenpeace forecasted “devastating oil spills” that would “threaten our coastal communities” if expanded offshore drilling became reality. Right on cue a rig explodes and the resulting slick threatens to transform every inch of coastline from Galveston to Virginia Beach into an oil-soaked wasteland.

Odd, too, how this disaster occurred when skepticism over climate change increased, global warming research began to unravel and Phil Jones, whose research drove the global warming argument, admitted that the globe hasn't warmed in 15 years. What better way to “re-green” public opinion than with ecological catastrophe?

The platform's owner said the explosion was due to a blowout, a condition where oil and gas is forced up through the well. But oil rigs are designed to limit blowout potential and prevent spills. Furthermore, hurricanes have set oil platforms adrift with nary a drop of oil spilled into the Gulf. So why this leak? Coincidence? Bad luck? Ha!

I say radical neo-greens rigged the oil platform explosion to turn the public against offshore oil exploration. Yes, the earth-firsters caused some collateral environmental damage. But that's a common military strategy. Make small, initial sacrifices to obtain greater victories later. The icing on the cake is the tanker explosion at a San Antonio refinery. Strike another neo-green blow against the hated “Big Oil”.

What about the coal mine explosion? Coal is an abundant energy source. But not the cleanest stuff on Earth. Clean coal technology, while progressing, is prohibitively expensive. However, the mere possibility of clean coal disturbs the neo-greens. Therefore coal must remain evil in the public's sight.

Right on time there's an explosion inside a coal mine that has a history of safety violations. Miners were trapped and killed, and America grieved with the miner's families. National attention focused on coal mining's inherent risks. And the media, fairly or not, treated the mine owner like the second coming of Ebenezer Scrooge. What better way to sour public opinion toward coal?

Conspiracy theories, by nature, are seldom to be taken seriously. That's the case here. There is no evidence to suggest that the explosions at the Upper Big Branch mine, the Deepwater Horizon oil rig, or the San Antonio refinery were the work of neo-green saboteurs. But if conspiracy is far-fetched, opportunism is the rule. These horrific accidents will not go to waste.

Oil and coal are equally hated among leftists. Oil contaminates oceans and soils beaches while coal poisons air and levels mountains. Oil destroys everything that coal doesn't, and vice-versa. Environmentalists may not have instigated the disasters, but they'll surely use them for political gain.

We are living the perfect storm. “Big Oil” and “Big Coal” are demonized for environmental recklessness. Neo-greens will profit from all three disasters, using them to condemn the energy industry and promote their favored projects. And that, my friends, is no conspiracy.

Journalists can uncover just about any fact they want. They can also downplay, obfuscate, or totally ignore information that doesn't fit their templates. Joseph Sean McVey proves this point, especially in contrast to the media's treatment of Barack Obama. Since McVey's arrest at the Asheville (NC) airport we've learned more about this obscure Ohioan than we ever learned about the President.

Media investigators wasted no time uncovering McVey's “birther” opinions about President Obama's residency status and qualifications for office. In the media's eyes McVey is a bona fide right-wing crank with the IQ of a turnip, just like every other opponent of the President's agenda. McVey also uses Obama's middle name--Hussein--confirming his place among single-cell organisms.

Through the media's investigative prowess we've learned exactly what items McVey's car contained when he was arrested, from ballistics charts to police sirens. Oh, and speaking of arrest, only a few days were required to reveal McVey's 2006 arrest in West Virginia for displaying an illegal blue light.

McVey's home and hobbies have been exposed, too. Media outlets informed us that he lives in Coshocton, Ohio, about an hour's drive east of Columbus. In fact, we know that McVey lives in a simple white house on a country road that twists through the forested hillsides just south of Coshocton. He's a ham-radio operator, a religious weather observer and has more than a passing interest in police work. McVey also volunteers with police and fire crews during emergencies.

No time was wasted uncovering McVey's potential reward for packing heat at the Asheville airport, where Air Force One was whisking the President out of town. The misdemeanor charge could net him 120 days in the jug. We learned that his Ohio driver's license was invalid and now his concealed weapons permit is, too, having been revoked by the Coshocton County Sheriff.

No doubt the dutiful media will unearth even more startling details of McVey's life, such as his favorite breakfast cereal, his shoe size, the prescription for his eyeglasses, or his high school biology grades. Yes, sir. The media can track a piss ant across the Mojave Desert when it serves their purpose. At other times these selective detectives couldn't find Charles Manson at the Corcoran Prison, or they would conveniently conceal what they discovered.

During the presidential campaign the media deftly ignored Barack Obama's issues. They hushed his association with Bill Ayers, a self-proclaimed radical and small “c” communist, and quickly dismissed the Rev. Wright saga. Obama's status as the most liberal legislator in the U.S. Senate earned a pass and the Communist Party USA's euphoric reaction to Obama's election wasn't mentioned at all.

Media outlets praised Obama's speaking prowess. But they uttered nary a peep when he called a reporter “sweetie”, bungled off-prompter speeches, or claimed to have campaigned in 57 states. Silence was the rule when Obama said his healthcare reforms would lower employer premiums by a mathematically impossible 3000-percent.

Had a disfavored politician made similar statements, or kept like company, reporters would've pounced like hungry lions. Don't believe it? Have you seen Dan Quayle lately? And why was a five-percent unemployment rate wholly unacceptable during a Republican administration but a ten-percent unemployment rate is considered an economic recovery under Obama?

It's not that media pundits don't know the history of our 44th President. They've just chosen to let it pass quickly or to suppress it altogether. As for Joseph Sean McVey, he is just a means to an end. Not even the Secret Service considers him a threat to the President. But the “mainstream media” churns up all the mud McVey's 23 years can offer, all to paint Obama's detractors as loose screws and nutcases.

If there is to be a National Day of Prayer it shouldn't become an exercise in politically correct nonsense. But when the Pentagon bowed to pressure from pro-Islamic groups and rescinded Rev. Franklin Graham's invitation to speak, nonsense is exactly what the event became.

The opposition to the Graham invitation was vehement. A spokesman from the Military Religious Freedom Foundation called Graham “hideously Islamophobic.” The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) said a Graham appearance was “completely inappropriate.”

Why the hostility toward Franklin Graham? Well, because the truth hurts. Graham had the gall to proclaim what many people think but are afraid to mention. He called Islam an evil practice, condemning Islam's treatment of women and the indiscriminate use of violence to advance the Islamic agenda.

Graham offered this assessment after September 11, 2001. That was the day when 18 Muslim missionaries leveled the World Trade Center, damaged the Pentagon and killed nearly 3,000 of our neighbors.

What's overlooked is that Graham didn't belittle individual Muslims and has extended charitable assistance to Muslim areas. He simply claimed that a significant faction within Islam condones violence as a proselytizing tool. Islam has an extensive record to support Graham's opinion.

You may recall the Iranian Hostage Crisis. Spurred by the Islamic Revolution that deposed the Shah, Iranian radicals seized the American embassy in Tehran. They took 66 hostages and held them for 444 days. Not to be outdone Hezbollah kidnapped 30 Americans in 1982. Several of those captives were killed and one survivor, Terry Anderson, remained a prisoner for more than six years.

The bloodshed and violence continued in 1983. Shiite fanatics exploded a truck bomb outside a barracks at the Beirut airport, killing 241 U.S. Marines. A Navy diver was executed in 1985 after Hezbollah hijacked TWA flight 847. The Palestinian Liberation Front commandeered the cruise ship Achille Lauro, executing the wheelchair-bound Jewish-American Leon Klinghoffer. Klinghoffer's body, wheelchair and all, was pushed into the Mediterranean Sea.

Libyan radicals joined the jihad, too. Libyans were involved in bombing the Rome and Vienna airports. Libyans bombed a West German nightclub where U.S. military personal often gathered. It was a Libyan bomb that ripped apart a Pan-Am 747 in midair, reigning debris on Lockerbie, Scotland. Muammar Gaddafi himself admitted Libya's participation in Lockerbie, although fifteen years after the fact.

Al-Qaeda reared its head in 1993, detonating a bomb in the basement of the World Trade Center. Hezbollah, in 1996, used a truck bomb to bring down the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia. Al-Qaeda again in Kenya and Tanzania, where 224 died and 4,500 were injured in attacks on the U.S. embassies. A small explosive-laden boat blew a gaping hole in the USS Cole, killing 17 sailors. Suicide bombers targeted American hotels in Jordan and car bombs killed 60 in Algeria. All were the work of Al-Qaeda.

A Muslim convert killed one soldier and wounded another outside a recruiting station in Arkansas. With shouts of “Allahu Akbar” an Army doctor killed 13 American soldiers at Ft. Hood. The doctor had boasted to a neighbor that he would “do good work for God” on the day of his rampage.

Dozens of attacks and thousands dead at the hands of Muslims whose support comes from Islamic organizations and/or Islamic governments. Consider also the scores of brainwashed bombers who've targeted restaurants, bus stations and open-air markets throughout the Middle East. The common thread is the Islamic jihad against the infidels (that's us) for the glory of Allah. Yet the Pentagon dismissed Franklin Graham so as not to offend Islam.

Something's amiss here, and I think it's our grasp on reality. If there's to be a National Day of Prayer, maybe we should petition our Creator to open our eyes and restore our common sense.

It's true that a change in federal administration will prompt a disgruntled few to dream of revolutionary immortality. Equally true, opponents will use any questionable statement or action to paint the “revolutionaries” as violent, half-witted zealots. Welcome to America.

There's no shortage of such right-wing resentment toward government, most of it justified. Also in large supply are opinionated leftists armed with word processors, a penchant for misinformation and a desire to mischaracterize any opinion with which they disagree.

Last year the decidedly left-wing blog Crooks and Liars reported a “million man militia” march on Washington. Typically, the writer belittled the event as a gathering of paranoid right-wing lunatics determined to shoot something.

If this march occurred it must have went off without a hitch. In fact, reality has spoken and the pro-freedom rallies that have taken place have been entirely peaceful, contrary to the leftist's dire warnings. No one has invaded the Capital or tarred and feathered a congressman, as much as they may deserve it.

So the question isn't whether America's revolutionary spark should be revived but in what manner. We are a people born of rebellion and nurtured on revolution. In the Declaration of Independence Thomas Jefferson wrote that the people have the right to abolish any government that's hostile to basic liberty. Several states are taking Jefferson's words to heart, including a group of Oklahoma legislators who are mulling the creation of a state militia to resist federal encroachments on their sovereignty.

The usefulness of such militias is debatable, and will surely draw howls of protest from the left. But the idea of using state legislatures to counter the federal government's fiscal irresponsibility and blatant disregard for constitutional limitations is workable.

The Founders themselves would be pleased, as evidenced in the language of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. The Ninth recognizes federal authority but explicitly denies overt power to the central government in all areas not specifically delegated. The Tenth declares that all powers not expressly granted to the United States, or prohibited to the states, remain with the states and the people.

Our forefathers obviously intended a federal government that served the states and the people, not one that ruled over both. For the states to “delegate” any powers to the central government, via the constitution, they must retain all powers not granted to the United States.

States have previously exercised this option. Jefferson's Kentucky Resolutions (1798) decried what was viewed as the central government's unconstitutional assumption of power. Jefferson noted that any federal adventure into areas not authorized was an assault on state sovereignty. Therefore, the states had every right to declare those extensions “void and of no force.”

Where powers are assumed which have not been delegated, a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy . . . every State has a natural right . . . to nullify of their own authority all assumptions of power by others within their limits.

This is the outlet for our revolutionary fervor. No less than our third president endorsed state nullification of federal excursions into unauthorized areas. The left's portrayal of limited government activists as lunatics is nullified as well and talk of armed revolt is at best premature.

Flippant references to armed resistance momentarily soothe the soul. However, it also fuels the left-wing cranks and propagandists--like Crooks and Liars--who love to paint limited government proponents as violent nutcases. We owe it to the Founders and their experiment in self government to exhaust all prudent options before considering drastic and uncertain steps.

The return of constitutional government begins in the Statehouses. State legislatures can draft resolutions rendering unconstitutional federal intrusions upon personal liberty and state sovereignty “void, and of no force.” States can refuse to enforce unconstitutional measures within their borders.

Nullification is a worthwhile, peaceful alternative to revolutionary rhetoric. Let's see what it produces before storming Congress with torches and pitchforks.

A frequent argument for nationalized healthcare is the comparison to auto insurance. Obamacare advocates reason that since government requires people to purchase auto insurance government can also require people to purchase health insurance. The flaws in that argument are numerous.

Compulsory auto insurance coverage is a state issue. Each state establishes minimum bodily injury and property damage liability coverage requirements as it deems appropriate. However, liability insurance provides no benefits to the policyholder beyond the transfer of risk. The auto insurance requirement serves to protect the public from catastrophic losses the insured may cause.

While auto liability is compulsory, drivers aren't required to purchase coverage that protects personal interests. The state isn't concerned with how someone replaces their vehicle or pays personal medical expenses that result from their actions.

Antagonists may counter that banks require collision coverage. But the banks aren't government. Banks are lien holders with vested interests in the collateral. Thus borrowers are required to protect their vehicles. Once loans are repaid banks have no interest in the vehicles and the insurance requirement disappears.

Whether liability or collision, the government healthcare advocate still argues that auto insurance is government mandated. This is a half truth. States require drivers to carry liability insurance as a condition of using the public roads. However, there is no actual demand on anyone to buy auto insurance. If a person chooses not to drive a motorized vehicle on the public roadways the auto insurance requirement is inapplicable.

Federally imposed health insurance isn't comparable to a state's auto liability insurance mandate. First, the federal government is forcing us--under threat of fine or possible imprisonment--to buy personal insurance from a private company. Second, you have no viable option to avoid the federal government's imposition. Everyone will be required to carry personal health insurance. Third, congress has no legitimate authority to force free people to purchase products or services no matter the perceived good or value they may bring to the individual.

The Constitution's interstate commerce and general welfare clauses (Art. 1, Sect. 8) don't provide cover for nationalized healthcare either. In Federalist #41 James Madison declares that applying those clauses to areas beyond Congress' enumerated powers is, at best, a total misconstruction. Those powers are applicable only within the authority specifically granted to the central government.

Providing individual medical care or requiring individuals to buy insurance aren't enumerated powers. Therefore, according to the Tenth Amendment, those powers are retained by the states and the people. Via their auto insurance requirements, states have indicated that their interest lies in protecting the general public against loss incurred from an individual's negligence, not in protecting a person against their own actions. Thus health insurance and medical decisions are rights retained by the people.

No government has a vested interest in your health or health habits. Personal health is an individual responsibility with the rewards and consequences of each persons decisions borne accordingly.

What about catastrophic medical expenses? Doesn't society bear that cost for the uninsured? Yes, but only in a collectivist society. In a free society people bear their own burdens whenever possible and seek charitable assistance when necessary. Involving government inhibits individual responsibility and encourages risky behavior.

Suppose government required drivers to carry collision insurance at a government-mandated cost. The financial incentive for safe driving is reduced. While personal expense motivates responsible behavior the opposite is true when consequences are shifted to third parties.

To argue for federal healthcare mandates based on the existence of state auto liability insurance requirements is political sleight of hand. Anyone making that case is banking on public ignorance for their success.

No one should be surprised with President Obama's rush toward bigger, more powerful government. Politicians win support from people with like minds and the President is no exception. His supporters and associates tell us much about his political ideology.

Joe Sims is impressed with the Obama presidency. Mr. Sims wrote of Obama's swearing in as the “people's inaugural”, the dawn of a new American era. Sam Webb shared that exuberance. In January, 2009 Mr. Webb praised Obama's victory as the end of “30 years of right-wing extremist rule.” He wasn't so bold as to declare the election a national referendum for socialism. But he did claim it signaled America's willingness to experiment with socialist ideas. Thus Webb wrote of the Obama administration, “Yes, this is a socialist moment.”

Both Sam Webb and Joe Sims write for the People's Weekly World, a Communist Party (CPUSA) publication. Webb himself serves as the national chair of the CPUSA, which publicly declared Obama's election a triumph for their agenda.

The President has drawn international communist allies as well. Fidel Castro compared Obamacare to his own communist nation's medical system. Unfortunately, that's not all. The old guard communist dictator admires Obama's position on global warming and his charismatic personality. China has also joined the act. The Chinese commemorated Obama's visit with “Oba Mao” t-shirts depicting the President wearing a Red Guard uniform. Artist Liu Bolin honored the occasion with a statue similar to one previously created for Chairman Mao himself.

Obama's inner circle is filled with questionable liaisons and appointees. The administration's communications director, Anita Dunn, counts Mao Tse-tung among her greatest political influences. Ron Bloom is Obama's car and manufacturing czar. Yet he has contempt for free markets, pals around with the SEIU and has worked with the leaders of the Democratic Socialists of America. Van Jones resigned an environmental post appointment because of his declared commitment to communism. And Obama's idea of a fair-minded judge, Goodwin Liu, considers free enterprise, property rights and limited government to be radical ideas.

None of these associations flatter Obama. But the worst alliance may be his “safe school's czar” Kevin Jennings. Jennings supports indoctrinating teenagers with a radical sexual agenda, having gone so far as to conceal and condone child molestation. Jennings also defended the late Harry Hay, who dedicated his life to mainstreaming intimate relations between men and boys. And yes, Hay also had a little communism in his closet.

Is Barack Obama America's first Bolshevik-in-Chief? He has certainly drawn support from staunch communists, apparent sympathizers and assorted oddballs. His policies thus far have done nothing to betray their faith and support.

For an analogy to be worthwhile it must achieve the desired result. For example, one might illustrate a poor decision by comparing it to benching Payton Manning in favor of a rookie quarterback. Conversely, no one wanting to praise a military campaign will say it was as successful as Hitler's siege of Stalingrad.

Such a short lesson in analogies. Yet for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi it is a lesson unlearned. During the pro-healthcare speech she delivered just prior to the House vote she made a terrible analogy. Madame Speaker said, “We will be joining those who established Social Security, Medicare and now, tonight, healthcare for all Americans.”

Pelosi's comparison was wholly illogical. Why would a supporter of the healthcare legislation compare the bill to two bankrupt behemoths? That's like bragging on your team's chances to win the 2010 World Series by comparing them to the Chicago Cubs. To promote the healthcare bill Pelosi should've compared it to something, anything, besides Social Security and Medicare.

Social Security isn't exactly the model for sound financial management. The New York Times reported in 2004 that Social Security would be in the red by 2018 and the trust fund depleted by 2044. That's not a healthy financial outlook, and even the Times' dour forecast is overly optimistic.

Last year, Heritage Foundation analyst David John painted a far gloomier portrait of Social Security. According to Mr. John, Social Security is running a deficit right now with little to no chance of reversal. He predicts that the trust fund will go broke in 2037, seven years earlier than the 2004 report projected. Furthermore, the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) says Social Security's unfunded liability exceeds $17.5 trillion.

Medicare is no more secure than Social Security. In fact, Medicare's future is far bleaker. The NCPA places Medicare's unfunded liability at more than $89 trillion. That's a big number. Let's put it in its proper perspective. There are roughly 31.5 million seconds in one calendar year. If you earn one dollar for each of those seconds ($3,600 per hour) it would take 2.82 million years to satisfy Medicare's future benefit obligations. In astral terms, 89 trillion is 15 light years away, or about three times the distance from Earth to Alpha Centauri.

By 2054 the combined Social Security/Medicare payroll tax burden will rise from today's 15.3-percent to 37-percent. Half of all general revenues collected will be transferred to those programs in 2030, rising to nearly 75-percent in 2060. And these expenditures will be required of a government that consistently outspends its annual receipts.

One has to wonder if Speaker Pelosi realized what she was saying when she beamed about joining the creators of Social Security and Medicare. According to her own analogy Congress and the Obama administration have imposed upon America a program destined for high taxation, inadequate service, saucy bureaucrats, fraud, waste and future insolvency. If she was trying to boost public confidence in the healthcare bill she should've exercised greater care in picking her comparisons.

Pelosi's words did nothing to confirm the legitimacy of her argument. However, through sheer chance, she couldn't have been more on target. We're a nation of enormous debt, a bloated budget and a growing sense of entitlement. Now we have a healthcare program that a third-grader wouldn't believe will reduce any of the three.

Pelosi is correct; she and her party joined those who established Social Security and Medicare, and all the red ink that goes with them. That's no accomplishment of which a reasonable person would boast. No wonder her favorable rating is 11-percent.

So the District of Columbia is the latest U.S. enclave to recognize homosexual marriages. This will draw ire from social conservatives and evangelical Christians just as surely as a lightning rod attracts static electricity. However, those criticisms may be ignoring the larger problems.

Marriage is more a religious than legal institution. Religion, expressed in true faith, answers to a higher authority than government since legality isn't necessarily synonymous with spirituality. Therefore, unless homosexual couples admit to worshipping government as their “higher authority” they can make no claim to marriage. And if they worship government they have adopted a false god, which renders their religion and their unions invalid.

Irony being what it is the first couple to plunge into D.C.'s gay marriage pond was two female reverends. Darlene Garner and Candy Holmes are leaders in the Metropolitan Community Church (MCC), a church dedicated to canonizing the gay and lesbian community. What's more, their ceremony was conducted at the offices of the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), an influential lobby for the gay rights movement.

To say that MCC and HRC are biased is an understatement. In any other situation their partiality would result in their legitimacy being questioned. However, political correctness has deemed all things homosexual beyond reproach. Therefore all questions must come from a different angle, the religious angle.

How can Garner, Holmes and the MCC reconcile their ceremonies with the Bible they claim to believe? Biblical text, from beginning to end, contains vivid denouncements of homosexual activity. The Apostle Paul explicitly addressed homosexuality in his letter to the Romans, calling it “unseemly” and “vile affections.” Furthermore, Paul declared that people who commit homosexual acts realize their error but take pleasure in it anyway. The Mosaic book of Leviticus refers to same-sex relations as abominable. Moses taught that anyone engaging in such acts will face consequences.

The Metropolitan Community Church isn't deterred. The MCC has rationalized these passages until the text fits both their sexual preference and civil agenda. An MCC ad campaign considers Christ's healing of the centurion's servant in Matthew's eighth chapter as the divine endorsement of a gay couple. Another ad claims that Ruth entered into a lesbian relationship with her mother-in-law, Naomi.

I have no doubt that Christ will forgive sinners; that is the basis for Christianity. In John, chapter eight, Jesus forgave a woman caught in the act of adultery, which could've resulted in the woman being stoned. He will likewise forgive the homosexual. But Christ's forgiveness isn't unconditional; repentance is required. Jesus also told the adulterous woman, “go, and sin no more.”

Jesus himself spoke of such false prophets. The New Testament repeatedly warns of apostates, people with knowledge of the truth who have turned from it and taught others to do likewise. It's difficult to view “Rev.” Garner, “Rev.” Holmes, and the Metropolitan Community Churches as anything but wolves in sheep's clothing.

This is where many Christians make a mistake. We assume that government can rescue us from our moral descent. That change must begin in the hearts of men, which means in the church itself. Is that likely when churches publicly reject biblical teachings and cling to unsound doctrines?

We have all sinned. Yet there's quite a distinction between repeating a sin and explaining it away. Christians cannot influence the world when the Christian witness is compromised and basic morals are ignored.

The answer to our cultural abyss doesn't lie in governmental legislation or decree. It lies in the individual Christian's witness and that of the church overall. I fear we're failing that obligation.

In December, 2009 the Los Angeles Times editorialized in favor of Sen. Lindsay Graham's and Sen. Charles Schumer's promise to resurrect comprehensive immigration reform. But where is their bill? Internet searches are fruitless and a review of THOMAS--the Library of Congress' database of pending legislation--reveals nothing. Yet the bill must exist for it's been discussed in reputable media outlets.

At the heart of immigration reform is a biometric national identification card. This card, according to a Wall Street Journal article, will carry imbedded personal information used to identify legal workers. The key word is “legal”. Sen. Schumer believes the best way to stop illegal immigration is to require legal citizens to register with the state (as if we aren't already). What an insult, not only to our liberty but also to our intelligence.

Page 214, Section 274A(a)(7), of the House's immigration reform bill (H.R. 4321) forbids creating a national ID card. Apparently no such protection exists in the clandestine Graham-Schumer proposal. Perhaps, like the healthcare reform bill, it must be passed before anyone can know how it reads. Anyway, it seems that every American worker will be required to obtain the biometric ID card. Doesn't that sound a bit Soviet? Present your papers, comrade!

A biometric ID will, like all infringements on our liberty, be sold as a necessity. Frankly, legitimate government has no authority to sacrifice liberty on the altar of some ill-defined greater good. As William Pitt said of necessity, “It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.”

Why should American citizens be forced to prove our innocence in order to work while illegal aliens are granted amnesty? There must be a better alternative to controlling illegal immigration than an invasive ID card. Halting welfare payments, food stamps, free education and non-emergency healthcare for illegal aliens comes to mind. But these ideas only make sense if stopping illegal immigration is the Graham-Schumer purpose, which is doubtful.

Look at air travel since 9/11. Six imams sue an airline, and their fellow passengers, because the imams themselves behaved suspiciously. A suicidal bomber conceals explosives in his underwear and our government won't even identify him as a Muslim. Thus we must remove our shoes in airports, face strip searches and submit to full body scans so Islam isn't offended. Shampoo, nail clippers and knitting needles become weapons of mass destruction. It's a necessity.

Another example lies in the right to bear arms. Innocence must be proven before government allows Americans to buy guns. We must prove our innocence to carry concealed weapons. Yet the thugs who are arrested for violent gun crimes sport rap sheets longer than War and Peace.

Criminals are criminals because they could care less about legality. They aren't concerned with government approval. Criminals just act. Yet the lawful must allow their assailant sufficient opportunity to retreat or face possible prosecution from the same government that paroled the violent convict.

The entire outlook is backwards. Government confronts lawlessness and violence with greater restrictions on the blameless. If we follow this logic to its natural conclusion the prisons will someday be filled with the virtuous while the malevolent roam free. It's a necessity.

Government's failure to address crime results in the erosion of self-defense and Second Amendment rights. Government's failure to identify enemies results in massive inconvenience and loss of privacy for American citizens. Now government's failed border security means innocence must be proven in order to work and we should consider it a necessity? No thanks!

Will the truth set you free, or is that notion outdated? In a business, personal, or spiritual sense the truth unquestionably sets you free. However, in politics the truth will earn you scorn and a stint in the doghouse.

Senator James Forrester (NC-41) has experienced this phenomenon first hand. During a recent speech Sen. Forrester said “slick city lawyers and homosexual lobbies and African-American lobbies are running Raleigh.” The Senator apologized to anyone who may have taken offense. However, he also noted that cause for offense didn't exist in his statement, which Democrats called “the lowest and worst type of politics.”

Who's wrong and who's right? Was Sen. Forrester engaging in hateful speech? Or did he merely declare what democrat politics are all about? Before you answer remember that truthful political dialogue invites attack. Now let's look at it.

Slick city lawyers do play a major role in Democrat politics. Since 1990 the American Association for Justice (AJJ), formerly the Association of Trial Lawyers of America, has donated $31.5 million to politicians. Democrats received $28.5 million, or 91-percent, of that amount. In no election cycle have Democrats received less that 85-percent of AAJ's contributions and since 2006 the Democrat share has topped 95-percent.

AAJ opposes tort reform, reasonable malpractice awards and most anything that interferes with the bonanza known as tort litigation. The Democrat Party supports that agenda. However, few people care if trial lawyers are offended. Let's look a little deeper.

Homosexuals. Now there's an aggrieved segment of society. Did Sen. Forrester insult homosexuals when he included gay lobbies among Raleigh's power brokers? It's difficult to see how, unless homosexuals admit to seeking cause for offense.

The Human Rights Campaign (HRC) is the top homosexual political lobby in America. Would you believe that Democrats get 90-percent of HRC's campaign donations? That percentage has increased in recent years. And why not? Democrats support harsher sentences for crimes committed against homosexuals even though crime is crime and should be punished equally.

This is no surprise. In the Democrat ideology it's not enough for homosexuals to do what they do in private. No sir. Their activities must be accepted--if not openly embraced--by everyone. It's an idea that permeates the party from the state level right through the presidency.

Is it possible that black lobbies and voters also favor Democrats? African-American lobbies promote race-based preferences in both employment and college admission. They demand wealth redistribution and a collectivist, centralized government. These ideas are harmonious with Democrat objectives.

Thus 95-percent of black voters favored Democrat Beverly Perdue for North Carolina's Governor, 96-percent chose Democrat Kay Hagan over Republican Elizabeth Dole and 93-percent favored Democrats in congressional elections nationwide. Black voters favor Democrats even though the party's policies have done more harm to black families and black economic progress than the Ku Klux Klan could ever dream of accomplishing.

Sen. Forrester should have included labor unions in the Democrat's corner. Of the top 100 campaign contributors over the last 20 years, 23 are unions. Those unions contributed $499 million to political campaigns, nearly all to Democrats.

Connect the dots for yourself. Democrats control North Carolina's government and receive great support from trial lawyers, homosexuals and blacks. Sen. Forrester spoke the truth and he's been roasted over an open fire for his trouble.

It is the North Carolina Democrat Party, not Sen. Forrester, that's engaging in the lowest form of politics. Democrats are ignoring facts and assassinating the messenger for the sole purpose of pandering to preferred constituencies. Truth may have made Sen. Forrester a target. But the Democrat's reaction proves that truth hurts them far worse. Remember, the hit dog barks loudest.

What should we make of a recent editorial arguing that the Obama White House has made no attempt to infringe upon the Second Amendment and that Obama openly declared his respect for the right to bear arms during his presidential campaign?

It's true that President Obama hasn't advanced the gun control agenda. He hasn't even sought a renewed ban on “assault” weapons. However, the idea that President Obama has more in common with Wayne LaPierre than with Sarah Brady is misleading. Remember the “bitter clingers” comment? Therefore, if eternal vigilance is freedom's price complacency must be its worst enemy. The Second Amendment is under assault even as the Supreme Court seems poised to recognize the individual right it protects.

Rep. Bobby Rush's Firearms Licensing and Record of Sale Act (H.R. 45) would require a license to possess a firearm. That license would also be required to transfer a firearm and a tracking number would be assigned to each sale. Most ominous is H.R. 45's prohibition on storing firearms and ammunition in any manner that a child could access.

Rep. Rush's bill assaults the basic notion of a right. Free people need no government license to exercise a right. This bill would also create de facto gun registration and render firearms inadequate for self-defense. Unloaded guns are rather poor clubs.

Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee produced the Gun Safety and Gun Access Prevention Act (H.R. 257). Section Three in Rep. Lee's proposal would impose 10 year prison sentences upon firearm sellers if they have “reasonable cause to know” their customers intend criminality. Section Four criminalizes the sale of a firearm without an approved security device. Section Five effectively forbids keeping a loaded firearm for self defense whenever a child is present, much like H.R. 45. Section Six requires adult chaperones for minors at gun shows. Under Section Six (b)(8) the offending parent can be charged with child abandonment.

Since a defensive firearm must be kept loaded and most homes contain children at least periodically it's clear that Rep. Rush and Rep. Lee intend to abolish the use of firearms for personal defense. They also require dealers to be clairvoyant. To deny sales opens dealers to civil rights violations while approving sales opens them to prosecution. It's a catch-22 for gun sellers.

Sen. Frank Lautenberg's Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act (S.1317) denies firearms to “dangerous” terrorists (is there another kind?). What Sen. Lautenberg has authored is a clever ruse. No one can argue that denying guns and bombs to terrorists violates the Second Amendment, right? Let's see.

Section 922A(1) of S. 1317 grants the Attorney General discretionary authority to deny access to firearms. The AG, under Section 922B(g)(1) can also withhold information used in the denial from the aggrieved party. Should gun owners feel secure if Eric Holder wields such authority?

What about Pres. Obama's stated respect for gun rights? Well, politicians will say just about anything to get elected. Obama is on record as supporting a ban on “assault” weapons. Furthermore, his administration is backing a U.N. treaty that would regulate the small arms trade worldwide. Don't scoff. The President can constitutionally enter such treaties under Article 2, Section 2. Said treaty would become law under Article 6, at least temporarily.

Inaction on gun control doesn't make President Obama a Second Amendment loyalist. Inaction doesn't mean that politicians and bureaucrats hostile to private firearms aren't at work. Gun owners will benefit from a dose of extra vigilance now, even while the gun control waters appear still.

Driving is dangerous. That's easy to forget because we do it daily. It's common and completely comfortable for most of us. But comfort breeds distraction, even under ideal conditions. Insert text messaging and distracted driving increases exponentially.

To lessen that distraction Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) introduced the Avoiding Life-Endangering and Reckless Texting by Drivers Act (ALERT). The proposal will coerce states to adopt laws banning drivers from texting while behind the wheel.

It's hard to argue that texting doesn't distract drivers from more pressing matters. Most of us have seen it happen. On the surface, ALERT sounds like a fine idea. However, to determine if Sen. Schumer's proposal is legitimate we must dig below the surface.

Twenty-five states already have some form of ban on texting while driving. Those laws passed without federal prodding. Additionally, Schumer cites the regulation of interstate commerce as authority for his bill. He reasons that texting devices are produced, conveyed and used in interstate commerce; therefore Congress can take action under Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. However, Article 1, Section 8 allows Congress to regulate commerce only, not personal acts or the private use of products.

Under Schumer's reasoning Congress could ban anything. Ready for a federal ban on applying make-up while driving? How about federal bans on tuning radios or changing CDs? Should Congress prohibit conversation with passengers, or traveling with children? All can be distracting and all can be considered interstate commerce under Schumer's misapplication of Article 1, Section 8. In fact, Congress can claim authority over anything with such an interpretation.

Let's also consider Washington's bully tactics. If Congress has constitutional authority to enact ALERT it should do so outright. But no! Congress prefers to force state compliance by withholding highway funds, which is how ALERT accomplishes the texting ban. It is an authoritarian act and the antithesis of Congress' enumerated powers.

Even worse is how Sen. Schumer is selling his bill. The Senator said people admit that they text while driving and have begged him to pass laws to stop them. The quote aired recently on the Keith Larson Show on 1110-AM WBT (Charlotte, NC).

Frankly, Schumer's hyperbole is the biggest load of manure to ever touch a spade. It indicates the contempt he has for us and the depths to which he'll stoop to pass legislation.

It's inconceivable that someone would ask their senator to pass a law to prevent them from doing what they can quit on their own. Anyone who knows they shouldn't be texting is smart enough to stop without Schumer's assistance. Additionally, passing a law to prevent drivers from texting misses the point of law altogether.

Laws don't stop bad behavior, they identify it. There are laws against theft, rape and murder. Yet theft, rape and murder occur daily. The existence of laws does not prevent lawlessness, nor does law prevent people not inclined toward lawlessness from committing crime. Honorable people won't steal, rape, or murder even if those acts aren't criminalized.

Punishment after the fact, not prevention, is all we can reasonably expect from the law. Sen. Schumer isn't so stupid as to believe his bill will prevent texting while driving, but he thinks we are that stupid.

Laws simply determine acceptable social behavior. To legislate for the punishment of texting while driving is one thing. To pretend laws will prevent acts that are easily self-regulated is slavish and immature.

Tiger Woods has come clean, publicly confessing the worst kept secrets since John Edwards' love child. Tiger earned his humiliation and there's no reason to feel sorry for him. He made his bed--pardon the pun--and he can do whatever he does in it.

However, the Woods saga isn't Pearl Harbor or the moon landing. So why has Tiger received such in-depth coverage? What purpose is there beyond the sense of fulfillment that some people receive from a celebrity's disintegration?

I reviewed Tiger's press conference and found it totally predictable. There was the compulsory attempt to separate his family from media scrutiny, which is impossible. Public infidelity affects a family, kids included, even if you're the world's best golfer. That's reality. If Tiger cared about his family's well-being he should've kept his ball out of the rough.

The typical platitudes were presented. “I have let down my fans.” “I am the only person to blame.” Tiger's speech was the prototypical I-got-caught-with-my-pants-down celebrity apology.

Tiger has been reviewed, prodded and analyzed more than a man undergoing a complete proctologic examination (which he might enjoy, who knows?). Let's not waste any more time or energy in that area. Instead let's focus on what Tiger is, what he was made to be and what can be expected from him in the future.

Tiger Woods is a golf pro, nothing more. He's rich because he can hit a ball into a cup better than anyone else on the planet and people will pay to watch him do it. Tiger didn't force anyone's admiration. He didn't make the public grant him the hero status he once enjoyed. What's more, his loose morals have no affect on you and me beyond what we'll allow.

What about Tiger's role model status? Off the golf course that status existed only in the public's imagination. He is by no means the husband of the year. But being a personal role model isn't a professional golfer's purpose. Tiger's larger than life status is mainly the fault of a culture consumed with celebrity.

The fact that the public made Woods a mythical pillar of virtue is more their fault that his. Sure, Tiger helped cultivate that false image, but he never made a single person watch him play. He never made us buy his sponsor's products and he never forced a single person to like him. Mr. and Mrs. Public, you did all of that on your own.

If you're angry at Tiger's moral failings it's likely because you allowed yourself to believe he was something he wasn't. Now you feel foolish. We don't like playing the fool, do we?

Despite his turpitude Tiger can be a role model if he's kept in perspective. There are few athletes in any sport with Tiger's drive and will to win. His competitiveness is unquenchable and his coolness rivals that of Michael Jordan, Joe Montana and--dare I say?--Jack Nicklaus.

Aside from the initial reports of Wood's affairs this whole story was much ado about nothing. Tiger Woods doesn't owe apologies to you and me. He owes apologies to his wife and children, the PGA Tour, his sponsors and, most of all, to God. But Tiger Woods has no tangible affect on you and me unless we grant him that power.

In politics, spin is life. Politicians and their handlers will state their case even when it's apparent they haven't a leg to stand on. Too often, accepting the spin as fact or dismissing it as fiction depends on whether or not the hearer agrees with the political party that created the swirl.

Sarah Palin's palm notes are a prime example of such a political vortex. Conservatives and Republicans--they aren't necessarily one and the same--rushed to her defense. This is a natural reaction. People will defend politicians who appear ideologically similar.

The problem conservatives face with the Palin palm notes story arises from repeated criticisms heaped upon President Obama's use of the teleprompter. For Obama, the teleprompter is a techno palm note that keeps him focused during speeches. For conservatives, Obama's prompter is the butt of jokes and a sign of fraud. Therefore, a hint of hypocrisy exists when conservatives defend Palin for essentially the same act.

The fact is that many, perhaps most, effective public speakers use reminders when behind the lectern. It can be the Barack Obama teleprompter or the Sarah Palin palm note. Or, it can be the small index card preferred by the great communicator, Ronald Reagan.

Reagan would conceal the cards when he walked onto the stage. Once he began his address he would glance at the cards to maintain focus and cadence. Yet the 39th President was neither ignorant nor uninformed, and using notes certainly didn't render him an ineffective speaker.

However, the palm notes do exacerbate an existing problem for Sarah Palin. Writing notes on one's palm is considered a grade school trick, which lends to the idea that Palin isn't prepared for the national stage. Too, Palin's delivery is more than a little irritating, not unlike fingernails on a chalkboard. Her folksiness and accent are fine, but she sounds whiny. A Palin speech doesn't inspire great confidence unless the political spin sways you toward that end.

Left-wing pundits and the White House spin machine wasted no time seizing on Palin's perceived gaffe. If only they were so quick to identify and denounce Muslim fanatics who try to blow up jetliners on Christmas Eve. The “mainstream” media also ridiculed the Palin palm pilot. Yet when Robert Gibbs lampooned Palin before the media what do you think he did? He used notes. And would you believe he wrote them on his palm?

Granted, Palin's crib notes conjure images of adolescence. Yet Gibb's palm note episode is much worse than Palin's. Whether Gibbs' intent was to ensure his accuracy or to take a pot shot at Palin is immaterial. Either way, his actions were far more immature than were hers. Gibbs' behavior was downright childish.

For all the ideological spin surrounding Teleprompters and palm notes, conservatives are less hypocritical with their condemnations than are liberals. Why, you ask? No one claims that Palin's speaking ability spurred her popularity. For Obama, his entire persona centers on his speechmaking prowess.

To hear supporters gush over Pres. Obama you'd think he is the greatest orator since Cicero. Obama's image was created around his speaking skills. He is intelligent, clean and articulate, or so we've been told. His speeches are an intellectual breath of fresh air. And he is all of that, while on the teleprompter. However, off prompter he stammers, stalls and searches for words just like the rest of us.

Critics of Obama's teleprompter are on slightly more solid footing than critics of Palin's palm notes only because Obama is marketed as a solid speaker. Palin is not. But the criticisms and defenses offered from both sides of the matter prove that spin trumps substance in the political theatre.

If discussing politics and religion should be avoided at all costs, then science must join the list. Much of today's “settled science” or “scientific consensus” is actually religion in its purest sense. The scientific faithful are proselytizing, pronouncing woe to anyone who questions their doctrine.

Too many scientists are High Priests in the First Assembled Reformation Church of Environmentalism, or FARCE for short. They and their followers defend their god--the environment--with the same zeal that fanatical Muslims defend Mohammad.

Actually, to grant FARCE church status is a bit kind; it is a cult. Non-believers can have rational discussions with Christians, Jews, Mormons, etc. The same holds for most Muslims, too. Avoid the Al-Qaeda/Hezbollah sect and you'll be fine. But you can't have a sensible debate with a cult follower. Fact, history, precedent, logic, common sense; none of it matters to the cultist. Therefore, it doesn't matter to the FARCE member.

If you question a FARCE tenet, even to the slightest degree, you're a heretic. Publicly denounce FARCE's core belief--that mankind drives cataclysmic climate change--and you're a global warming denier. Blind obedience, without the slightest hint of individual thought or reason, is required.

For example, the FARCE has declared that flat screen televisions are an environmental hazard. If you have one you're destroying the planet. Use a light bulb that hasn't been blessed by a FARCE priest and you're chief among sinners. And you don't want to contemplate your eternal destination if you drive an automobile that's not on the FARCE list of doctrinally acceptable vehicles.

A quality common to cults is the demand for absolute compliance. Within faiths and religions you'll find divergent opinions. These become denominations. Denominations will hold to basic principles even while disagreeing about specific doctrines. Not so with cults.

Environmentalists allow no disagreement. The “green” activist will ignore any evidence or argument that contradicts their belief system. Dissent is intolerable, even sacrilege, and ignored as if it never existed. And no, I'm not exaggerating. Let's look at the evidence.

At the 2008 UN global warming conference in Poland over 650 scientists questioned the accuracy of man-made global warming science. The Petition Project--instituted by Frederick Seitz, past president of the National Academy of Sciences--has collected over 30,000 signatures from qualified professionals questioning man's impact on climate.

The FARCE will not tolerate such heretics. Apostate scientists have their character assassinated, their voice silenced and their scientific credentials dismissed out of hand. In short, they're excommunicated from the FARCE, which is the climate change community.

In California, regulators have proposed banning wood burning stoves and fireplaces. Wood smoke and soot, apparently, are health hazards and environmental contaminants. But unless I'm mistaken, wildfires burn California to the ground every other year and man has burned wood for about 1.5 million years. Let's take the matter of fire a little farther. The Indians-whom the FARCE considers to have been at one with the earth-burned wood.

You'll waste your time confronting a FARCE disciple with this argument. You'd have a better chance getting a Jehovah's Witness into a Baptist church. The “green” apostle will simply charge you with wanting to destroy the earth. End of discussion. They'll never explain where you will live if you succeed in destroying the earth. Doesn't matter. Their doctrine is unquestionable.

Other topics are verboten within the FARCE, too. Scientists have skewed global warming data and conspired to conceal the process. The IPCC's report on the disappearing Himalayan glaciers is decidedly flawed. Temperature monitoring data is manipulated to indicate warming trends. So what? Facts are lies within the FARCE.

Nothing is valid that doesn't fit the environmental creed. Only the canon is real. Global warming exists, earth is doomed and heretics will be sacrificed on the nearest FARCE altar. Sound like a witch hunt? Cotton Mather couldn't do it so well.

I've found very little common ground with President Obama. His policies are statist, his attitude is condescending and his tone is arrogant. Yet I've managed to find one area of agreement with the President; I'm no fan of the Bowl Championship Series, either.

Arguments favoring the BCS ring hollow. Will student athletes miss too much class time under a playoff system? Not really. Student/athletes involved in BCS games practice throughout December until their January games anyway. Players wouldn't miss significant class time even when traveling for Saturday playoff games.

The Football Championship Subdivision has a four-week playoff. If missed classes are the issue, why doesn't it matter at those schools? What about March Madness and the College World Series? Are academics less important for those athletes than for BCS football players?

Another pro-BCS argument is the bowl system tradition. That's a laugher if ever there was one. If college football is so dedicated to preserving the tradition and integrity of the bowl games, why isn't the Cotton Bowl played at the Cotton Bowl? Why aren't the Orange, Sugar, Cotton and Rose Bowl games played on New Year's Day? Why isn't the BCS Championship Game a part of the bowl system, like it was when the BCS began? Why have traditional bowl names been sacrificed to corporate sponsorships?

I'm not against businesses sponsoring bowl games--revenue is revenue--or using the games to promote their brands. Just don't sell me the Champs Sports Bowl, the Outback Bowl, the Capital One Bowl and the PapaJohns.com Bowl and then crow about preserving tradition.

Oh, that's right. Those aren't BCS games, are they? Then how about the Allstate Sugar Bowl, the Tostitos Fiesta Bowl, or the FedEx Orange Bowl? Then there's my favorite “tradition”, the Rose Bowl Game presented by Citi, sponsored in part with bailout dollars no doubt. There's nothing like “tradition” is there?

There's much to dislike about the BCS and college football's attitude toward a playoff system. Even so, there's more to dislike about government involvement in the matter, especially when it comes to mandating change. Here's where the President and I part company. Obama favors a government solution to the BCS. And why not? He favors a government solution to everything.

Obama wanted college football to adopt a playoff system even before he took office. He even promised to “throw my weight around” toward that end. Thus the Justice Department is now considering investigating the BCS for antitrust violations. Perhaps antitrust charges have merit. The BCS does seem more interested in preserving the status quo and protecting major conferences than in promoting competition.

However, politicians and bureaucrats are less interested in enforcing antitrust laws than in spewing rhetoric. There are calls for legislation to prompt a championship playoff. Justice Department officials have bandied the idea of a governmental commission to analyze the costs and benefits of a playoff system. This is populist pandering, nothing more.

If there's any entity that should be held to antitrust laws it's government. But that's another topic. To be blunt, I'm aware of no constitutional basis for Congress to force college football to adopt a worthwhile championship system. Furthermore, why trust government to conduct a cost/benefit analysis?

In a 2005 edition of the Economist's Voice, Edward Glaeser estimated that the federal government would spend enough money on Katrina relief efforts to provide each New Orleans resident with a $200,000 check. The 2010 federal budget will spend $31,000 per US household. Leaving government to conduct cost/benefit analysis is like allowing a fox to determine the value of chickens.

President Obama is right; college football needs a playoff. But he is dead wrong in thinking it's government's job to make it happen. Frankly, it doesn't appear government is up to the challenge anyway.

I'm thankful to be alive. For a moment I thought I had breathed my last. Snow has fallen, and if it weren't for the local news I'm sure I'd have assumed room temperature by now. From their expert, on-the-spot reporters I have learned that snowstorms produce icy conditions, slick roads and cold temperatures.

Maybe I shouldn't joke about death. I could meet my end at a moment's notice. None of us are promised our next breath. So, for that next breath I am truly grateful. However, is there really a need for talking head reporters to tell us how to deal with every natural weather condition? To be brutally honest I don't need it. In fact, I consider news coverage of most storms as an insult to my intelligence. Let me give some examples.

One reporter was “live on the street” in Salisbury, NC. He told me that I shouldn't venture out in the two to four inches of snow. First, two to four inches isn't exactly the storm of the century. Second, if roads were so impassable, how did the reporter get to Salisbury? Did he go by dogsled? Maybe a helicopter dropped him in on a cable, kind of like when Lucy Ricardo was lowered onto the cruise ship.

After telling me the gravity of my situation, the newsroom staff joked with the reporter about the coffee shop patrons across the street, who came out to wave at the news cameras. How did those people get to the coffee shop? I've heard that some people live at Starbucks. But I always considered that a metaphorical statement. My guess is that these people drove their cars, which rendered as ludicrous the entire report about impassable roads.

Another reporter positioned himself near the intersection of NC Highway 273 and I-85 in Belmont, NC. This guy came complete with props. He and his snow shovel proved that ice could actually be present in snow. Well how about that? Join him for his next jaw-dropping report, when he verifies the presence of water vapor in clouds. Please! The reporter shoveled the snow aside so viewers could see the ice patch he'd discovered. He scraped and scraped. He kept talking, but who could hear him? His shoveling obscured his every word. Good thing he had nothing worthwhile to report.

Just when I thought it couldn't get worse out came the driving instructions. The shoveling reporter admonished a passing motorist for driving too fast for conditions, and then informed me that the offending driver was the type who'd be in the ditch thirty minutes later.

That's a bit presumptuous. Who is this reporter is to determine the intentions or abilities of the car's driver? The car looked to be traveling no more than 20 MPH. It wasn't slipping, sliding or spinning in the least. And why say that the car would be in the ditch in thirty minutes? The reporter barely knew what was happening in the present, much less the future. That car could have slid into the grass at any moment. Or, its driver could've completed the journey without incident, just like untold numbers of drivers do every time snow falls.

That reporter ventured into the cold and snow, violating the very safety instructions he conveyed to me, just so I'd know that snow can be icy and roads can be slick. Stay at home next time, pal. Sit in front of the fire. Drink some hot chocolate. You served no useful purpose whatsoever.

If there's anything worse than a Nostradamus wannabe reporter who states the obvious it's a reporter who has no idea what's going on. The final reporter I saw, before turning the channel in disgust, combined those two characteristics into one mindless, wholly unwatchable segment.

No remote report is complete without the perky blonde, and “Winter Blizzard Icy Blast 2010” (or whatever mindless moniker the media hung on this storm) is no exception. Let's call the perky blonde “Bunny.” It just seems to fit.

Bunny was strategically perched on a highway overpass--bridges will freeze before the main roads, in case you didn't know--and kicked off her report by telling me that it's cold outside. Uh, Bunny, there's snow and ice everywhere. I think I can figure out I don't need my swim trunks today. Thanks anyway. Maybe you can return in August and tell me all about the summer's heat.

If Bunny's report were a prize fight it would've been stopped right there. Unfortunately, there was no referee and Bunny wouldn't throw in the towel. At least she's persistent. Bunny next told me that sleet was falling and could be plainly seen hitting her face. “It feels like hail,” Bunny exclaimed.

Bunny my dear, sleet can be difficult to see when you're looking through the living room window. It's nearly impossible to see on television. You'd have a better chance identifying stegosaurus DNA with a magnifying glass. However, I did learn one thing; Bunny has never been outside during a hailstorm.

Believe it or not, that wasn't the worst of Bunny's report. Remember that part about not knowing what you're looking at? Well, Bunny's obliviousness to her surroundings became evident just before she signed off. She told me that the roads were slick (thanks for the tip . . . again!) but that there were many cars traveling the interstate.

Bunny, switch to radio. On radio you can paint any picture you want and the listener will never know the difference. Television cameras have this tendency to show the situation as it exists. One car passed while Bunny talked about the high volume of traffic.

I'll give the weather forecasters their kudos; they got this one right. The snow fell just as they predicted. But snow has fallen before, in much greater volumes, and will fall again no matter what Al Gore says. This isn't the storm to end all storms. It's not the end of the world. I'm confident in my knowledge that snow is cold and ice is slick; that roads can be slippery and that frigid air accompanies winter storms. I really don't need reporters to share that information. I can walk out the front door and see it for myself. Unless I slip and bump my head, chances are good that I won't die. Neither will you.

A few days before Christmas I read a newspaper report about a stolen debit card. Apparently the victim's wallet was taken from her purse, which hung from her shoulder, while she shopped. Such a theft is a shameful indictment on human nature, especially at Christmastime. But it's not at all surprising.

The thief wasted no time in using the ill-gotten windfall. While the victim was submitting the police report a female suspect was making purchases at the same store where the theft occurred. According to the newspaper's account the thief spent $400 in 15 minutes.

That's a fair amount of money. It may not be a leap-from-the-window loss, but more than most people care to lose. An employee would have to earn $50 per hour just to cover the 15 minute spending spree, based on the eight-hour day. That's an annual salary of $104,000. Not too shabby in these economic times.

But this pickpocket went through $400 in 15 minutes. A worker must make $1600 per hour, $64,000 per week, over $3.3 million per year to earn the equivalent of what this thief stole. The CEOs of Home Depot, Motorola, eBay, and UPS don't earn that much, according to the Forbes 2008 list of executive salaries.

The 500 CEOs on the Forbes list received a cumulative salary of $6.4 billion in 2007, making the $400 debit card theft seem like child's play. However, I'm not condemning CEO salaries. Although CEOs are routinely demonized, their earnings are child's play compared to the federal government's expenditures. Do you realize that those CEOs will have to earn that $6.4 billion each and every year until 2565 to offset 2010's federal budget of $3,550,000,000,000? That's $3.55 trillion. I think I smell pirates, and they aren't cruising the Somali coastline or the corporate boardroom.

CEOs would fare a little better if they pooled their $6.4 billion to combat Congress' recently passed $290 billion increase in the debt ceiling, which will float Washington for about six weeks. CEOs need only to chip in their next 45 years worth of collective earnings to satisfy government's increased borrowing. The entire Forbes list can be funded for their entire working lives on what the federal government can spend in a month and a half.

Let's see how these corporate “robber barons” stack up against other significant numbers. We'll begin with the national debt, which increases faster than the human eye can follow. According to USDebtClock.org the national debt grows by $1 million every 25 seconds, standing at $12.3 trillion. Now let that figure roll around in your head for a minute or two. How long would our CEOs have to work to fund the current debt? Only 1,926 years. And that's assuming the debt remains static, which it doesn't.

In reality, the debt's growth rate will consume the collective salaries of the Forbes top 500 CEOs in just two days. As for the middle class, the debt's growth rate will erase a $40,000 annual salary every second.

2007's CEO salaries could pay off our Social Security obligations in 2,207 years, Medicare Part D in 2,921 years and Medicare in 11,616 years. Our unfunded liabilities exceed $107 trillion. That's 16,744 years in CEO pay. Worse yet, these unfunded liabilities could be satisfied only if you had 80 cents for every hour that has passed since scientists say the universe was born some 15 billion years ago. Sadly, those liabilities would increase by about $3 million before you finished writing your check.

Somehow losing $400 in 15 minutes doesn't sound so bad now. The federal government can lose $36 million in that amount of time. Keep that in mind the next time a politician says the federal budget has been cut to the bone.

Who would've thought that someone with an “R” beside their name could win federal office in Massachusetts? If you had bet a C-note on Scott Brown's chances before Christmas the taxman would be knocking on your door. And now a Republican fills the seat where the ever-errant Ted Kennedy parked his fat caboose for nigh on to half a century. Amazing!

Republicans are understandably euphoric. There is a joy and optimism not seen in the Grand Old Party since 1994. Early in the Obama administration I wrote that Democrats were repeating Clinton's mistakes, which led to that Republican Revolution. It is beginning anew.

However, there is a problem with emotional highs; they wane. I hate to rain on the Republican parade, but a word of caution is in order. This game is far from over and the cause of limited government and individual liberty has a long way to go. With the Super Bowl around the corner a football analogy may be in order.

Your team trails 24-20 with time running out. They have the ball on their own one-yard line. On the first play from scrimmage they gain eight yards. That's a good start. But cause for celebration? Not quite. They're still ninety-one yards from victory. If your team thinks that their eight-yard gain is the ballgame they'll go home losers just as surely as the sun rises in the East.

That's about where we stand in restoring “a Republican form of government” (U.S. Constitution, Article IV, Section 4). If the Republican Party is the vehicle for attaining that goal--and that's quite an if--then we have been pinned on our own one-yard line, our backs against the wall with no room for error, since the 2006 and 2008 elections. We got there because Republicans forgot the reason they were elected.

Republicans fumbled. They drank deep from the well of government excess, becoming intoxicated with the power that comes with spending other people's money. They forgot, or chose to ignore, the party's core beliefs. The Republican Party put itself, and the republic, on the one-yard line.

Electing a Republican in Massachusetts exposes vulnerability in the opponent, a window of opportunity that can be exploited. Scott Brown's victory is a good start, an eight-yard gain. But not only do we remain ninety-one yards from pay dirt, we haven't a first down yet.

Like I said, I don't mean to sound pessimistic or belittle the significance of Brown's win. Republican Senators from Massachusetts have become as rare as tripping over 20 pound gold nuggets. It's just that there are far too many experts treating this gain as victory. It's not.

Yes, it will derail the healthcare power grab for a season. But we remain a long way from restoring constitutionally limited government, from reasserting state's rights, and from recognizing the value of the individual over the “collective good”. Complacency is a valid concern.

Voters have short memories and experts are less than, well, expert. George H.W. Bush's victory in 1988, following eight years of Ronald Reagan, prompted “experts” to declare that Democrats would never again win the White House. Four years later we had Bill Clinton. In 2004 the “experts” declared the Democrat Party all but extinct. Two years later the Democrats took control of Congress.

In 2008 the Democrats gained the White House and extended their congressional majorities to quasi-authoritarian levels. Some “experts” pondered the end of the Republican Party. Other pundits said it would take fifty years for the party to regain its feet. But Republicans have fared well in recent special elections.

It appears that electoral winds are shifting toward Republicans. Is that a positive step? Or, does it merely mean that we may lose our liberty at a slower pace. Republicans had ample opportunity to scale back government and restore fiscal sanity between 1994 and 2006. How did that turn out again?

Certainly Scott Brown's victory in the deep blue Bay State is a repudiation of the Obama/Reid/Pelosi agenda. But it is, at best, the opening play of what promises to be a long, hard drive. We're still 91 yards from the winning score.

Was the Massachusetts Senate race a bellwether on government healthcare? Maybe so. Scott Brown made opposition to the Reid/Pelosi agenda paramount in his campaign. He won. And it's significant for a Republican to have won the seat Ted Kennedy occupied for 47 years.

Does Brown's election mean that healthcare reform is dead? Not necessarily. Maine Republicans Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe remain Senate wildcards. If just one of them defects-and both have been known to “reach across the aisle”-some form of healthcare bill could proceed. Thus far both have held the line.

This Republican solidarity is no surprise to Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY), who doesn't think a GOP defection is likely. Prior to the election, Rep. Weiner said a Scott Brown victory would signal the death of healthcare.

Mr. Weiner likely means healthcare reform will die. In that case I hope he is correct. But considering the leftist's mindset, Weiner may mean that healthcare will disappear altogether, as if it can't exist without government.

Such flawed thinking about government is why we have a $12 trillion debt and more than $60 trillion in unfunded government promises. It is why the dollar is becoming play money and American businesses have difficulty competing. It is why we have a mortgage crisis and a housing bubble, and why we depend on a communist country half a world away to float our debt. In short, the idea that government can provide all things to all people is why we are on the cusp of national bankruptcy.

No one needs the government's permission to receive healthcare. Each of us can do that on our own. Go to the doctor if you're sick; you'll be treated. If you lack insurance you can always pay the bill directly. Clinics also offer payment plans for patients who can't afford to pay their bills in full.

What's more, you don't have to visit the family doctor every time you get a headache or experience post-nasal drip. Finally, hospitals and emergency rooms are required to provide essential medical care regardless of a patient's ability to pay. All of this could change in the name of “reform”, leaving everyone dependent on the federal bureaucracy.

Dependence on the central government for daily and personal needs is the politician's vehicle to reelection. Dependency is an enslaving cycle that robs people of their initiative, motivation, dignity, self-respect and, finally, their liberty. Need food? Call on government. Need housing? Call on government. Need medicine? Call on government. Need healthcare? Well, you get the idea.

Politicians like Anthony Weiner believe that all good blessings flow from government. In return, all power and authority returns to those who wield government's reigns. It's a tidy little circle, and the antithesis of liberty.

Rep. Weiner, not all Americans are the pitiful, selfish, pathetic, whining beggars you need to maintain your House seat. Perhaps your district is comprised of such people. But that cannot be the case for the nation overall. If so, we are doomed as a nation and a people, for freedom cannot survive on dependency. Furthermore, centralized systems eventually collapse under their own weight.

No Mr. Weiner, America isn't a nation of whiners, although we have our share. America wasn't established, secured, or built by people who waited on government programs. Ours is a nation founded upon the independent spirit of each individual.

We can make our own decisions. We can reap our rewards and suffer our consequences--in healthcare and other matters--just fine without you, Mr. Weiner. Finally, healthcare will not die without your magic finger. In fact, minus government's manipulative hand, it will be much better and more readily available.

Here's hoping that Mr. Weiner is correct about healthcare reform being dead. Here's hoping, too, that America will tell congressmen like Weiner that we're sick and tired of government meddling. We are not the whiners he believes us to be.

You'd be hard pressed to find anyone passing the hat for “Big Finance” these days. But why do people assume that financial institutions are inherently evil while government is inherently good?

The mortgage bubble and resulting financial problems weren't a free market problem. They resulted from government manipulation. Yet in many minds government is seen as the savior while banks are the drunks at the Baptist picnic. For that reason alone Rep. Peter Welch's Wall Street Bonus Tax Act will garner some degree of support.

Welch's bill (H.R. 4426) promises a 50-percent tax on excessive bonuses paid at banking institutions that received bailout money. It's a classic leftwing tactic. Welch plays the class envy card, reminding financiers that they owe their reemergence to “hardworking Americans.” However, I would remind Mr. Welch that most “hardworking Americans” opposed TARP--the plan that provided the funding--from the outset. Yet Congress passed it anyway.

Hundreds of institutions became beneficiaries. Some have repaid the money; some haven't. But banks had to practically beg the Treasury Department for permission to repay their TARP debt. And political connections played a role in the distribution of TARP funds from the start.

A University of Michigan study claims that banks in congressional districts where the representative sits on the finance committee were 26-percent more likely to get bailout funds. That figure is even higher if a bank's executive is on a Federal Reserve Bank board.

Such backdoor shenanigans in Congress are nothing new. Representatives exchange favors with the well-connected every day. Therefore, how can anyone believe that in taxing bonuses Rep. Welch has any interest at heart other than his own?

I'll win no popularity contest if I'm perceived as defending banks and their bonus packages. However, my goal isn't to exonerate or condemn banks. I'm here to defend the free market process. There is a better method than congressional meddling for determining which financial executives deserve bonuses. There's also much to fear when Congress uses the tax code to control compensation.

First, Rep. Welch only wants to tax “excessive” bonuses. Who is he, or the federal government as a whole, to decide what is and isn't excessive? Basically, “excessive” means beyond a necessary or proper limit, which is an arbitrary concept at best.

What may seem excessive in one circumstance can be quite routine in another. Once Congress seizes the right to determine appropriate compensation for bank executives it has established precedent to set “proper limits” on salaries for anyone. Who will be next? Barbers? Truck drivers? Play-by-play announcers? Should healthcare reform include wage controls in the medical field? Don't bet the farm that it won't.

Does that mean I favor bonuses for bank execs? That depends. As stated, there is a better way to set wages. I prefer to see the free market, not pandering politicians who are seeking reelection, determine compensation.

If you're unhappy with the bonuses paid at your bank you can do business elsewhere. If you stay, then bonuses must not bother you that much. In addition, government bean-counters shouldn't force, cajole, or lure banks into nonsensical lending practices. Banks should operate on sound financial principles, not politically correct notions about social justice.

Good practice and due diligence are rewarded in the free market. Wise and prudent banks will prosper while depositors and investors will flee foolish institutions in droves. Government manipulation serves only to protect the irresponsible, defer risk and send the entire system tumbling like a house of cards.

Government's market interventions have proven destructive. Allowing government an inroad to wage controls promises a similar, or worse, result. If Congress can punish banking executives for their compensation the door is wide open to do likewise to everyone.