The Right Slant 2012

<body topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 marginheight=0 marginwidth=0> <table cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0 border=0><tr> <td valign="top" colspan=2 height=95 BGCOLOR="#000000" TEXT="#F7F7FF"> <div> <B>the</B><FONT SIZE="6" COLOR="#FFFFFF" FACE="Vrinda" ><I><B><U>right</U></B></I></FONT><B>slant.com</B><FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Vrinda" ><B>.......... never afriad to be </B></FONT><FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#FFFFFF" FACE="Vrinda" ><I><B><U>right</U></B></I></FONT><FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Vrinda" ><B>!</B></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><B>   </B><B> </B></FONT><FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><B> </B><B>|  </B></FONT><FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#FFFFFF" FACE="Arial" ><B>   </B><A HREF="index.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="therightslant.com"><U><B>home</B></U></A></FONT></div> <div> The Right Slant 2012   |   <A HREF="in_layman_s_terms.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="In Laymans Terms"><U>In Layman's Terms</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id25.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Favorite Quotes"><U>Favorite Quotes</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id170.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Published Credits"><U>Published Credits</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id197.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="The Right Slant 2011"><U>The Right Slant 2011</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id26.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Contact Me"><U>Contact Me</U></A></div> <div> </div> </td> </tr><tr> <td valign="top" width=190 BGCOLOR="#000000" TEXT="#F7F7FF"> <div> Back to <A HREF="index.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="therightslant.com"><U>therightslant.com</U></A>.</div> </td> <td valign="top" height=385 BGCOLOR="#FFFFFF" TEXT="#080000"> <div> <B><U>The Right Slant 2012</U></B></div> <div> <A HREF="#king_obama_s_contraception_deception" TITLE="The Right Slant 2012"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dc00000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">King Obama's contraception deception</U></A>: Uproar over forcing religious entities to pay for birth control is all part of the administration's plan. (494)</div> <div> <A HREF="#no_nazis_in_the_corp" TITLE="The Right Slant 2012"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dc00000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">No Nazis in the Corp</U></A>: People are looking a little too hard for racism these days. (587)</div> <div> <A HREF="#the_santorum_conundrum" TITLE="The Right Slant 2012"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dc00000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">The Santorum Conundrum</U></A>: Rick Santorum becomes the latest "conservative alternative" to Mitt Romney. Can he last? (491)</div> <div> <A HREF="#two_buses_traveling_the_same_direction" TITLE="The Right Slant 2012"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dc00000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Two buses traveling the same direction</U></A>: Democrats and Republicans are taking America in the same direction, just at a different pace. (907)</div> <div> <A HREF="#one_fine_day_on_the_tarmac" TITLE="The Right Slant 2012"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dc00000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">One fine day on the tarmac</U></A>: Is Gov. Brewer a racist or is President Obama a sexist? It depends on the spin. (498)</div> <div> <A HREF="#there_s_no_off_season_for_the_professionally_offended" TITLE="The Right Slant 2012"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dc00000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">There's no off-season for the professionally offended</U></A>: Feminists find sexist stereotypes in LEGO toys. (496)</div> <div> <A HREF="#containing_iran_and_maintaining_peace" TITLE="The Right Slant 2012"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dc00000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Containing Iran and maintaining peace</U></A>: Can we deal with Iran's nukes without bombs or the naive hope that the Ayatollah's will play nice? (1045)</div> <div> <A HREF="#how_does_romney_remain_the_frontrunner_" TITLE="The Right Slant 2012"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dc00000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">How does Romney remain the frontrunner?</U></A>: Even Romney's opponents treat him like the favorite. (499)</div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="king_obama_s_contraception_deception"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>King Obama's contraception deception</div> <div> February 15, 2012</div> <bR> <div> Before <I>the Affordable Care Act (ACA)</I> became law its critics warned of undesirable consequences hidden within the monstrous and confusing bill. Naysayers then, they've become prophets. ObamaCare forces every health plan provider to include free coverage for <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/health-reform-implementation/205413-obama-administration-orders-health-plans-to-cover-birth-control-without-co-pays" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/hea"><U><U>contraceptive</U></U></A></FONT> and <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.forbes.com/sites/charleskadlec/2012/02/13/the-audacity-of-power-president-obama-vs-the-catholic-church/print/" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.forbes.com/sites/charleskadle"><U><U>abortive</U></U></A></FONT> services.</div> <bR> <div> But there's a catch. Religious organizations also provide healthcare coverage to their employees. Since ObamaCare offers no religious exemption, church affiliates are required to provide services that conflict with ecclesiastical doctrines. The outcry was immediate, as organizations and charities across the religious spectrum vowed resistance on the grounds that a contraception mandate violates First Amendment freedoms. Therefore, King Obama is compelled to reform his decree, at least in part. He'll order the insurers behind the religious entities to provide free contraception instead.</div> <bR> <div> Didn't the wise King Obama foresee this vehement opposition? You bet he did!</div> <bR> <div> The church is falling for the old bait and switch. Obama picked a fight with the church community over religious freedoms. When the church fought back Obama deftly switched tactics and focused his dictatorial efforts on insurance companies, which have been his main targets from the outset.</div> <bR> <div> The White House knew the firestorm that would result from forcing church-affiliated organizations to pay for their employee's condoms, birth control pills, and abortifacients. But the administration also believes it can weather the storm, appear fair for crafting a compromise, and then target the private sector with relative impunity.</div> <div>  </div> <div> Divide and conquer is an effective tactic, one that goes hand-in-hand with the bait and switch. Obama's edict upon the religious community inspired fear, panic, and anger among the faithful. Bishops and cardinals, ministers and evangelists, priests and rabbis all pledged to defend their religious liberties no matter the cost. They took the bait. As Obama switches the burden to private insurers the religious community appears to be off the hook. The church, according to King Obama's reasoning, will lose their <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hE7ariVggqNdaXXs_eu-vtCwiFPg?docId=335df0e0153849179693c4f303ddbb28" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/arti"><U><U>zeal</U></U></A></FONT> for opposing ObamaCare's tyrannies once it's exempt from the contraception mandate.</div> <bR> <div> The religious community and the commercial insurers should remain united toward repealing ObamaCare's birth control mandate, in fact the ACA in its entirety. But Obama's stratagem -- politically astute but morally repugnant -- will eventually divide opponents with common grievances into separate camps. When the church's government imposed duty to fund abortion and contraception is gone, its interest in defending liberty will also wane. Private insurers must then stand alone.</div> <bR> <div> Who'll cry foul when "evil" insurers are subject to Obama's dictatorial edicts? The public will empathize with the loss of religious liberties much easier than with the loss of economic liberties, although both are diminished when one is compromised.</div> <bR> <div> King Obama used the contraception mandate to bait a vehement reaction from the church, planning all the while to switch his target to the private sector. Once the diversion is complete and the opposition is divided, the private sector will be open to immediate conquest. Subjugating the church can wait for another day.</div> <div> <A HREF="id198_m.htm" TITLE="The Right Slant 2012"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="no_nazis_in_the_corp"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A><FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >No Nazis in the Corp</FONT></div> <div> February 14, 2012</div> <bR> <div> When I served in the United States Navy I participated in the natural inter-service rivalry with the Marine Corps. "Jarheads" they were. And that was on a good day. At other times we referred to the "junior branch" in terms unfit for family reading. But the rivalry was more brotherly than adversarial. Let someone outside the family insult or assault a "jarhead" and we "squids" would defend them tooth and nail. This is one of those times.</div> <bR> <div> <IMG SRC="46c158f0.png" border=0 width="277" height="143" ALIGN="LEFT" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></div> <div> Unless you've spent the last week chasing wooly mammoths across the Siberian tundra you've seen the photo of a Marine sniper unit posed beside a <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://start.toshiba.com/news/read.php?rip_id=%3CD9SQ3QH00%40news.ap.org%3E&ps=..." TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://start.toshiba.com/news/read.php?r"><U><U>"Nazi" flag</U></U></A></FONT>. The "SS" certainly resembles the insignia made infamous in the German Gestapo, the secret police loyal to no one but Hitler, the murderers of millions of Jews who were guilty of nothing more than being born Jewish. Obviously this sniper squad did a poor job of researching their logo choice, thus creating a public relations nightmare. But, does anyone really believe these Marines intentionally posed with a Nazi symbol? You might be surprised.</div> <bR> <div> There are people who not only believe the Marines realized the implications in their symbol beforehand, but actively <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.democraticunderground.com/101613069" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.democraticunderground.com/101"><U><U>embrace</U></U></A></FONT> the evil it once represented. Sen. Dick Durbin would certainly agree that the Marines in question avow Nazism, since he once compared American soldiers directly to Nazis.</div> <div> <IMG SRC="46bbb8c0.jpg" border=0 width="187" height="140" ALIGN="RIGHT" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></div> <div> Friends, this isn't the first time a slanted "SS" has shown up in a public place. Anyone remember KISS? Yes, that KISS, in all of their costumed, blood-puking, skyrocket shooting, overblown, and choreographed infamy. The KISS that wrote one song, recorded it a hundred times and became multi-millionaires. Look at their logo, the basics of which have remained largely unchanged for 35 years. Notice any similarities between the "SS" in KISS and the "SS" on the Marine flag, or on the Gestapo uniform? Certainly KISS generated their share of detractors. But I can't recall their being accused of headlining the Ravensbrück Rock Reunion at the Auschwitz Amphitheatre.</div> <bR> <div> It's one thing to question war, the reasons behind it, and the strategies involved. It's something else to demean our soldiers for innocuous acts. Besides, the U.S. military bends over backwards to investigate alleged misconduct. Eight Marines were prosecuted for their roles in the so-called Haditha Massacre. The result was a single conviction and no jail time. We treated Abu Ghraib like the worst atrocity in human history even while our enemies were beheading civilian contractors and reporters. That's not to say that all American troops are Sgt. York and Audie Murphy. War is a collection of horrors and some soldiers <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-15687522?print=true" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canad"><U><U>snap</U></U></A></FONT> under combat pressure. But we have policed our military reasonably well.</div> <bR> <div> Covert racism undoubtedly exists across all racial, ethnic, and cultural lines. That's still no excuse for ignoring or tolerating overt racism within the military, no matter its origin or target. If said sniper unit has an established pattern of Nazism that's one thing. But a bad choice in unit insignias isn't racism and shouldn't be treated as such.</div> <bR> <div> The American left sees the U.S. military as the world's preeminent force for evil and will pounce on any opportunity to demonize our troops. Thus they've seized on this flag fiasco to paint Marine snipers as Nazi death squads. But where's the evidence to support the notion that these Marines have pledged allegiance to der Fuhrer, aside from an errant choice of insignia? Aren't Marines innocent until proven guilty? What's more, they've earned the benefit of the doubt.</div> <div> <A HREF="id198_m.htm" TITLE="The Right Slant 2012"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="the_santorum_conundrum"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A><FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >The Santorum Conundrum</FONT></div> <div> February 11, 2012</div> <bR> <div> Mitt Romney has withstood every challenge to date, remaining the only constant in the Republican nomination race. There are legitimate reasons for his consistency. Romney is photogenic, has proven business skills, can manage a budget, and heads a campaign flush with cash. The sum total of these assets is the demise of everyone, thus far, who has challenged him.</div> <bR> <div> However, conservatives haven't warmed to Romney, as last week's caucuses confirm. So Rick Santorum becomes the latest, and perhaps strongest, "conservative alternative" the "anyone but Romney" camp has long sought.</div> <bR> <div> Santorum is solidly conservative on many issues. He's pro-life and dedicated to the time-tested family unit. Santorum opposed TARP, Obama's "stimulus" slush fund, and both the auto and Freddie/Fannie bailouts. He's a proven proponent of entitlement reform, recognizing the entitlement system as a budgetary and economic albatross around the nation's neck. He also voted to end direct farm subsidies, and still he won the Iowa Caucuses.</div> <bR> <div> Yet Santorum's silver lining contains a dark cloud. In fact, his résumé includes glaring <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.clubforgrowth.org/whitepapers/?subsec=137&id=902" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.clubforgrowth.org/whitepapers"><U><U>inconsistencies</U></U></A></FONT>. His 2005 vote to subsidize milk production contradicts his efforts to end farm subsidies. While Santorum was fiscally disciplined during the 90s, he fell in line with the "compassionate conservatism" of the Bush era, supporting Medicare Part D, No Child Left Behind, and a highway bill rich in earmarks, including the infamous Bridge to Nowhere. Santorum opposed ethanol subsidies prior to 9/11, changed his mind due to security concerns afterwards, and then voted to end them altogether just a few years later.</div> <bR> <div> Santorum didn't contest Maine, so those results are irrelevant to his momentum. However, before elevating him to savior status we might also consider that he lost his Senate reelection bid by a wide margin. He seems equally comfortable on either side of an issue, depending on whether he's supporting his party or preaching against the opposition. Let's also consider that he received no delegates for his Missouri victory and awarded delegates in Colorado aren't necessarily <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.cologop.org/faq/" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.cologop.org/faq/"><U><U>bound</U></U></A></FONT> to him. Furthermore, Newt Gingrich -- the other "anti-Romney" -- bypassed those caucuses. Where might Santorum have finished had the anti-Romney voters been split between he and Newt, especially in <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2012/colorado-caucuses-feb-7" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/election"><U><U>Colorado</U></U></A></FONT>?</div> <bR> <div> Also, Romney's money and political organization remain formidable. The Mitt Machine was quite thorough in highlighting Gingrich's flaws and we witnessed an associated tumble in Newt's standing. Romney's guns weren't then trained on Santorum. But, with last week's results, Rick becomes an intrusion that warrants a full salvo from Romney's battlewagon. Santorum should expect to take fire from here forward, and not only from Romney. Gingrich isn't the type to fade gracefully into the background, either.</div> <bR> <div> Maybe Rick Santorum is the conservative's best option. He does present solid credentials. However, no candidate is perfect, including Santorum. He bears the dead weight of personal and policy contradictions and inconsistencies. The question is: Can Santorum survive the Romney camp's predictable assault long enough to become the legitimate "anti-Mitt?"</div> <div> <A HREF="id198_m.htm" TITLE="The Right Slant 2012"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="two_buses_traveling_the_same_direction"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>Two buses traveling the same direction</div> <div> February 9, 2012</div> <bR> <div> Imagine we're standing on a highway overpass, watching vehicles of various sizes, configurations, and speeds approach, pass, and disappear over the crest of a distant hill. Off in the distance we notice a large bus approaching.</div> <bR> <div> The bus is traveling well above the posted speed limit. It tailgates slower vehicles, sways violently as it cuts in and out of traffic, and swerves from one side of the highway to the other. The one constant is the driver's reckless disregard for the well-being of his fellow motorists, who are forced into radical evasive tactics to avoid a collision.</div> <bR> <div> We might expect to see a crazed maniac behind the wheel, perhaps a drunkard. But when the bus passes under the bridge, we see that the driver is well-dressed, fully composed, and gripping the steering wheel with both hands. The driver looks like the consummate professional, not a wild-eyed kook. What's more, the passengers aren't the least bit disheveled, nor are they or upset with the driver's erratic maneuvers. They're reading, listening to music, or sleeping, blissfully unaware of the danger in which their driver is placing them.</div> <bR> <div> The bus rockets beneath the underpass, runs two more vehicles into the median, and careens over the crest.</div> <bR> <div> After a silent prayer for the bus' occupants, we turn our eyes back to the oncoming traffic. Of all horrors, another bus is approaching. But this one is different. The second bus is cruising at an appropriate speed. When it approaches a slower vehicle, the driver signals and the bus moves smoothly into the next lane, passes the slower vehicle, signals again and reenters the original lane.</div> <bR> <div> When the bus reaches the overpass we again note the driver's mannerisms, driving techniques, and personal appearance. Everything is the same as with the first driver, maybe better. These passengers also ride peacefully, trusting their driver's ability to avoid danger. The second bus passes smoothly beneath the bridge and over the distant crest at a steady speed.</div> <bR> <div> The contrasts between the buses are obvious. At one wheel is a dangerous radical whose professional façade belies his wanton disregard for his passengers and fellow travelers. His recklessness is rivaled only by his passengers' obliviousness. The second driver is cautious, concerned, and traditional. He is almost sedate, as are the passengers on his bus. However, the buses share a similarity that's more striking than the differences. Both buses are traveling the same direction. If neither changes course, they will ultimately reach the same destination.</div> <bR> <div> The first bus represents the Democrat Party. Its terminus is an all-powerful State, a goal Democrats pursue with reckless abandon. Any harm caused along the route is dismissed as inconsequential. For the Democrat left the end justifies the means, with said end being a Marxist based society steeped with cradle-to-grave collectivism.</div> <bR> <div> The Republican Party drives the second bus, and it follows the same route as the first. As the GOP bus cruises along it encounters mileposts similar to those seen from the Democrat bus: increased federal spending, burgeoning deficits, debilitating debt, and waning liberty. It travels that road a little slower, a little safer, and reaches the destination later. But the second bus will ultimately park in the same station as the first.</div> <bR> <div> Certainly there are differences between the Democrat Party and the Republican Party. But the differences have become more evident in the driving style than in the direction of travel. No matter which bus we board, we'll be riding toward the same destination, that being a manipulative and controlling central government. If we continue riding one of those two buses and expect to arrive at a different station we are defining insanity.</div> <bR> <div> The Democrat Party is so entwined in collectivism that redirection is impossible. Reforming the Democrats would require a course correction so radical that the rehabilitated product would bear no resemblance to the current one. As the number of people beholden to the Democrats' collectivist policies increases, the number of people who ignore their reckless driving and board their bus will also increase.</div> <bR> <div> Conversely, the Republican course may yet be altered. But if changing that direction remains possible, it's only so for a season, and the season is quickly passing. Republican strategists, ever mindful of the electorate's increasing dependence on the State, are driving the party in the same direction as their Democrat counterparts, albeit at a slower pace. Any Republican who promotes a different agenda -- say one in which government actually shrinks -- will earn a commission in the tinfoil hat brigade.</div> <bR> <div> The Founding Fathers foresaw these natural flaws in political parties. Like government, political parties are more interested in attaining power than defending liberty. Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist #1, "Nothing could be more ill-judged than that intolerant spirit which has, at all times, characterized political parties." George Washington also warned us about the dangers inherent to political party agendas. The founders weren't suggesting that parties were intolerable. But anyone brandishing a healthy distrust for government's motivations should carry a similar distrust for a political party's motivations.</div> <bR> <div> Preserving our liberty compels us to recognize the self-serving nature common to political parties. Party loyalty shouldn't blind us to the fact that both major parties are driving our country in the same direction. It may not be time to abandon the Republican bus just yet. But can we at least consider that another bus, traveling a different direction, might someday become necessary?</div> <div> <A HREF="id198_m.htm" TITLE="The Right Slant 2012"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="one_fine_day_on_the_tarmac"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>One fine day on the tarmac</div> <div> February 3, 2012</div> <bR> <div> Air Force One sparkled beneath the brilliant Arizona sun as President Obama and Governor Jan Brewer met one fine day on the tarmac. Then, for no reason, Brewer spat on Obama's foot. Oh, she didn't? Then she asked him for a shoeshine. No? Did her dog mark Air Force One's tires? Wrong again? So what was the big deal?</div> <bR> <div> While both parties appeared terse during their recent meeting, they didn't seem on the verge of blows. Obama was apparently displeased with how Brewer's new book portrayed him while Brewer didn't appreciate Obama's condescending attitude. Fine, there was a mild rift. The situation ended with Brewer inviting Obama to a formal meeting, which a White House spokesman indicated was accepted, and Obama referring to the incident as "overblown" and "not a big deal at all."</div> <bR> <div> Neither participant considered the "confrontation" more than a common disagreement between divergent political persuasions. But the fact that the two alleged combatants let the situation pass didn't prevent the spin machine from going full throttle.</div> <bR> <div> Robert Paul Reyes <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://thesop.org/story/20120127/racist-governor-jan-brewer-disses-president-barack-obama.html" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://thesop.org/story/20120127/racist-"><U><U>wrote</U></U></A></FONT> of Gov. Brewer as if she'd worn a white sheet and hood to meet Obama. According to Reyes, Brewer's a racist for wagging her finger under the President's nose. Disagree and you're a bigot, too. Reyes has made two unsubstantiated assumptions and one inexplicable statement. He assumes Brewer would've treated a white president differently under like circumstances and that anyone who defends Brewer is equally bigoted. Furthermore, he states that the presidency always warrants respect.</div> <bR> <div> It's not improper to respect the presidency. But has Reyes practiced what he now preaches? Was he outraged when Bush was branded a <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/99244" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.americanchronicle.com/article"><U><U>war criminal</U></U></A></FONT>? Or when a film depicting Bush's assassination received critical <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-405644/George-Bush-assassination-film-wins-award.html?printingPage=true" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/art"><U><U>praise</U></U></A></FONT>? Did Reyes demand respect for the presidency when our media cheered an Iraqi reporter who <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/85043" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.americanchronicle.com/article"><U><U>tossed a shoe</U></U></A></FONT> at Bush? No? What a surprise.</div> <bR> <div> Reyes is all too typical of contemporary punditry. He issued a declarative statement based on unsubstantiated opinion. The only fact pertinent to his racism charge is that Brewer is white and Obama black. Then, in an attempt to dissuade dissention, he paints all opposition as racist, too. However, two can play this game. Suppose we reverse the roles?</div> <bR> <div> President Obama abused his powerful position to scold Brewer, a mere woman. It should be obvious to everyone that Obama is an unabashed sexist. Brewer has succeeded in politics, which is a man's profession, and thus threatens Obama's chauvinistic goal of a world filled with June Cleavers. So he slapped her down. Anyone taking the President's side is excusing Obama's overt sexism, meaning they are as bigoted as he. Women are approved only when powerless, barefoot, pregnant, and lacking suffrage.</div> <bR> <div> Is Obama sexist? No more than Brewer is racist. Funny how easily spin on a female governor becomes spin on a male President. Welcome to politics, where racism and sexism aren't defined by ethnicity and gender but by the political advantage each can yield.</div> <div> <A HREF="id198_m.htm" TITLE="The Right Slant 2012"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="there_s_no_off_season_for_the_professionally_offended"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>There's no off-season for the professionally offended</div> <div> January 26, 2012</div> <bR> <div> A professional athlete, no matter the sport, enjoys a certain time of year called the off-season. Off-seasons allow athletes to clear their minds and heal their bodies. As an added benefit, off-seasons prevent fans from becoming bored with the sport. Professional offense-takers should follow that example. Maybe their minds wouldn't be so cloudy and the rest of us wouldn't grow so sick of them.</div> <bR> <div> Feminists head the herd when it comes to taking offense. They can find affront at the drop of a hat. Feminists have taken umbrage at everything from <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.feministfatale.com/2010/03/breaking-victorias-secret-models-love-their-bodies/" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.feministfatale.com/2010/03/br"><U><U>Victoria's Secret</U></U></A></FONT> to <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://msmagazine.com/blog/blog/2010/12/09/my-little-homophobic-racist-smarts-shaming-pony/" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://msmagazine.com/blog/blog/2010/12/"><U><I><U>My Little Pony</U></I></U></A></FONT>. Anything that fails to promote feminism's "strong" woman -- the bra-burning, gruff, nagging, sea hag -- renders women doting airheads suitable for serving the patriarchal society.</div> <bR> <div> Okay, same song; men are pigs. What's new?</div> <bR> <div> Well, something is new. The venerable <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.latimes.com/health/boostershots/la-heb-lego-girls-toy-protest-20120123,0,141471.story" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.latimes.com/health/boostersho"><U><U>LEGO</U></U></A></FONT> is marketing the latest indoctrination tool for a chauvinistic society bent on creating an entire generation of models for <I>the Sports Illustrated</I> swimsuit issue. Specifically, the LEGO Friends line of toys. According to offended feminists, LEGO Friends "limits creativity and healthy role development" and encourages "damaging gender stereotypes."</div> <bR> <div> That sounds serious. But have no fear; the offended will arise to save little girls from childhood fun. In fact, the offended are <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.change.org/petitions/lego-stop-production-of-friends-line-for-girls" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.change.org/petitions/lego-sto"><U><U>petitioning</U></U></A></FONT> LEGO to pull the toys from distribution. The petition's initiator -- Carolyn Costin, MFT (the "T" stands for tyrant, you can decide what the "MF" represents) -- said, "Presenting slimmer, more fashion oriented LEGO people for girls falls right into the pervasive cultural messages for them to focus solely on their appearance and being thin."</div> <bR> <div> Really? Are we supposed to believe that playing with LEGOs will cause a generation of young girls to want to look like their LEGOs? Children of the 70s -- I am one -- played with green army soldiers, Evel Knievel stunt cycles, and cap guns. How many of us wanted to turn green when we grew up, or jump Caesar's Palace, or become a gunslinger?</div> <bR> <div> In fairness, the LEGO Friends collection is rather sugary. Girls can choose from sets such as <I>Olivia's Tree House</I>, <I>the Butterfly Beauty Shop</I>, and <I>Stephanie's Cool Convertible</I>, complete with a puppy for the back seat. Sickening? Infinitely! The LEGO Friends are more nauseating than shotgunning a keg of corn syrup. But for Pete's sake, they're toys!</div> <bR> <div> Even if Carolyn Costin (the MFT) is correct and these toys do cause kids to desire a slimmer figure, is that automatically a problem? We're inundated with stories about what fat slobs Americans have become, even those who grew up idolizing <I>Barbie</I>. Another "thin is in" message might be a godsend. Anyway, what would Carolyn consider a suitable image-building toy: Roseanne Barr's Tub-O-Lard Doughnut Shop, or Gloria Steinem's Chopemoff Vasectomy Clinic?</div> <bR> <div> Still, give Carolyn her due. She's quite the pro at poking her nose into other people's business; a genuine Buttinski Hall of Famer. If only there was an off-season.</div> <div> <A HREF="id198_m.htm" TITLE="The Right Slant 2012"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="containing_iran_and_maintaining_peace"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>Containing Iran and maintaining peace</div> <div> January 25, 2012</div> <bR> <div> No serious person can perceive Iran as anything but an enemy. From the Iran Hostage Crisis to the Ayatollahs' <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#0D0DA7" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.breitbart.com/print.php?id=080418112917.337ttr6z&show_article=1" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.breitbart.com/print.php?id=08"><U><U>vision</U></U></A></FONT> of a world without America, Iran habitually provokes the United States. Recent events aren't likely to warm the relationship. In fact, the Persian Gulf is simmering toward a boil.</div> <bR> <div> Naval <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2011/12/201112256111744890.html" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast"><U><U>exercises</U></U></A></FONT> in the Persian Gulf, routine events under normal circumstances, have escalated into threats against Western powers if further economic sanctions are imposed. Iran is <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.30b3d6dd8339de2bcb1a783e5b922d18.ac1&show_article=1" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id="><U><U>testing</U></U></A></FONT> missiles and issuing <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/04/world/middleeast/iran-warns-the-united-states-over-aircraft-carrier.html?_r=1&hp" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/04/world/"><U><U>warnings</U></U></A></FONT> to U.S. warships concerning navigation in the Strait of Hormuz. Iran has even threatened to blockade that strategic passage, claiming it can accomplish the task with relative ease. Toss in Iran's nuclear research and the match is as close as it's ever been to the Middle East's fuse.</div> <bR> <div> The question isn't whether Iran is an enemy or an ally; she's obviously an enemy. The question is how U.S. interests are best served: confrontation, sanctions, or bombing Iran to the Stone Age. Many adherents to the new age of Republican conservatism prefer the latter option. However, it may not be the best course.</div> <bR> <div> First, this rather hawkish writer is weary of Washington's nation-building combat strategies, which send our troops into battle without the political will to achieve a decisive victory. Nation-building is a poor reason for military deployment. In fact, it's impossible until the enemy loses its will to resist. Only after the enemy's surrender did America help Germany and Japan rebuild.</div> <bR> <div> Since World War II our nation has been more concerned with approval in the court of world opinion than with winning wars. Our troops won the battles in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, only to be denied their ultimate victory. Half of Korea and all of Vietnam fell to communism. The Taliban survives in Pakistan, ready to again infiltrate Afghanistan once our troops are withdrawn. We removed Hussein from Iraq, which was warranted. But we also helped install a Shiite power base -- Shia also drives the Iranian regime -- and a Sharia-based constitution. Did we engage the Taliban and Iraq to further entrench the theology that prompted 9/11?</div> <bR> <div> What about the Iranian people? The Ayatollahs aren't highly esteemed on Tehran's streets. Iranians live oppressed lives based on the tyranny of a self-anointed few. Yet they indulge Western culture whenever possible, far more <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/tehranbureau/2011/12/media-the-regimes-war-against-western-culture-never-ending-always-losing.html" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/"><U><U>often</U></U></A></FONT> than the imams and theocrats would like to believe. Western music, movies, videos, and bikini-clad <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/M/ML_IRAN_BARBIE_DOLLS?SITE=AP&SECTI" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/M/M"><U><U>Barbie dolls</U></U></A></FONT> are so popular they've been subject to government crackdowns. The West has potential allies among the Iranian population. Attacking Iran would damage that affinity.</div> <bR> <div> Besides, destroying Iran's nuclear program won't be easy. It's difficult to believe Iran learned nothing from Israel's bombing of <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Osirak.html" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsou"><U><U>Iraqi</U></U></A></FONT> and <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.jewishpolicycenter.org/826/the-attack-on-syrias-al-kibar-nuclear-facility" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.jewishpolicycenter.org/826/th"><U><U>Syrian</U></U></A></FONT> reactors. Their facilities aren't likely to be standing in open desert with <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203363504577187420287098692.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTTopStories" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424"><U><U>bulls-eyes</U></U></A></FONT> painted around them. If Iran has developed a nuclear weapon, or is progressing toward that end, their laboratories are surely shielded from air assault. Furthermore, <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.newsmax.com/PrintTemplate.aspx?nodeid=419042" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.newsmax.com/PrintTemplate.asp"><U><U>public support</U></U></A></FONT> for attacking Iran is tepid at best. How long before it soured completely, especially if a ground war ensued?</div> <bR> <div> The benefits in bombing Iran are mitigated by the detriments. We might strike a fortified facility we can't destroy. What if we bomb a non-weapons facility -- say an aspirin factory -- or inflict collateral damage that poisons the pro-Western sentiments among Iran's youth?</div> <bR> <div> Sanctions won't derail Iran's nuclear ambitions either. Tyrannical regimes routinely prefer military development over citizen comforts, meaning economic sanctions will harm Iranians while having little effect on Iran's rulers. This scenario is unfolding even now in North Korea. The "people's army" holds grandiose military parades in Pyongyang while North Koreans themselves lack food and electricity. However, you'll notice Kim Jong Ill didn't starve to death in a dark room.</div> <bR> <div> Even while recognizing Iran as an enemy, we might legitimately question whether a nuclear Iran poses a substantially greater threat to the United States than have other nuclear countries. Consider the Soviet Union and Pakistan. Russia was an outright enemy and Pakistan is an uneasy ally ruled by unpredictable Islamic doctrines. Yet neither country launched a nuclear attack on us or on our allies, and we've never bombed their nuclear facilities.</div> <bR> <div> We have lived with nuclear weapons in the hands of enemies, both secular communist and Islamic theocracies, for 60 years. So Iran is charting no new course; they're creating no new threat. The only way Iran would launch a nuclear weapon, or share atomic technology with terrorist organizations, is if they believe the United States wouldn't respond in kind.</div> <bR> <div> To suggest a bilateral summit with Iran constitutes blasphemy in today's conservatism. But two-party talks might prove the best option. A summit of proper tone would satisfy everyone from the hawkish neo-con to the peace-through-surrender pacifist, and render military action more palatable if it becomes necessary.</div> <bR> <div> America's history hasn't been to attack every potential source of danger. Yet Iran should face severe consequences for actual, not perceived, belligerence. Let us be blunt with Iran concerning America's position. Place the Ayatollahs on notice: if Iran's nuclear program adopts an offensive posture, or if there's the slightest hint their technology is being shared outside their borders, the United States will end the threat even if it means annihilating Iran. No further threats, warnings, resolutions, or sanctions will be necessary, just the response of our choosing delivered at our convenience.</div> <bR> <div> The pacifists can be happy. There's no preemptive war with Iran. The hawks can be happy. Iran is on notice concerning their impending doom. Of greater benefit, we aren't further depleting our treasury and committing our troops to another war we're not determined to win.</div> <bR> <div> Of course, this solution hinges on one key element; we must fulfill our threat if and when conditions warrant. Otherwise, we solidify the paper tiger perception, a perception that our politically calculated war policies in Afghanistan and Iraq have done little to dispense.</div> <bR> <div> Iran's done nothing to warrant our trust. So, when the time comes for war I'll be as hawkish as General Patton. Let's join the battle with the full brunt and force the U.S. military can muster, and continue until resistance fails. But addressing possible threats with military force is a prescription for a permanent state of war, which is an unappealing proposal.</div> <div> <A HREF="id198_m.htm" TITLE="The Right Slant 2012"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="how_does_romney_remain_the_frontrunner_"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>How does Romney remain the frontrunner?</div> <div> January 19, 2012</div> <bR> <div> How does Mitt Romney remain atop the Republican field? He's unpopular with fiscal conservatives. Despite his business-friendly reputation, conservatives perceive Romney as a statist wolf in free-market clothing; a classic northeastern moderate if not an outright liberal. He fares even worse with social conservatives. Even with his reformed positions on abortion and marriage, his checkered history on both issues breeds distrust among Republicans.</div> <bR> <div> Since key elements of the GOP base are aligned against Romney there is opportunity for a reliable conservative with stamina for the long haul. Thus far no one has fit the bill.</div> <bR> <div> Michelle Bachman and Rick Perry launched their campaigns with a flourish only to disappear like ice on an August sidewalk. Herman Cain briefly overtook Romney until the "9-9-9 Train" derailed amid a concocted sex scandal or Cain's own wandering eye, whichever you prefer to believe. The sometimes Reaganesque Newt Gingrich has more lives than a cat. But political and personal baggage has rendered him thoroughly inconsistent. Newt's campaign charged Iowa with swelling poll numbers, fell flat, and limped toward New Hampshire. He's ascending again, and yet another personal storm looms on the horizon. Rick Santorum, it turns out, won Iowa. However, the social conservative champion lags woefully behind Romney in ultraconservative South Carolina. Only Ron Paul has managed consistent numbers relative to Romney's. But Paul's polling numbers don't suggest he can overtake Mitt.</div> <bR> <div> Each Republican challenger has charged the Romney beast and each has limped away licking their wounds. Why? You might point to pro-Romney attack ads or recite the media talking point about Romney being the only electable Republican. Another factor is Romney's universal support among the GOP establishment. But there's another reason Mitt Romney gained and maintains his apparent advantage, a reason having as much to do with his opponents as with him.</div> <bR> <div> Romney's competition treats him like the favorite therefore he is the favorite. Each candidate is so determined to be the <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.pressherald.com/news/nationworld/republican-rivals-focus-attacks-on-romney-in-n_h__2012-01-06.html" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.pressherald.com/news/nationwo"><U><U>anti-Romney</U></U></A></FONT> that their own message is being lost in the shuffle. Republicans are wasting their time, and ours, in labeling Mitt as an unreliable conservative; conservatives already see Mitt in that light.</div> <bR> <div> In contrast, Romney behaves like a frontrunner. He portrays himself as the anti-Obama, as a candidate who has moved beyond his Republican challengers. Romney's camp realizes that a majority of the Republican base defines a <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2012/01/09/poll-americans-2-1-fear-obam" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washing"><U><U>successful 2012</U></U></A></FONT> as sending Obama home in time for the White Sox's 2013 home opener. While Romney capitalizes on the desire to defeat Obama the rest of the candidates are focused on beating him.</div> <bR> <div> Republican candidates must develop a message other than "I'm not Romney" if they're to affect the race. With each solid primary finish, whether or not it's a victory, Romney solidifies his status as the nominee-in-waiting. Thus the odds increase that the Republican Party will counter Obama with a candidate in the vein of McCain, Bush, and Dole. Regardless of November's result, the ensuing four years could prove wholly unsatisfying.</div> <div> <A HREF="id198_m.htm" TITLE="The Right Slant 2012"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> </td> </tr></table></body>