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="#dealing_with_racial_slurs_the_nhl_way" TITLE="The Right Slant 2012"><U><B><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dc00000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Dealing with racial slurs the NHL way</B></U></A><B>: Racial slurs mean nothing if the victim refuses the offense. (684)</B></div> <div> <A HREF="#the_zimmerman_conspiracy" TITLE="The Right Slant 2012"><U><B><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dc00000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">The Zimmerman Conspiracy</B></U></A><B>: Did the prosecution file a charge it can't prove just to satisfy a public cry for Zimmerman's head? (503)</B></div> <div> <A HREF="#minister_farrakhan_the_human_conch_shell" TITLE="The Right Slant 2012"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dc00000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Minister Farrakhan, the human conch shell</U></A>: The Nation of Islam leader again proves his head is a vacuum. (481)</div> <div> <A HREF="#the_real_story_behind_hilary" TITLE="The Right Slant 2012"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dc00000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">The real story behind "Hilary Rosen-gate"</U></A>: Hilary Rosen made a mistake, but not in the way most pundits think. (478)</div> <div> <A HREF="#factual_error_clouds_the_zimmerman" TITLE="The Right Slant 2012"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dc00000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Factual error clouds the Zimmerman verdict</U></A>: Forming opinions without facts turned the Zimmerman-Martin case into a political circus. (736)</div> <div> <A HREF="#racism_with_a_side_of_fries" TITLE="The Right Slant 2012"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dc00000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Racism with a side of fries</U></A>: Mary J. Blige's Burger King ad shows how cheap racism charges have become. (486)</div> <div> <A HREF="#government_isn_t_the_creator_of_rights" TITLE="The Right Slant 2012"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dc00000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Government isn't the Creator of rights</U></A>: For a right to be inalienable it must come from a higher authority than government. (847)</div> <div> <A HREF="#supreme_incompetency_on_the_high_court" TITLE="The Right Slant 2012"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dc00000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Supreme Incompetency on the High Court</U></A>: Sotomayor and Kagan confirm Reagan's advice: Don't be afraid to see what you see. (493)</div> <div> <A HREF="#lights_camera_sharpton" TITLE="The Right Slant 2012"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dc00000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Lights, camera, Sharpton!</U></A> As the night follows the day, Sharpton follows the camera to Sanford, FL. (498)</div> <div> <A HREF="#pity_the_poor_working_chump" TITLE="The Right Slant 2012"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dc00000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Pity the poor working chump</U></A>: Want to lower your cell phone bill? Go on welfare. (731)</div> <div> <A HREF="#obama_is_no_ron_paul" TITLE="The Right Slant 2012"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dc00000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Obama is no Ron Paul</U></A>: Obama's campaign thinks it can lure Ron Paul's supporters in the general election. (499)</div> <div> <A HREF="#litigation_is_risky_for_sandra_fluke" TITLE="The Right Slant 2012"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dc00000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Litigation is risky for Sandra Fluke</U></A>: Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD) gives Sandra Fluke bad legal advice. (532)</div> <div> <A HREF="#end_of_the_line_for_maha_rushie_" TITLE="The Right Slant 2012"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dc00000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">End of the line for Maha Rushie?</U></A> The Sandra Fluke incident won't be the end of the Rush Limbaugh Show. (500)</div> <div> <A HREF="#time_to_bury_the_birther_theories" TITLE="The Right Slant 2012"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dc00000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Time to bury the birther theories</U></A>: Even if the evidence were incontrovertible, no one in politics would pursue the birther conspiracy. (500)</div> <div> <A HREF="#obama_and_the_audacity_of_fairness" TITLE="The Right Slant 2012"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dc00000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Obama and the audacity of fairness</U></A>: Does the President really desire "a nation where everybody plays by the same rules"? (790)</div> <div> <A HREF="#so_now_we_re_banning_toy_guns" TITLE="The Right Slant 2012"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dc00000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">So now we're banning toy guns</U></A>: Politicians again ignore crime's true nature. (502)</div> <div> <A HREF="#has_everyone_gone_lin_sane_" TITLE="The Right Slant 2012"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dc00000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Has everyone gone "Lin-sane"?</U></A> The latest episode of political correctness centers on Knicks guard Jeremy Lin. (494)</div> <div> <A HREF="#raising_children_of_the_state" TITLE="The Right Slant 2012"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dc00000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Raising children of the State</U></A>: Policing preschool lunches elevates the State above the home. (771)</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> <div> <A HREF="id198_m.htm" TITLE="The Right Slant 2012"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="dealing_with_racial_slurs_the_nhl_way"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>Dealing with racial slurs the NHL way</div> <div> May 9, 2012</div> <bR> <div> Most people look to the South whenever a case of racial intolerance makes headlines. While that stereotype isn't unfounded, the days when black Southerners -- and black Americans overall -- were legally relegated to second-class status are gone. Our black countrymen can come and go as they please, even attending NASCAR races at Talladega, Alabama. But what about hockey games in Boston, Massachusetts?</div> <bR> <div> Admittedly, ice hockey isn't the toughest sports ticket in the black community, yet there are black hockey fans. So it's likely that some black fans were inside the Boston Garden for Game Seven between the Washington Capitals and the Boston Bruins. No problem, right? Right, until a black Capitals player netted the series-winning goal. The racial slurs then flowed like mint juleps on an antebellum Old South plantation.</div> <bR> <div> To say that some Bruins fans didn't gracefully accept their team's early exit from the Stanley Cup playoffs is an understatement. In fact, disgruntled Boston fans transformed Twitter into a cesspool of boorish <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://start.toshiba.com/news/read.php?rip_id=%3CD9UCSHKO0%40news.ap.org%3E&ps=1013" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://start.toshiba.com/news/read.php?r"><U><U>commentary</U></U></A></FONT>. Now, a few sore losers don't mean all Bostonians are card-carrying members of the Ku Klux Klan. However, the presence of racial slurs in Boston, a stronghold of liberalism, does prove that bigotry doesn't come with a "Made in Dixie" label.</div> <bR> <div> The question isn't whether racial slurs are still part of the national lexicon, or in what part of the country they're most common. The question is what type of response racial slurs demand? Are more hate-crime laws the answer? Should the First Amendment be sacrificed to bureaucratic speech police? Maybe we should just emulate Joel Ward?</div> <bR> <div> Who is Joel Ward? He's the black player who scored the Capitals winning goal. He bore the wrath of immature Boston fans. He's also my favorite hockey player, even though I'd never heard of him before this incident unfolded and know nothing about ice hockey. To me, a hockey broadcast makes as much sense as the evening news from the dark side of the moon. Joel Ward, conversely, makes perfect sense.</div> <bR> <div> Ward was initially stunned by the demeaning tweets, which is understandable. But he didn't book a performance of the Jackson and Sharpton Three-ring Civil Rights Circus. He didn't blame history, slavery, or the daily stress of being a black player in a mostly white sport, a feeling with which white <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.tidesport.org/RGRC/2011/2011_NBA_RGRC_FINAL%20FINAL.pdf" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.tidesport.org/RGRC/2011/2011_"><U><U>NBA players</U></U></A></FONT> can certainly empathize. Instead, Ward simply said, "It has no effect on me whatsoever."</div> <bR> <div> A single statement can't fully define Joel Ward's character. It doesn't divulge his politics, his devotion to family, his charitableness, or if he eats all of his vegetables. It can, however, define his courage and confidence. Joel Ward refused to let a few thoughtless blowhards determine his worth. He dealt with their ignorance in an exemplary manner; a manner that people of all races should adopt as their own.</div> <bR> <div> Successful bigotry -- an oxymoron, I know -- hinges on the ability to diminish another person's pride and self-confidence. When bigoted remarks prompt anger or offense, the bigot has gained the advantage. For instance, had Ward reacted rashly, or threatened retaliation, he would've granted Boston's bigots the sense of accomplishment they sought. Effective defamation demands its victims respond in equal thoughtlessness and hostility. When Ward dismissed the racial slurs he denied his antagonists the satisfaction of having provoked his ire. Here's the score: Joel Ward 1 Boston Bigots 0.</div> <bR> <div> Joel Ward's words were simple, but the lesson within them is profound. When we yield to bigoted opinion we grant power to the bigot. Rather than reacting with anger or hurt feelings we should dismiss baseless accusations, thereby relegating our detractors to an inferior intellectual status. That's what Joel Ward did. He refused to empower his antagonists, proving that their views of him and his racial heritage meant nothing.</div> <bR> <div> We'll never rid the world of bigotry and its associated slurs. That's a pipe dream reserved for Utopian fantasizers. But if all races dismissed racial slurs with the same confidence Joel Ward exhibited we could reduce their effectiveness and frequency. We might even "form a more perfect union."</div> <bR> <div> <I>The preceeding article first appeared at </I><A HREF="http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/05/dealing_with_racial_slurs_the_nhl_way.html" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012"><U><I>American Thinker</I></U></A><I>.</I></div> <div> <A HREF="id198_m.htm" TITLE="The Right Slant 2012"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <div>  <A NAME="the_zimmerman_conspiracy"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>The Zimmerman Conspiracy</div> <div> April 28, 2012</div> <bR> <div> So George Zimmerman is going to trial, where a jury will decide what actually happened between him and Trayvon Martin. Until the trial is finished mulish minds on both sides will cling to their predetermined versions of the truth. Such devout passions deserve their own conspiracy.</div> <bR> <div> Generally, conspiracy theories represent easy explanations for otherwise unexplainable events, or they promote a political agenda. Thus we have "Truthers," "Birthers," and tyrannical secret societies propagated by the Illuminati. However, just because most conspiracies are built on fluff rather than substance doesn't entirely discount the reality of conspiracies. We're witnessing one in Sanford, Florida.</div> <bR> <div> Trayvon Martin's life was unquestionably squandered, whether Zimmerman is innocent or guilty. That's the singular point upon which all sides should agree; after that the facts are muddled. So let's focus on the conspiracy rather than on rehashing divergent and unsubstantiated opinions. Doesn't it seem odd for a prosecutor to file a second-degree murder charge after the initial investigation produced no such evidence? Why would an experienced prosecutor take such a stance?</div> <bR> <div> Bear in mind that I'm not raising this question; it's the question respected legal experts have asked since photographic evidence was revealed that supports Zimmerman's story. What did the prosecution know concerning those photos prior to filing the murder charge?</div> <bR> <div> According to Harvard Law School Professor <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/04/20/Dershowitz-prosecution-immoral" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/"><U><U>Alan Dershowitz</U></U></A></FONT>, the second-degree murder charge against Zimmerman is "so thin it won't make it past a judge . . . everything in the affidavit is completely consistent with a defense of self-defense." Dershowitz also said the prosecution committed a "grave ethical violation" if the photos were known prior to filing the affidavit.</div> <bR> <div> Mr. Dershowitz continued, "The whole country is watching. What do they benefit from having half-truths in an affidavit?"</div> <bR> <div> I won't pretend to instruct Mr. Dershowitz on the finer points of law. However, I will argue politics to a certain degree. And politics has forged public opinion about George Zimmerman from the outset. Therefore the State benefits greatly from filing a second-degree murder charge against Zimmerman . . . if the evidence confirms he acted in self-defense.</div> <bR> <div> Consider what a powder keg this case has been since day one. Zimmerman and his family have been threatened. Race hustlers accused the Sanford Police Department of a quasi-lynching and subsequent cover-up. Protesters demanded not only Zimmerman's arrest but his conviction. The New Black Panthers placed a bounty on Zimmerman and the pros and cons of self-defense and gun control laws have been argued. The product of these variables is division and potential civil unrest, which truly benefits no one.</div> <bR> <div> The prosecution found itself in a tight spot. There was a need to placate the mob mentality and avoid potential riots while also protecting the rights of the accused and of self-defense. What could be a better solution than filing a tough-on-crime charge that can't produce a conviction? The mob's call for justice is answered without taking a chance on imprisoning an innocent defendant or compromising the right of self-defense.</div> <bR> <div> It's a tidy conspiracy. Any takers?</div> <div> <A HREF="id198_m.htm" TITLE="The Right Slant 2012"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <div>  <A NAME="minister_farrakhan_the_human_conch_shell"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>Minister Farrakhan, the human conch shell</div> <div> April 23, 2012</div> <bR> <div> Most people believe you can hear the ocean roar if you place a conch shell to your ear. I've always thought the sound was more like a steady and annoying wind, the kind that blows endlessly in no particular direction. When you think about it in that light, Louis Farrakhan is quite like a conch shell. If you placed his head to your ear you'd likely hear the same sound.</div> <bR> <div> Farrakhan, never a stranger to controversy, created quite a stir with his recent ramblings about people killing their leaders, about Jesus, David, and Solomon -- all Hebrews -- being African, and about Jesus himself being a <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.theblaze.com/stories/brother-aint-shooting-no-blanks-farrakhan-tells-blacks-breeding-with-whites-is-the-end-of-your-race/" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.theblaze.com/stories/brother-"><U><U>Muslim</U></U></A></FONT> despite having preceding Mohammad by six centuries. It's rhetorical flamboyance extraordinaire, but coming from Farrakhan it's not surprising. For him to utter an odd word here and there is more the rule than the exception. However, even Farrakhan can exceed his own high standard for balderdash, and this is one of those times.</div> <bR> <div> Sure, Farrakhan's remarks warranted a certain amount of outrage. However, his greatest offense was his ignorance of, or absolute disregard for, reality. While defending his claim that Jesus was a black man -- Jesus was a Jew and neither white nor black -- Farrakhan said, "You are not trained to accept wisdom from a black person, no matter how wise that black person is."</div> <bR> <div> Oh Louis, how can you, a single man, be so wrong?</div> <bR> <div> There are people who readily accept wisdom from black people. We call them conservatives. In fact, I would argue that a conservative's pursuit of wisdom transcends the racial and ethnic spectrum. However, there's a catch. Since the goal is to gain understanding, conservatives will ignore fools, henceforth defined as anyone who makes Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton appear levelheaded. Mr. Farrakhan does just that, which is why he's routinely dismissed as a certified nutcase. </div> <bR> <div> How can Farrakhan lodge such a charge when he himself ignores wise individuals who share his racial heritage but shun his divisive political ideology? For example, does Farrakhan accept wisdom from syndicated columnist and George Mason University economics professor <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/favicon.ico" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/favicon.ico"><U><U>Walter E. Williams</U></U></A></FONT>? Does he read <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.tsowell.com/writings.html" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.tsowell.com/writings.html"><U><U>Thomas Sowell</U></U></A></FONT>, a black man whose wisdom propels him to write editorials, scholarly essays, and books as easily as most of us tie our shoes? Does Farrakhan seek the wisdom of former Oklahoma Congressman J.C. Watts, or Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, or Shelby Steele, or Kevin Jackson, or Star Parker?</div> <bR> <div> While Farrakhan undeniably harbors delusions of intellectual grandeur and fancies himself a serious contributor to public discourse, his charge is as laughable as it is false. Maybe this tirade resulted from Farrakhan's jealousy of black men and women who impart genuine wisdom with relative ease. But most likely his rhetoric results from a mind that exists in a vacuum, where the only sound is the steady and annoying wind that blows endlessly in no particular direction.</div> <div> <A HREF="id198_m.htm" TITLE="The Right Slant 2012"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="the_real_story_behind_hilary"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>The real story behind "Hilary Rosen-gate"</div> <div> April 18, 2012</div> <bR> <div> Hilary Rosen's <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/hilary-rosen-throws-mitt-romney-a-lifeline-in-war-on-women/2012/04/12/gIQAJVTqCT_blog.html" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-"><U><U>feud</U></U></A></FONT> with Ann Romney is over. Yet we've seen once again how quick a proponent of a woman's right to choose will turn on another woman whose choice differs from liberal orthodoxy. Had Romney chosen to abort her five kids she'd have been Rosen's heroine rather than her target. The same can be said if Ann had shunned family for a career.</div> <bR> <div> Rosen has since apologized, but not before receiving her own share of "scorn" for belittling Romney's family devotion. While liberal talking heads were <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.nbcchicago.com/entertainment/television/Jon-Stewart-Hilary-Rosen-Just-Made-the-Republican-Party-Pro-Choice-147717075.html" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.nbcchicago.com/entertainment/"><U><U>spinning</U></U></A></FONT> Rosen's inanity into a spoof of Republicans, Democrat strategists <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.mediaite.com/tv/david-axelrod-to-cnns-john-king-hilary-rosen-is-your-employee-not-ours/" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.mediaite.com/tv/david-axelrod"><U><U>ran</U></U></A></FONT> from her like she'd arrived at the Baptist picnic toting a bottle of Jack Daniels. Yet Rosen's offense wasn't her assessment of Ann Romney. Her actual faux pas arose when she said of the "Republican War on Women":</div> <bR> <div> Well, first, can we just get rid of this word, "war on women"? The Obama campaign does not use it, President Obama does not use it-this is something that the Republicans are accusing people of using, but they're actually the ones spreading it.</div> <bR> <div> Unintentional error is excusable. But Rosen's false and illogical opinions weren't unintentional. No rational person believes Republicans would sabotage their standing with female voters by wrongly accusing themselves of waging war on women. To accept Rosen's accusation as fact, one must also accept that <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://emilyslist.org/" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://emilyslist.org/"><U><U>Emily's List</U></U></A></FONT> and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) are members of some vast, right-wing cabal.</div> <bR> <div> Emily's List has issued an endless stream of emails accusing "ultra-conservatives" of "attacking" the organization's preferred candidates, predominantly females. In a message dated March 23, 2012 Emily's List supported electing women to "stop the Republican War on Women in its tracks." On April 12 Emily's List claimed Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker had "taken the Republican War on Women and made it his personal crusade." The DCCC's director, Kathy Ward, issued a short message that mentioned "war on women" four times, concluding with, "Let's make Republicans regret they ever launched a War on Women." Even Vice President Biden, certainly a part of the Obama campaign, said, "I think the 'war on women' is real."</div> <bR> <div> Sorry Hilary; Republicans didn't create the "War on Women" theme and everyone knows it, including you.</div> <bR> <div> So the real issue in "Hilary Rosen-gate" wasn't Rosen's opinion of Ann Romney, as the pontificators have pontificated. It was her blatant lie. Why would she issue a statement so nonsensical, so fabricated, so refutable? There's a method to her madness. Rosen knows that large numbers of liberal voters will accept her story as the unmitigated gospel, never bothering to recognize or research the truth. Rosen was publicly pandering to a segment of her party's base.</div> <bR> <div> It only appeared the Democrat Party had tossed Hilary Rosen under the bus. In baseball terminology she took one for the team. When the heat's off the Democrat hierarchy will reward her loyalty.</div> <div> <A HREF="id198_m.htm" TITLE="The Right Slant 2012"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="factual_error_clouds_the_zimmerman"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>Factual error clouds the Zimmerman verdict</div> <div> April 13, 2012</div> <bR> <div> Factual error sounds like an oxymoron, similar to deafening silence, dark lamp, or definite maybe. However, a factual error isn't so much a matter of linguistic construction as of personal perception. Once error is accepted as fact there's little chance that evidence will change public opinion. Subsequent conclusions are then based on accounts that may or may not be accurate.</div> <bR> <div> The George Zimmerman-Trayvon Martin saga produced the perfect storm for factual error. An overzealous neighborhood watch volunteer, George Zimmerman, pursued and killed an unarmed teenager, Trayvon Martin. Zimmerman uttered a racial slur and based his assumptions of Martin's criminal intent on the youth's race. Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law condones vigilante murder and Martin's hoodie made him a thug.</div> <bR> <div> But each aforementioned fact contains a startling array of error. And each error could've been avoided simply by waiting for the story to fully develop.</div> <bR> <div> NBC's creative editing of <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/04/08/MNIP1O0B4O.DTL" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg"><U><U>911 tapes</U></U></A></FONT> portrayed Zimmerman in a false light, and he apparently used no racial epithets to describe Martin. Wearing a hoodie in the warm Florida climate might be odd but doesn't necessarily convey dubious intent on Martin's part. "Stand Your Ground" laws recognize the basic right to counter an imminent threat, even with deadly force. Yet "Stand Your Ground" conveys no right, expressed or implied, to pursue or provoke someone who appears suspicious. Depending on who ultimately attacked whom, either Martin or Zimmerman could argue self-defense.</div> <bR> <div> If Trayvon was innocent, then Zimmerman assailed, and eventually took, Martin's right to life, to liberty, and to pursue happiness. Would Trayvon not be correct in defending those rights? However, if Trayvon assaulted Zimmerman, as some <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/cutline/trayvon-martin-shooting-details-emerge-facebook-twitter-accounts-180103647.html" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/cutline/tray"><U><U>accounts</U></U></A></FONT> claim, then Zimmerman had every right to protect his life. At this point the public has just enough fact and just enough error to substantiate an emotional response, not to render a life-changing verdict.</div> <bR> <div> I'm not suggesting the protests are baseless. In fact, they would be commendable if the intent was to prompt a more thorough investigation of Trayvon's death. But are the marches geared toward a verdict based on evidence, one way or the other? Not at all; their demand is George Zimmerman's <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.workers.org/2012/us/million_hoodie_marches_0405/" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.workers.org/2012/us/million_h"><U><U>conviction</U></U></A></FONT>. Therefore the justice marches are undeniably conflicted. While angry that Zimmerman allegedly denied Trayvon Martin his right to life and liberty without due cause, they're demanding George Zimmerman be treated likewise, convicted regardless the evidence. Protestors are practicing mob rule, which has no place in legitimate jurisprudence.</div> <bR> <div> Zimmerman has now been charged. If the evidence warrants, convict him. But he shouldn't be arrested, much less convicted, because street mobs have predetermined his guilt. He shouldn't be prosecuted to appease Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. He shouldn't be imprisoned because <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/black-panther-rage-10g-capture-trayvon-killer-article-1.1050370" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national"><U><U>racists</U></U></A></FONT> seek retribution on their own terms. Zimmerman is assumed innocent until the State proves his guilt; Zimmerman himself needn't prove a thing.</div> <bR> <div> Trayvon's supporters have made a trustworthy verdict improbable, perhaps unattainable. Due to reliance on factual error the case against Zimmerman has been so politicized that no one will be satisfied with its conclusion. Seating an impartial jury of Zimmerman's peers will prove difficult at best, and confidence in the subsequent proceedings will be minimal. The possibility of a fair trial is in doubt, as is the probability that the mobs will accept Zimmerman's possible exoneration.</div> <bR> <div> No one knows what happened between Zimmerman and Martin. Perhaps an overzealous Zimmerman doggedly pursued an imaginary problem in Martin, belying his self-defense claim. Maybe Martin assaulted Zimmerman, posing an imminent threat to his life and limb, which places Zimmerman in the right. Had cooler heads prevailed from the outset we might have hard evidence on whether Zimmerman acted defensively, and thus correctly, or offensively, and thus criminally. Instead we have a situation where the end result, whatever it may be, will prove nothing. If Zimmerman is convicted it will appear that he was sacrificed to placate the mob mentality and subsequent unrest it portends. Should Zimmerman be acquitted, institutional racism will be blamed for exonerating an innocent black teenager's murderer.</div> <bR> <div> There is one certainty in all this uncertainty. Zimmerman's trial will produce neither racial unity nor cohesion. It'll only fuel the people who profit from inflaming racial tensions, as have <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/8795081/" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/879"><U><U>previous</U></U></A></FONT> <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1024/p09s01-coop.html" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1024/p09s0"><U><U>cases</U></U></A></FONT>. We could've avoided this circus had we refrained from forming initial judgments based on factual errors. We're in good position to gain wisdom that will help us better address such future situations. But chances are we'll just end up offended.</div> <div> <A HREF="id198_m.htm" TITLE="The Right Slant 2012"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <div>  <A NAME="racism_with_a_side_of_fries"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>Racism with a side of fries</div> <div> April 9, 2012</div> <bR> <div> Ever wonder how a post-racial America might look? Well, keep wondering. Not only is racism a perpetual human flaw common to all races, but some people will find it when it needn't be sought. They'll look where it's least expected, where no normal person would notice, where Burger King filmed a commercial with Mary J. Blige.</div> <bR> <div> Burger King hired Blige to hawk their chicken tenders, and judging from the hostile reception the ad received you'd have thought the script called for Blige to sing <I>Massa's in de Cold, Cold Ground</I>. The indignation flowed like honey mustard.</div> <bR> <div> Madame Noire, a website dedicated to black women, <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://madamenoire.com/152765/an-open-letter-to-mary-j-blige-re-her-buffoonish-burger-king-commercial/" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://madamenoire.com/152765/an-open-le"><U><U>called</U></U></A></FONT> the ad "unsettling" and stereotypical buffoonery. One pundit charged Burger King with manipulating a black woman to sell chicken: "Because God knows black folk won't buy anything unless there's a song, and preferably a dance, attached to it." Another wrote, "To see her (Blige) sing for chicken is jarring."</div> <bR> <div> The second claim is utter nonsense. Only an idiot would believe Mary J. Blige sang for chicken. I'll bet she sang for money, and lots of it. Good for her. But the "unsettling" affect, the stereotyping, the idea of "black folk" shunning any product not tied to a song or dance, that's a little trickier.</div> <bR> <div> Granted, the comment about singing and dancing was offered in sarcasm, which I can appreciate to a point. But the days when a blackface minstrel chowing on chicken and watermelon was considered an accurate portrayal of the average black person are long gone. While BK's ad was silly, silliness isn't racism. The only thing the BK-Blige combo should insult is our intelligence.</div> <bR> <div> Had Mary uttered a line such as, "Dis' here chicken sho' do taste mighty fine," the outrage among Madame Noire bloggers might be understandable. But for Pete's sake, take a walk on the real side. Today's black Americans are multi-millionaire athletes, actors and actresses, and performers of various kinds, like Mary J. Blige. They're business leaders, executives, entrepreneurs, and -- dare I say? -- President. Blige simply used her status and stardom to make a buck. Big deal! Why, in 21st Century America, can't a black woman advertise chicken, or anything else, without self-serving hacks taking umbrage?</div> <bR> <div> Not all Madam Noire bloggers found offense in the ad. Yet the ad remained racist. Just the anticipation of racism, it would <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://madamenoire.com/153668/mary-j-blige-and-why-stereotypes-persist/" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://madamenoire.com/153668/mary-j-bli"><U><U>seem</U></U></A></FONT>, causes fear of racism among blacks. But if merely anticipating the possibility of racism constitutes racism, how then can any person interact with another race? Whatever is said or done becomes racism if an aggrieved party perceives it so. Harmony can't exist under such circumstances. But resentment can, and it will.</div> <bR> <div> Both Burger King and Blige have since <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/entertainment/celebrities_gossip/146304313.html" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/enter"><U><U>apologized</U></U></A></FONT> for the ad, which Burger King has pulled. But the people who should apologize are those who created this issue from nothing. Racial divisiveness won't end as long as publicity hogs profit from stirring up strife.</div> <div> <A HREF="id198_m.htm" TITLE="The Right Slant 2012"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <div>  <A NAME="government_isn_t_the_creator_of_rights"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>Government isn't the Creator of rights</div> <div> April 5, 2012</div> <bR> <div> Whether a politician's words constitute a flagrant faux pas or innocent slip of the tongue often depends on the offender's party affiliation. Democrats can commit untimely gaffes with relative impunity. But for Republicans to utter supposed misstatements is proof-positive that conservatives are knuckle-draggers. By some <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://wearemichigan.com/documents/GovernmentRights.pdf" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://wearemichigan.com/documents/Gover"><U><U>opinions</U></U></A></FONT> Rick Santorum committed such a verbal error while countering claims that government mandated healthcare is a fundamental right.</div> <bR> <div> "Rights come from our creator," Santorum <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/03/rick_santorum_on_health_care_l.html" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.s"><U>declared</U></A></FONT>. "They are protected by the Constitution of this country. Rights should not and cannot be created by a government because any time a government creates a right, they can take that right away."</div> <bR> <div> Think what you will about Rick Santorum, his record, and his future prospects. But his transgression wasn't inaccuracy. His sin was daring to challenge the fundamental leftist idea that rights originate in government.</div> <bR> <div> To assume human liberties, defined as rights, are products of government is illogical. Since government produces nothing of its own accord, and therefore possesses nothing, it can only distribute what it first takes. Government can bestow retractable privileges but not inalienable rights. For example, governments issue the driver's license, which is considered a privilege. As such, governments can disperse the driver's license on their terms, according to their will, or revoke the privilege altogether. A veritable right is quite different.</div> <bR> <div> Genuine rights are inalienable and self-evident. A right exists without government permission and no expert translation is necessary to understand its presence. Rational people instinctively understand their rights and how government incursions weaken their liberties. So to recognize the Creator as the source of liberty is entirely sensible. What a Creator has granted no government can retract. Government may ignore a right, a too common occurrence, but the right still exists for those who will undergo the <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.ushistory.org/paine/crisis/c-04.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.ushistory.org/paine/crisis/c-"><U><U>fatigues</U></U></A></FONT> of supporting it.</div> <bR> <div> The media is government's willing accomplice in undermining rights and liberties. In fact, the two are working overtime to subvert our natural right to determine our own happiness, and they're rewriting our foundational history in the process. In the news story on Santorum's supposed misstatement, the <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/03/rick_santorum_on_health_care_l.html" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.s"><U><U>reporter</U></U></A></FONT> promotes the idea that government can bestow rights, claiming that men placed our rights in our Constitution. That reporter is either ignorant or an ideological puppet.</div> <bR> <div> The Founders never claimed to have invented or granted the rights in the Constitution; they wrote so as to recognize preexisting rights and to protect them from government abuse. The Constitution's purpose wasn't to <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html"><U><U>enumerate</U></U></A></FONT> each individual liberty common to free people. Rather it was to restrain government from trampling not only identified rights but any others that naturally exist. In order to establish a workable government while maintaining inalienable rights and liberties, the Founders had to recognize the source of rights as beyond government's ability.</div> <bR> <div> While big government advocates often belittle the idea that rights are <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://consortiumnews.com/2012/02/12/rick-santorums-nightmarish-america/" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://consortiumnews.com/2012/02/12/ric"><U><U>natural</U></U></A></FONT>, dismissing it as the theocratic ramblings of Christian fundamentalists, their argument is not with our Creator alone. It's also with the Founding Fathers, especially Thomas Jefferson. The man most credited with resisting an American theocracy also believed rights emanated from a higher source than human government. In his most obvious reference, found in <I>the Declaration of Independence</I>, Jefferson readily acknowledged the Creator's work in mankind's inalienable rights. Furthermore, and equally damaging to big government proponents, Jefferson recognized this truth as "self-evident." He obviously believed basic rights originated outside of human government and were recognizable without its bureaucratic analysis. And lest we assume Jefferson's positions in the Declaration were isolated, he left other references to confirm his view.</div> <bR> <div> In <I>A View on the Rights of British America</I> Jefferson again declared rights as self-evident and outside the so-called generosity of governments. Jefferson knew that a free people would recognize rights as coming from nature's laws, "<FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.upa.pdx.edu/IMS/currentprojects/TAHv3/Content/PDFs/Jefferson_Rights_of_British_America_1774.pdf" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.upa.pdx.edu/IMS/currentprojec"><U><U>and</U></U></A></FONT> not as the gift of their chief magistrate." As in the Declaration, Jefferson confirmed his belief that the principles of right and wrong were obvious to any reasonable observer: "to <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.upa.pdx.edu/IMS/currentprojects/TAHv3/Content/PDFs/Jefferson_Rights_of_British_America_1774.pdf" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.upa.pdx.edu/IMS/currentprojec"><U><U>pursue</U></U></A></FONT> them requires not the aid of many counselors."</div> <bR> <div> Jefferson believed people instinctively understood their rights and the roots thereof. However, to remove any lingering concerns about government's authority to grant or revoke rights let's again seek guidance from <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.upa.pdx.edu/IMS/currentprojects/TAHv3/Content/PDFs/Jefferson_Rights_of_British_America_1774.pdf" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.upa.pdx.edu/IMS/currentprojec"><U><I><U>Rights</U></I></U></A></FONT>: "The God, who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time; the hand of force may destroy, but cannot disjoin them."</div> <bR> <div> Possessing our rights is as natural as taking our next breaths. To have life is to possess rights. Government, Jefferson's "hand of force", can refuse to acknowledge our rights even to the point of destroying both us and our ability to exercise liberty. But it cannot separate one from the other; life and liberty are mutually inclusive. To take one is to take both.</div> <bR> <div> Rights exist whether or not a standing government is sympathetic to their presence. Santorum's critics should then save their breath. The idea of a Creator granting our liberty is radical only in the minds of tyrants and slaves. It is, however, well within the Founding Father's thoughts on the relationship between life and liberty, between citizens and governments.</div> <bR> <div> <I>The preceeding column first appeared on </I><A HREF="http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/04/government_isnt_the_creator_of_rights.html" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/04/g"><U><I>American Thinker</I></U></A><I>.</I></div> <div> <A HREF="id198_m.htm" TITLE="The Right Slant 2012"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="supreme_incompetency_on_the_high_court"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>Supreme Incompetency on the High Court</div> <div> April 5, 2012</div> <bR> <div> A Supreme Court justice should present an image of intelligence, competence, and wisdom. Such qualities identify sound judgment and inspire public trust. But two of SCOTUS's "progressive" purists have sullied that image. In fact, we might wonder if a grasp on reality remains requisite for a seat on the high bench.</div> <bR> <div> During ObamaCare arguments Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked, "What's wrong with leaving this in the hands of those who should be fixing it?"</div> <bR> <div> Were Sotomayor referring to the free market, which has been all but removed from the healthcare industry, we could admire her insight. But when we understand that she's referring to Congress, we must question her loyalty to, and understanding of, our Constitution. We might even question her sanity.</div> <bR> <div> The U.S. Constitution doesn't grant Congress the power to force citizens to purchase anything, including health insurance. Such federal power is neither expressed nor implied, therefore it doesn't exist. But even if Congress were authorized to provide, manage, or mandate health insurance, who in their right mind would defer to Congress' wisdom?</div> <bR> <div> The Congress that passed ObamaCare, to which Sotomayor would defer, was under Nancy Pelosi's direction, and Pelosi is contradiction personified. She recently told reporters that her Congress "wrote our bill [the Affordable Care Act] in a way that was Constitutional." That's beyond unbelievable, coming from the person who said ObamaCare must pass so we could discover what the bill contained. It's even more unbelievable when we consider that this same Nancy Pelosi piously dismissed a reporter's concern about Congress' constitutional authority to enact ObamaCare. And yet Sotomayor trusts Congress, which has proven inept at nearly every subject it addresses, to correct problems within the healthcare industry? That's psychotic.</div> <bR> <div> If Sotomayor's views were isolated, or represented a worst case example of judicial reasoning, we might dismiss them out of hand. But her opinions are neither isolated nor a worst case scenario. Justice Elena Kagan upped the ante. One of the key arguments against ObamaCare is its coercive nature, to which Kagan responded, "Why is a big gift from the federal government a matter of coercion?"</div> <bR> <div> Kagan possesses, at best, a warped appreciation for giving. A gift is, by definition, free. ObamaCare isn't free. The cost may be reflected in mandates, fines, or coverage for the uninsured, but ObamaCare carries an unavoidable price. State governments, insurers, medical professionals, and individuals must absorb the cost of Obama's supposed gift while navigating the regulatory maze the requisite bureaucracy will create. A gift with such strings attached is better left unwrapped.</div> <bR> <div> Because Sotomayor and Kagan are Supreme Court justices their opinions, however incredulous, are granted credibility. It needn't be so. Ronald Reagan warned us, "Don't be afraid to see what you see." While both Sotomayor and Kagan are educated, education doesn't invariably grant wisdom to its possessor. When we hear Sotomayor and Kagan speak on ObamaCare's constitutionality and benefit, let us not be afraid to see their incompetency and the threat to liberty it represents.</div> <div> <A HREF="id198_m.htm" TITLE="The Right Slant 2012"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="lights_camera_sharpton"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>Lights, camera, Sharpton!</div> <div> March 29, 2012</div> <bR> <div> The classic image of the Hollywood movie set features a gruff director -- wearing a beret and chomping a cigar -- bellowing, "Lights, camera, action!" The actors then perform their roles. In Sanford, Florida the director might shout, "Lights, camera, Sharpton!"</div> <bR> <div> Although Al Sharpton is a devout blowhard, let's give the devil his due. Whenever there's race to hustle or cameras to hog, he never misses his cue. In the wake of Trayvon Martin's untimely demise, Sharpton delivered a <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57404609/trayvon-parents-son-disrespected-even-in-death/" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-5740"><U><U>timeless line</U></U></A></FONT> to the teen's parents: "they will try to make your son a junkie, thief, assaulter, everything else before this is over."</div> <bR> <div> It's theatrical history, Mr. Sharpton starring in a role for which he's uniquely qualified, dividing public opinion. His concern over that fateful night when one life ended and another was forever altered is purely professional. Sharpton is an actor, a caped civil rights crusader manipulating Trayvon's death to build his own street cred. It's a role he's played many times over.</div> <bR> <div> Remember the Duke Lacrosse case, when white lacrosse players were accused of raping Crystal Mangum, a black stripper? Al Sharpton declared the accused guilty without a shred of substantiating evidence. Rich, powerful, white men had abused a vulnerable black woman, as if the scene had played out on an 18th Century southern plantation. Anyone who questioned Mangum's story was racist, sexist, and probably a few other things.</div> <bR> <div> There was only one problem. Mangum wasn't a victim; she was a lying <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/8795081/" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/879"><U><U>fraud</U></U></A></FONT>. Ensuing scenes found her convicted of child abuse and charged with the stabbing death of her boyfriend. But before Mangum's story reached its ugly climax Sharpton had long since left the stage.</div> <bR> <div> Sharpton played a similar role in Louisiana's Jena Six case. The script reverberated with racial injustice when Mychal Bell was arrested for beating a white classmate. The cameras rolled and Al delivered in all his demagogic glory. Sharpton's dramatic monologues declared Bell the victim of blatant racism at a racist high school in a racist southern town. However, Mychal Bell turned out to be everything his critics had said, and Jena's systemic racism was pure <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1024/p09s01-coop.html" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1024/p09s0"><U><U>hype</U></U></A></FONT>. When the scene ended and the set fell dark, Bell remained in jail and Sharpton had disappeared quicker than September snow.</div> <bR> <div> Since Al Sharpton claims the title of reverend, it's fitting for his marquee to come directly from biblical <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%207&version=NKJV" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?sea"><U><U>text</U></U></A></FONT>, "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves." Al plays the role of the sympathetic civil rights crusader. Inwardly he's a publicity hog, Kim Kardashian without the buxom figure.</div> <bR> <div> Evidence to date can <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2120096/Trayvon-Martin-case-Friend-Zimmerman-identifies-Neighbourhood-Watch-captain-screaming-help-911-call.html" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-"><U><U>neither</U></U></A></FONT> exonerate nor convict George Zimmerman for Trayvon's death. Jumping to either conclusion is foolishly immature. But identifying Al Sharpton as a race-hustler is verifiable. He flawlessly performs the black leader's role, only to vanish without a trace just prior to the scene's climax. Keep a close eye on Sanford, Florida. Al Sharpton's latest performance is can't-miss theatre.</div> <div> <A HREF="id198_m.htm" TITLE="The Right Slant 2012"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <div>  <A NAME="pity_the_poor_working_chump"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>Pity the poor working chump</div> <div> March 24, 2012</div> <bR> <div> Fifty years' worth of war on poverty has produced little benefit, save for a few valuable lessons. For instance, we've learned about the valiant struggle the disadvantaged wage against capitalist oppression. The homeless, the hungry, and the downtrodden are victims of free market greed. But there's one participant in Washington's war on poverty who's routinely ignored, one whose plight the pointy-headed elites never champion: the working chump.</div> <bR> <div> Lest anyone get the wrong idea, a working chump isn't identified by their intellectual prowess but by their productivity. Their status ranges from the professional to the tradesman, the rich to the poor. Such people are driven to meet their own needs and become agitated when others shun that responsibility. While such productive people represent a <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/02/2012-index-of-dependence-on-government" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.heritage.org/research/reports"><U><U>declining</U></U></A></FONT> socioeconomic class, they are indispensable. The entitlement wagon is overloaded with passengers who favor the free ride. Did someone not pull that wagon, it would stall. No one would get what they need, much less what they want. Working chumps are the mules who pull the wagon.</div> <bR> <div> Leftists promote entitlement programs as necessary to meeting essential human needs, and there's an element of truth in their position, for there are essential human needs. However, leftists omit a key fact. There exists no right to receive life's essentials at another person's expense.</div> <bR> <div> Voluntarily contributing to a neighbor's well-being is charitable. Being forced to provide for another's needs is a form of servitude. How else can we describe someone who is forced to relinquish their property -- expressed as the return on their labor -- for their neighbor's personal benefit? Just as charity isn't a vice, forced contribution isn't charity, even when the needs of the "entitled" are life's necessities. How much more when entitlement extends from essentials to convenience?</div> <bR> <div> Perhaps you've heard of Assurance Wireless? If not, it's a program that provides clients with 250 minutes of free cellular service each month. More talkative Assurance customers can receive 500 minutes for $5 a month, and 1000 voice minutes plus 1000 text messages for $20 a month. But there's a flaw: Assurance isn't free. Someone must subsidize the free or reduced rates. That someone is the working chump.</div> <bR> <div> Assurance is funded through the federal Universal Service Fund (USF). Basically, the <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.fcc.gov/topic/universal-service" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.fcc.gov/topic/universal-servi"><U><U>USF</U></U></A></FONT> is a tax that appears on phone and wireless bills. In theory, this tax is collected from communications companies to ensure affordable telecommunications services in remote or high-cost areas. In reality, customers pay the USF. Therefore, the working chump who pays the USF tax is subsidizing yet another welfare program.</div> <bR> <div> Now, labeling Assurance Wireless a welfare program is a stern accusation, one in need of substantiation. Fortunately, confirming <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.assurancewireless.com/Public/HowToQualify.aspx" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.assurancewireless.com/Public/"><U><U>evidence</U></U></A></FONT> is readily available. Qualifying for Assurance is as simple as participating in an approved entitlement program: Medicaid, food stamps, Temporary Aid to Needy Families, public housing, free school lunch, or low income energy assistance programs. To coin an old phrase, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. Likewise, when a program's qualifying criteria is participation in a welfare program, and the program's cost is covered or subsidized through government imposed taxes or fees, it's a welfare program.</div> <bR> <div> The economy isn't technically in recession, but it's far from robust, causing many productive families to trim their budgets. One way to stretch their dollars is through no contract, or prepaid, cellular plans. While prepaid cellular options are sometimes limited, they are affordable. However, prepaid cellular customers work not only to maintain their limited services but also to provide the entitlement class with better cellular plans than they themselves can afford. Productive people are being played for chumps, working chumps. Count me in their number.</div> <bR> <div> Successful cultures aren't built upon a premise where unproductive people have the right to necessity or convenience at another's expense. But more and more Americans perceive themselves entitled. Whether it's necessities like food and shelter or luxuries like cellular phones, working chumps continue to meet the demands of an ungrateful entitlement class.</div> <bR> <div> The government, media, and intelligentsia are quick to defend those who ride in the entitlement wagon. Yet no one defends the working chump, whose productivity keeps that wagon rolling. But they can't pull the load forever. Someday the weight will become too great, and both the wagon and its riders will be left sitting by the side of the road.</div> <bR> <div> <I>This article first appeared at </I><A HREF="http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/03/pity_the_poor_working_chump.html" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/03/p"><U><I>American Thinker: Pity the poor working chump</I></U></A><I>.</I></div> <div> <A HREF="id198_m.htm" TITLE="The Right Slant 2012"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="obama_is_no_ron_paul"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>Obama is no Ron Paul</div> <div> March 15, 2012</div> <bR> <div> The Republican presidential nomination process is more than half complete, meaning Ron Paul's supporters must face a hard fact. Their candidate won't be the nominee. His delegate <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.npr.org/2012/03/06/147995414/map-republican-primary-and-caucus-results-by-state-and-county" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.npr.org/2012/03/06/147995414/"><U><U>count</U></U></A></FONT> is one-tenth that of Mitt Romney and only Maine has awarded Paul double-digit delegates. Even when Paul wins, he <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://blog.chron.com/txpotomac/2012/03/ron-paul-wins-popular-vote-in-us-virgin-islands-but-romney-dominates-the-delegates/" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://blog.chron.com/txpotomac/2012/03/"><U><U>loses</U></U></A></FONT>.</div> <bR> <div> That's not to say Rep. Paul in inconsequential; he's not. But he has as much chance of winning the Republican nomination as do the Pittsburgh Pirates of winning the 2012 World Series. So, where will Paul's supporters turn in the general election? Believe it or not, the Obama campaign believes it can court alienated Paulites, citing common ground on budget issues and foreign policy.</div> <bR> <div> Whatever the Obama campaign is smoking must be good stuff. Had it been available at Haight-Ashbury, the Summer of Love would've lasted a decade. Give the President's advisors an "A" in spin, but the idea of Paul's supporters voting Obama is pure fantasy.</div> <bR> <div> Rep. Paul pledged to cut $1 trillion from federal spending immediately upon taking office. He'd like to <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/"><U><U>repeal</U></U></A></FONT> the 16th Amendment and abolish inheritance and capital gains taxes. Ron Paul might settle for auditing the Federal Reserve, but he'd prefer to eliminate it outright. And voters attracted to these fiscal positions will back Obama's reelection? Fat chance, Barry!</div> <bR> <div> It's true that Candidate Obama preached fiscal restraint, criticized Bush's "unpatriotic" deficit spending, and promised budgetary discipline. His campaign rhetoric left spendthrift Republicans little room to criticize tax and spend liberalism. But President Obama is accumulating debt at a rate that makes "W" appear cautious. Three years into Obama's presidency we've increased debt from $10 trillion to $15.5 trillion, give or take a hundred billion. Trillion dollar annual deficits are the new normal. Welfare and food stamp participation has <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://blog.heritage.org/2011/07/28/the-truth-about-obamas-budget-deficits-in-pictures/" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://blog.heritage.org/2011/07/28/the-"><U><U>risen</U></U></A></FONT>, and Washington has seized control of the healthcare industry.</div> <bR> <div> Obama and Paul are as far apart fiscally as the East is from the West. And the notion that Obama's foreign policies will appeal to Paul's base is even more far-fetched.</div> <bR> <div> Ron Paul is non-interventionist to the point of being isolationist. On Paul's ideal plane there would be no appreciable U.S. military presence in the Middle East, Asia, or Europe. And we certainly wouldn't commit forces to wars that Washington exhibits no apparent interest in winning. For right or wrong Ron Paul would bring home the troops.</div> <bR> <div> Obama is following the nation-building war strategy he once condemned. Yes, we've withdrawn from Iraq, but on a timetable determined before Obama took office. The mission in Afghanistan is muddled, American aircraft are bombing targets inside Pakistan, Libya, and Yemen, and the administration seems content to subvert congressional authority and seek <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://cnsnews.com/news/article/ron-paul-blasts-administration-seeking-international-authority-congressional-authority" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://cnsnews.com/news/article/ron-paul"><U><U>permission</U></U></A></FONT> from NATO and the UN to intervene in Syria.</div> <bR> <div> In terms of governing philosophy, Barack Obama is to Ron Paul what Karl Marx is to Thomas Jefferson. Only epic absurdity could prompt Obama's campaign to believe it can woo supporters from a man who is the President's ideological polar opposite.</div> <div> <A HREF="id198_m.htm" TITLE="The Right Slant 2012"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="litigation_is_risky_for_sandra_fluke"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>Litigation is risky for Sandra Fluke</div> <div> March 8, 2012</div> <bR> <div> Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD) is one versatile individual. He proved his mastery of psychoanalysis when he <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://blogs.investors.com/capitalhill/index.php/home/35-politicsinvesting/2321-hoyer-tea-party-people-come-from-unhappy-families" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://blogs.investors.com/capitalhill/i"><U><U>diagnosed</U></U></A></FONT> TEA Partiers as products of dysfunctional families. He's now issuing free <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://articles.philly.com/2012-03-05/news/31124469_1_rush-limbaugh-libel-lawyer-defamation" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://articles.philly.com/2012-03-05/ne"><U><U>legal advice</U></U></A></FONT> to Sandra Fluke, urging her to sue Rush Limbaugh for "slander, libel, and whatever else might be involved."</div> <bR> <div> A dangerous precedent is established when politicians openly promote lawsuits between citizens. Such misuse of governmental influence belies a key concept of American liberty, wherein government is compelled to consider everyone equally before the law. Hoyer's attitude drives an unnecessary wedge between the populace. While he's legally entitled to support Fluke, he's not ethically entitled to encourage civil litigation. He has compromised his office's integrity, violated the public's trust, and possibly led Sandra Fluke astray.</div> <bR> <div> Hoyer's disregard for his responsibilities as a Congressman doesn't mean a defamation suit against Limbaugh has no merit. A libel attorney can highlight two reasons why Sandra is on solid legal ground. For starters, she's a private citizen victimized publicly by a powerful figure. Also, Limbaugh's disparaging remarks about her sex life established false statements of fact. But there are also flaws in this reasoning that could make litigation a risky path for Ms. Fluke.</div> <bR> <div> Is Sandra indeed a private citizen? When an activist publicly presents their opinions as expert testimony before Congress in an attempt to influence a particular legislative outcome, that person has entered the public forum Rush Limbaugh. But her public activism renders her a public figure of sorts. Therefore, hiding from criticism behind libel law is in question.</div> <bR> <div> What about the insults? Establishing Sandra as a public figure doesn't open the season for character assassination.</div> <bR> <div> That's true enough. However, a libel suit could be Sandra Fluke's undoing. Instigating legal action entails arguing the case before a judge and jury. Settling out of court for a cool million from the well-heeled Limbaugh would be a smart move. But taking the case to civil court, where sworn testimony is presented, opens a can of worms that's best left closed. Sandra Fluke's background becomes fair game in court, including her sex life. Don't think the Limbaugh defense team wouldn't try to prove Sandra the biggest tramp since Mata Hari.</div> <bR> <div> Limbaugh can afford the highest flying legal eagles money can buy. They'll peek in every closet and look under every rock. Fluke's classmates, friends, and lovers -- from high school until now -- will be interviewed. The most damaging associates will be subpoenaed as witnesses for the defense. If Sandra Fluke is the least bit promiscuous we'll learn every intimate detail, right down to her favorite acts and preferred positions.</div> <bR> <div> Public opinion favors Sandra today. But the goodwill goes out the window if court testimony proves her everything Limbaugh said she was. Her lawsuit will be lost, the potential windfall of an out-of-court settlement gone, and her public reputation legitimately besmirched.</div> <bR> <div> That's the risk Sandra Fluke runs if she follows Steny Hoyer's advice. If she sues Limbaugh for libel and loses she'll appear even worse than Rush portrayed her. Maybe she should then sue Hoyer for bad legal counsel, and for attempting to build his political capitol at her expense.</div> <div> <A HREF="id198_m.htm" TITLE="The Right Slant 2012"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="end_of_the_line_for_maha_rushie_"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>End of the line for "Maha Rushie"?</div> <div> March 6, 2012</div> <bR> <div> Public figures are bound to offend from time to time. Occasionally they'll stick their foot so far in their mouth they'll develop athlete's tongue. Enter Rush Limbaugh, who might need to brush his teeth with fast-acting Tinactin. If you missed it, Rush called Georgetown University student Sandra Fluke some unflattering names after she practically begged congressional Democrats to force Georgetown to meet her contraceptive demands.</div> <bR> <div> The villain is, predictably, anyone who criticizes Sandra Fluke. But keep in mind that Fluke is no innocent bystander; she's a feminine activist. She knew full well that Georgetown didn't include contraceptives in student insurance plans before she enrolled. Sandra's an operative who used her private life to affect public policy, thus inviting criticism. Frankly, Ms. Fluke is symptomatic of the entitlement attitude that has infected our nation. She demands a benefit at someone else's expense and is willing to grovel at government's feet to get it. A freedom fighter she's not.</div> <bR> <div> However, we don't really know Ms. Fluke's personal affairs, and not all women who use contraception work at the corner brothel. Rush should've chosen his words with more care. He since apologized, leaving everyone to decide for themselves whether he did so sincerely or to stem the <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://start.toshiba.com/news/read.php?ps=915&rip_id=%3CD9T9U7JG0%40news.ap.org%3E&news_id=18986970&src=most_popular_viewed" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://start.toshiba.com/news/read.php?p"><U><U>advertising</U></U></A></FONT> exodus from the EIB network. But if anyone thinks this is the end of the line for <I>the Rush Limbaugh Show</I>, they're jumping the gun.</div> <bR> <div> Conservatives support Rush because he publicly articulates their views on culture and government. As the fallout continues and they see advertisers, and a few radio stations, withdraw from the king of daytime radio a sense of panic on their part is normal. Despite Rush's apology the firestorm hasn't relented, prompting grave concern about Limbaugh's survival among his supporters.</div> <bR> <div> Liberals, conversely, have indulged more fantasies about Limbaugh's demise than have teenage boys about Sports Illustrated swimsuit models. He's arrogant and uninformed, a colossal blowhard who must be silenced at all cost. In wake of his Fluke rebuke, leftwing <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03/05/1071107/-Ripples-Racism-Paternalism-and-Slut-Shame?via=spotlight" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03/05"><U><U>forums</U></U></A></FONT> and message <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.democraticunderground.com/index.php" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.democraticunderground.com/ind"><U><U>boards</U></U></A></FONT> are joyously singing funeral dirges to the despised Rush Limbaugh.</div> <bR> <div> Whichever side of that fence you're on, you're reacting prematurely. Controversy isn't new to Rush Limbaugh. He has faced it before and emerged stronger each time. Remember Donovan McNabb, and the phony soldiers? It turned out Rush was right on both topics. He survived drug addiction, hearing loss, the great Viagra airport bust, and failed marriages. Each was said to be his undoing. But he's still there, coast to coast, weekdays from noon to three Eastern Time.</div> <bR> <div> Leftwing personalities have uttered far worse slurs toward conservatives than what Limbaugh said about Sandra Fluke. <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2011/07/16/real-time-guests-discuss-having-violent-hate-sex-michele-bachmann-and" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppa"><U><U>Bill Maher</U></U></A></FONT> hosted two loons who fantasized about raping Rick Santorum and Michelle Bachman. Oh, what a laugh that was. Michael Moore produces nefarious propaganda on par with Leni Riefenstahl and wins an Oscar for his documentary. Al Franken became a Senator!</div> <bR> <div> So, love him or hate him, get used to him. Limbaugh isn't going away.</div> <div> <A HREF="id198_m.htm" TITLE="The Right Slant 2012"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="time_to_bury_the_birther_theories"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>Time to bury the birther theories</div> <div> March 3, 2012</div> <bR> <div> Once a conspiracy theory takes root nothing deters its adherents. Evidence contrary to the speculation is summarily dismissed as another brick in the conspirer's wall of secrecy. Thus, the plot thickens.</div> <bR> <div> Now that Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio has released details <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/01/sheriff-arpaio-obama-birth-certificate-forged-perpetrators-must-be-brought-to-justice/?print=1" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/01/sherif"><U><U>questioning</U></U></A></FONT> the birth certificate Obama produced last year, birthers could become revitalized. While Arpaio's findings aren't unique; they are fuel for smoldering embers. When Obama released his birth record, after excessive and suspicious stonewalling, the birther's questioned its authenticity. You knew it was coming. Computer images are easily doctored, thus birthers were wise to the cover-up, as they are now.</div> <bR> <div> Leftists will satirize Arpaio's investigation as the mindless rants of a rightwing loon. However, since many prominent lefties still believe 9/11 was an inside job and that the 2000 election was stolen from Al Gore we can dismiss their ridicule out of hand. But that doesn't meant Arpaio's investigation will boot Obama from office ahead of schedule.</div> <bR> <div> At this point it doesn't matter what Sheriff Joe learns. He can produce irrefutable proof that Barack Obama was born on the dark side of the moon and it won't matter. No one within the political structure -- conservative, liberal, Republican, or Democrat -- will touch this matter with a ten-foot pole, even if merited.</div> <bR> <div> Imagine the fallout from finding that a sitting President isn't the President after all. Every bill Obama has signed, every executive order he has issued, would instantly be invalidated. Anyone incarcerated according to laws enacted under Obama's administration, or prosecuted by its Justice department, would have to be released. Every fine, fee, or hardship an individual or business has encountered must be compensated. Think any politicians would be willing to absorb that cost?</div> <bR> <div> What's more, every act of foreign policy, including war, would result in an investigation of Obama. Since he wouldn't be Commander-in-Chief, his role in the Libya War and support for the Arab Spring would be illegal. His orders to kill Osama bin Laden and Anwar al-Awlaki would amount to hired hits. Obama would instantly become an international war criminal based on his fraudulent assumption of Executive war powers. If that isn't enough, Barack Obama, lacking the authority to command troops, would be criminally accountable for every military casualty to have occurred on his watch, both friend and enemy.</div> <bR> <div> We haven't even touched on the social aspects. You think racism charges against Obama's opponents are rampant now? Just wait until he's removed from office and charged with crimes punishable by death, based on the birther argument.</div> <bR> <div> I'm no fan of Obama. But it's time we buried the birther movement. First, it's no more of a constitutional crisis than Washington's daily operations. Second, our political structure hasn't even the guts to reform the bankrupt entitlement system. Who could believe it will act on evidence Arpaio's investigation unearths, even if it's unassailable? Besides, it's better to beat Obama in November than rely on a conspiracy that's going nowhere.</div> <div> <A HREF="id198_m.htm" TITLE="The Right Slant 2012"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="obama_and_the_audacity_of_fairness"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>Obama and the audacity of fairness</div> <div> March 2, 2012</div> <bR> <div> Genuine fairness conveys nothing more than the opportunity to use one's talents and ideas unhindered by legalized oppression. But that notion of fairness has changed. In fact, "fairness" has become one of the English language's most corrupt words.</div> <bR> <div> Contemporary fairness is measured not in equality before the law, the opportunity to better oneself, or the absence of government persecution. It's determined in manipulated outcomes, income egalitarianism, and political correctness. We might say that fairness has evolved into a one-word oxymoron, especially when used by politicians like our current President.</div> <bR> <div> For example, President Obama <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=BdjoHA5ocwU" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pla"><U><U>promised</U></U></A></FONT>, "We can build a nation where . . . everybody plays by the same rules."</div> <bR> <div> Well, what could be fairer? Who could oppose a society wherein everyone plays by the same rules, where there's no preferential treatment based on wealth, status, heritage, or the lack thereof? One of the key elements of a free society is the right of each citizen to pursue their happiness. This is possible only when a culture is based on the rule of natural law. But does President Obama support such a traditional version of fairness, where the law applies equally to everyone? Or does he have something else in mind.</div> <bR> <div> The latter is most likely. As Jesus of Nazareth said, "by their fruits you shall know them." When it comes to everyone playing by the same rules, President Obama's fruit belies his rhetoric.</div> <bR> <div> Shouldn't citizens of a representative republic enjoy access to their polling places free from racial or ethnic intimidation? They would if everyone played by the same rules. But under the Obama administration the subject of voter intimidation is selective. Obama's Justice Department would fully prosecute Ku Klux Klan members who position themselves outside a polling station, and rightly so. But when New Black Panther Party members Samir Shabazz and Jerry Jackson employed bully tactics and brandished weapons outside a <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/06/ex-official-accuses-justice-department-racial-bias-black-panther-case/" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/"><U><U>polling place</U></U></A></FONT> no judicial review was warranted. In fact, the pending case against them was summarily dismissed.</div> <bR> <div> Obama can't cite the equal application of justice to support his vision of a "nation where everybody plays by the same rules." He shouldn't look to energy either. While the administration has blocked the Keystone pipeline project it has poured taxpayer's money down several green energy rat holes. Rat holes like <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-09-18/news/ct-met-kass-0918-20110918_1_solyndra-loan-guarantee-obama-fundraisers-obama-white-house" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-"><U><U>Solyndra</U></U></A></FONT> and the <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://thehill.com/blogs/transportation-report/automobiles/213889-gm-halting-production-of-chevy-volt" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://thehill.com/blogs/transportation-"><U><U>Chevrolet Volt</U></U></A></FONT>, where taxpayer dollars have gone up in smoke faster than a torpedo in a Cheech and Chong movie. What's more, a portion of those taxpayer funds came from traditional energy and auto producers and their employees, who were forced to subsidize failing competitors. Where's the fairness?</div> <bR> <div> Economic regulation is another dead end for Obama's fairness doctrine. Certainly Boeing, Inc. wasn't treated like a company operating in a "nation where everybody plays by the same rules." Boeing built a factory in Charleston, SC to aid production of their 787 Dreamliner. But a political "unfairness" existed. South Carolina is a right-to-work state whereas Washington, Boeing's main facility, favors unionization. The National Labor Relations Board brought unfair labor complaints against Boeing, charges that were eventually dropped amid heavy criticism. Yet it's quite plain that the government's intent was to benefit organized labor, which is wholeheartedly in the tank for the Obama administration. Is that just a coincidence, or another example of the administration's fairness doctrine?</div> <bR> <div> Productive Americans shouldn't expect fair treatment from Obama either. The administration continues to sing the tired refrain about "the rich" not paying their "fair share." In reality, productive people of all income levels bear the burden of a fundamental unfairness. Families who earned adjusted gross incomes of $32,306 and up in <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html?print=t" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-i"><U><U>2009</U></U></A></FONT> accounted for 98-percent of all income taxes paid. The "one-percenters" pay 36-percent of all collected income taxes. Yet an alarming number of our countrymen have become <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://blog.heritage.org/2012/02/19/chart-of-the-week-nearly-half-of-all-americans-dont-pay-income-taxes/print/" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://blog.heritage.org/2012/02/19/char"><U><U>net beneficiaries</U></U></A></FONT> of government's insatiable spending. When the productive subsidize the unproductive, how can the productive believe they live in a "nation where everybody plays by the same rules"?</div> <bR> <div> Rather than a fortress of fairness, Barack Obama's administration has been, at best, a bag of dirty tricks. However, the administration's tactics are no real surprise. Obama's call for fairness perfectly fits the template common among collectivist politicians. Sell the notion that everyone will play according to the same rules and an uninformed populace will accept your doctrine without a shred of supporting evidence. Anyone who dares oppose the administration's dogma is summarily dismissed as selfish, heartless, and yes, unfair.</div> <bR> <div> Barack Obama is unquestionably an audacious individual. But his isn't an audacity of hope; it's an audacity of fairness. Judging from the fruit Obama has borne to date, only the naïve and uninformed could expect to live in a nation where everybody plays by the same rules.</div> <div> <A HREF="id198_m.htm" TITLE="The Right Slant 2012"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="so_now_we_re_banning_toy_guns"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>So now we're banning toy guns</div> <div> February 26, 2012</div> <bR> <div> Gun control activists built their anti-liberty agenda around a simple theme: Guns kill. Never mind that firearms -- like any weapon or tool -- can accomplish neither good nor evil without an operator. Firearms are so evil that children shouldn't even <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://life.familyeducation.com/games/safety/36340.html" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://life.familyeducation.com/games/sa"><U><U>play</U></U></A></FONT> with toy replicas. But banning toy guns is ridiculous, isn't it? Not so fast.</div> <bR> <div> In Michigan, <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://detroit.cbslocal.com/2012/02/20/toy-guns-becoming-a-criminal-offense/" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://detroit.cbslocal.com/2012/02/20/t"><U><U>toy guns</U></U></A></FONT> have apparently replaced the so-called assault rifle as the criminal's weapon of choice. Republican Senator Rick Jones explained, "People are taking imitation guns that look real, cutting off the orange end and then threatening people." But do criminal acts with toy mock-ups warrant a ban? Quite the contrary, it would seem a reason to further liberalize right-to-carry laws. Toy gun toting gangbangers will <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://biggovernment.com/jlott/2010/03/01/more-guns-less-crime/" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://biggovernment.com/jlott/2010/03/0"><U><U>think twice</U></U></A></FONT> before pointing airsoft pistols at people who might be sporting the genuine article.</div> <bR> <div> Gun control advocates will argue that armed citizens prompt criminals to use real guns, escalating the danger. Yet criminals already have that option. So why do they choose toy guns? Modifying toy guns is cheaper than obtaining real ones, and using them carries a lesser sentence upon conviction.</div> <bR> <div> If <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2011-2012/billintroduced/Senate/pdf/2011-SIB-0779.pdf" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/"><U><U>S.B. 779</U></U></A></FONT> becomes law, brandishing a modified toy gun would be punishable by up to 18 months in prison. Why only 18 months, and why aren't such offenders treated as armed criminals now? The perpetrator who misrepresents a toy gun as the real McCoy is selling the threat, not the gun. Since the intimidating affect is real to the victim, the threat is the same as if a real gun were used. And should the victim unlimber their own firearm and kill the perpetrator their act would be just as much self-defense as if the perpetrator's gun were genuine. What's more, the aggressor would be just as dead.</div> <bR> <div> Such a law is ambiguous, too. Jacksonville, FL police <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.jacksonvillecriminaldefenseattorney-blog.com/2012/01/jacksonville-teen-robber-with-toy-gun-shot-by-police.html" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.jacksonvillecriminaldefenseat"><U><U>killed</U></U></A></FONT> a robber who confronted them with a modified toy gun. But San Jose, CA officers appear to have <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/10/25/police-shoot-man-with-toy-gun-in-waistband/" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/10/25/pol"><U><U>overreacted</U></U></A></FONT> when faced with a toy gun. Regardless the situation, no one finds joy in wounding or killing another person. But does either shooting validate criminalizing the possession of a modified toy? In the first example the robber received exactly what he requested. Thinning the herd, it's called. Why shed tears on his behalf? In the second incident, officers perceived a danger. But the gun wasn't presented in a threatening manner. Why should the wounded man face charges?</div> <bR> <div> Rather than criminalizing toy guns for lacking orange muzzles we should recognize violent behavior for what it is and treat it accordingly. The last thing we need is another impotent gun law.</div> <bR> <div> When one person threatens another the real crime isn't the presence of a gun, whether genuine or imitation. The crime is the aggressor's attempt to gain advantage through the threat of bodily harm, or even death. The criminal is telling the victim that their right to life and property exists only at the criminal's discretion. Isn't that crime's true nature?</div> <div> <A HREF="id198_m.htm" TITLE="The Right Slant 2012"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="has_everyone_gone_lin_sane_"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>Has everyone gone "Lin-sane?"</div> <div> February 21, 2012</div> <bR> <div> How can a single innocuous phrase land one ESPN employee a 30-day suspension, cause another employee's termination, and prompt a national rant about racism? In a bygone day, when common sense trumped banal emotionalism, we'd have laughed at the possibility. But it's today's <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.nypost.com/f/print/blogs/backpage/espn_fires_person_responsible_for_jzoEItG8PLrzS4svfjOzlJ" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.nypost.com/f/print/blogs/back"><U><U>reality</U></U></A></FONT> and we're all worse for our so-called enlightenment.</div> <bR> <div> ESPN's broadcast and electronic media employed the phrase "Chink in the armor" in reference to New York Knicks guard Jeremy Lin's first subpar performance. Lin is of Asian heritage. The offending parties became instant racists, and the comments pronouncing their guilt are as innumerable as they are mindless. My question is, quite honestly, has everyone lost their minds?</div> <bR> <div> Only someone seeking offense, or wholly ignorant of what "chink in the armor" means, could consider the term an affront to Asians. The phrase dates to the 1400s and has nothing to do with race or ethnicity. It identifies a vulnerability or weakness. Since Lin had experienced his first bad game as a Knicks starter, the phrase was wholly appropriate for questioning a perceived flaw in his game that future opponents might exploit. Had the headline read "Chink blows Knicks' winning streak," the outrage would be understandable. But even Lin <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/basketball/knicks/espn-fires-writer-penning-racist-jeremy-lin-headline-suspends-anchor-30-days-article-1.1025351" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/basket"><U><U>dismissed</U></U></A></FONT> any racial intent. That should've ended it.</div> <bR> <div> The mere presence of a word that can be used as a derisive term isn't in itself racism. We might consider the ESPN employees naïve for not anticipating reprisals for their choice of terms. However, intentionally interpreting a word or phrase out of context is equally foolish, if not downright stupid. If only this were the first time speech manipulators had <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/local/daily/jan99/district27.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/loc"><U><U>twisted</U></U></A></FONT> words to propagate racial strife. It's not.</div> <bR> <div> ESPN took the coward's way out. The network could've defended their employees without offending anyone of Oriental heritage. All ESPN needed do was present the true definition of "chink in the armor." But ESPN chose to toss their people overboard, reflecting a longstanding tradition of irrational reactions at ESPN and their partner, ABC Sports.</div> <bR> <div> Remember the Rush Limbaugh-Donovan McNabb controversy? Limbaugh said nothing that demeaned McNabb as an athlete or as a man. Yet he <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://articles.cnn.com/2003-10-02/entertainment/limbaugh_1_rush-limbaugh-show-mcnabb-comments-governmental-representative?_s=PM:SHOWBIZ" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://articles.cnn.com/2003-10-02/enter"><U><U>resigned</U></U></A></FONT> from ESPN's <I>Sunday NFL Countdown</I> for political reasons. Limbaugh's not alone. ABC dismissed Howard Cosell for saying of Washington Redskins' wide receiver Alvin Garrett, "that little monkey gets open, doesn't he?" As obnoxious as Cosell was, no one cognizant of his history could've considered him racist. Cosell was an avid defender of black athletes. Yet out the door he went.</div> <bR> <div> Cowardly judgments concerning race and offense aren't unique to ABC and ESPN. In fact, they are culturally systemic. Either ignorance is hailed as enlightenment, or people eager to prove their tolerance intentionally take words and phrases out of context. The culture has become so saturated with politically correct censorship that every speaker and writer must guard their words to avoid being labeled a racist goon. Free speech can't exist, let alone thrive, is so hostile an environment.</div> <div> <A HREF="id198_m.htm" TITLE="The Right Slant 2012"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="raising_children_of_the_state"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>Raising children of the State</div> <div> February 21, 2012</div> <bR> <div> King Solomon wrote in his Proverbs: "Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it." Solomon intended for parents to base their children's future on the Creator's morals and integrity. A child's mind is a sponge. Filling those sponges with worthwhile attributes -- responsibility, trustworthiness, honesty, and faithfulness -- lays the proper foundation for adulthood.</div> <bR> <div> However, training children is a two-way street. When children are introduced to an authoritarian state at an early age they learn to accept authoritarianism as the norm. Rather than seeing government and bureaucracy as contrary to liberty, children view them as the conveyors of freedom. Where better for the State to plant that seed than in preschool, and what better time than the present?</div> <bR> <div> Government affiliated inspectors are hard at work sowing the fields at West Hoke (NC) Elementary School. At first consideration one might wonder why this is a big deal. Inspectors performing proper tasks can have positive effects. No one wants unsafe, substandard schools. No one wants their son or daughter educated for twelve years only to graduate functionally illiterate. However, what type of message do children receive when the State is poking around in their lunchboxes? That's the kind of <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.nccivitas.org/2012/state-inspectors-searching-childrens-lunch-boxes-this-isnt-china-is-it/" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.nccivitas.org/2012/state-insp"><U><U>inspection</U></U></A></FONT> conducted at West Hoke.</div> <bR> <div> State authorized inspectors disapproved the homemade lunches students brought to school. Foods like turkey, cheese, fruits, and juices just don't satisfy the USDA's nutritional standards. Children who packed such lunches were given supplemental meals that met the State's guidelines. We should then recognize that the State's guidelines aren't guidelines at all. Guidelines provide information to assist people in determining their own best path. What happened at Hoke wasn't a recommendation, but a State dictate.</div> <bR> <div> Questions have <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.carolinajournal.com/jhdailyjournal/display_jhdailyjournal.html?id=8780" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.carolinajournal.com/jhdailyjo"><U><U>arisen</U></U></A></FONT> concerning exactly who was involved with inspecting the lunchboxes and providing the supplemental meals, prompting officials to deny any role in lunchroom policing. Yet it matters not which government entity instigated the inspections. The fact remains that a government contractor, employee, or bureaucrat searched children's lunches. Youthful minds receive the impression that the State possesses unlimited right to search anything, and for any reason.</div> <bR> <div> In some circles, my views on cafeteria checkpoints will <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://pulse.ncpolicywatch.org/2012/02/17/the-conspiracy-kooks-and-school-lunches/" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://pulse.ncpolicywatch.org/2012/02/1"><U><U>brand</U></U></A></FONT> me a pilot of black helicopters who wears a tinfoil flight helmet. However, who can reasonably deny that lunchbox inspections elevate the State above the home and, most notably, the parent? It was the homemade lunches that were deemed insufficient. It was homemade lunches that caused West Hoke to receive a poor grade in meeting student's nutritional needs. The home and the parent are portrayed as uncaring and irresponsible while the State becomes the child's advocate and provider. That is the message presented to the students at West Hoke. In fact, children are being <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/09/lemonade_wars_the_state_battles_entrepreneurialism.html" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/09/l"><U><U>conformed</U></U></A></FONT> to the State's superiority through varying methods all across this country.</div> <bR> <div> The simple solution is to dismiss "Lunchgate" as silly and ineffective. After all, the homemade lunches weren't confiscated. But that's also a serf's solution. A State authority figure invariably has an intimidating effect on small children. One little girl was so frightened that she didn't eat the lunch her mother had prepared. What lesson did that child, and all children subjected to the lunch inspections, learn? They are taught to respect State authority and provision over that of their parents. A free society cannot survive when the family unit yields to the State.</div> <bR> <div> Children should certainly learn to respect properly exercised authority, like a teacher's authority over the classroom. But shouldn't we be at least equally jealous when government inserts its will between the child and the home?</div> <bR> <div> The State is laying a foundation whereupon each future generation is easier controlled than the previous one. Today's children are taught at a tender age that the State is the foremost authority in their lives. Homemade lunches, homemade values, and homemade relationships are invariably inferior to what the State promotes, condones, or mandates. When today's children become tomorrow's adults they will rely on the State for their needs rather than on their individual skills and character. Tomorrow's adults will then breed another generation even more comfortable with State control. And the beat goes on.</div> <bR> <div> As Solomon observed, children raised in the way they should go will build their adult lives from a solid foundation. But the reverse is equally true. The State is doing a thorough job of training children to revere government above family and choose dependence over liberty. Children are being trained in a way they should not go. When they are old, will they be able to depart from it?</div> <div> <A HREF="id198_m.htm" TITLE="The Right Slant 2012"><U>Back to Top</U></A></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>