Plot Turn #1:

One of the things you can always expect from the Left is an attempt to control the language of the discussion.  Gay marriage?  “Oh, it’s not a matter of behavior — it’s a matter of RIGHTS!”  Abortion?  “Oh, it’s not a matter of life — it’s a matter of women’s health!”   Taxes?  “Oh, it’s not about hurting or not hurting economic growth — it’s a matter of fairness!”  Spending?  “Oh, it’s not about the government wasting money doing things it’s not good at doing — it’s about helping people!”

You control the language, you control the discussion.  That’s what political correctness is all about.  It’s a form of cowardice, really — saying certain arguments are “offensive”.  “Islamophobic” — “homophobic” — a lot of new “phobias” are thrown around by people who have no real qualifications.

That’s why it’s always rewarding whenever someone new — with some credibility — comes along to call them out on their nonsense.  His Awesomeness, Chris Christie, is a golden example — as is the great Allen West, who is  enduring smears from both the Left and, curiously enough, the Ron Paul crowd: “He’s a NEOCON!!!”  (Another nonsense word thrown out pretty liberally — no pun intended …. )

Here’s the latest example of someone standing up without apology: Jose Rodriguez.  Back in the day, he was one of the CIA’s big boys —  Director of the National Clandestine Service, in charge of overseeing the interrogation of terrorists —  sorry, suspects — at Guantanamo Bay.  He’s out with a new book that challenges all the sentimental emotionalism the Left spews out about “torture!”— all the nonsense that it doesn’t work, that it’s unconstitutional, that it goes against “American values”, and so on.

So, he’s on 60 Minutes, describing the tactics his boys used — and the interviewer, Leslie Stahl, is shocked — shocked — that they fed the detainees with … brace yourselves, folks … Ensure!  Dietary manipulation — and sleep deprivation with it!  Leslie whines, “This is Orwellian stuff!  The United States doesn’t do that!”  Jose just shrugs, and replies, “Well, we do!”

My hero.  Mitt Romney should seriously consider bringing this guy back on — we could use more guys unafraid of media flack, who call things as they sees them.

Plot Turn #2:

This is actually two turns in one—and they both concern CNN.  See, the Boss, Ted Turner (who’s long made Gordon Gekko’s line about a great deal being “better than sex” his personal signature line) went on Piers Morgan’s show last Thursday — and said Mitt Romney wouldn’t be too bad as a president.  This is fascinating stuff — considering how Ted’s the husband of none other than Jane Fonda.

Anyway, amid this is the big plot turn — CNN posted an article on Friday, entitled: “Why Obama can’t match the Reagan recovery.”

Here’s why it’s significant: how many times have we heard from the Left how “false” the Reagan recovery was?  “The rich got richer and the poor got poorer!”  And yet … here we have CNN — run, again, by by-and-large liberal Ted Turner — admitting that there was an honest-to-goodness Reagan recovery, and whining about how Obama won’t be able to match it in time for the election.  Predictably, the article gives every excuse in the book — inflation was different, the debt load was a lot less, etc.  I could pick apart those arguments one by one — especially considering how Obama didn’t do what Reagan did: cut taxes, de-regulate, and so on.  The massive debt is due to extreme government spending — and the high inflation which really is happening (check your supermarket receipts, lately?) is being covered up by the Federal Reserve keeping interest rates at an arbitrary low.

But my point is — in order to defend Obama, the Left unintentionally exposed one of their big “refutations” of conservatism as the hollow ringer that it is.  The Reagan recovery was for real — trickle-down economics was (and still is) for real.  You cut taxes and regulation, you free up businesses — big and small — to invest in themselves, expand, and thereby create jobs for the populace.  It’s called free-market capitalism — and it works, regardless of how the media tries to spin it.

By the way … I’m not getting my hopes up about Ted going Romney.  Still, considering that he’s even suggesting it … gives me a great deal of hope for November.  If he’s got second thoughts … who else does?

Interestingly enough … this actually leads in to my first point.  This week includes the first of May — “May Day,” which, for some odd reason, is  dear to the heart of communists.  So, of course, it was inevitable that various leaders of the Occupiers would want to do something special on that day.  Apparently, it’s a nationwide strike, or something.

The only problem is: the Occupiers by and large are made up of folks who aren’t working much anyway.  Otherwise, how would they’ve been able to camp out 24/7 — smoking dope, sleeping around, and #2-ing on cop cars?  So … I think their call for workers of the world to unite … it won’t gain that much traction.  Sorry, folks.

Anyway … the more and more I hear about how unhinged the Occupiers are threatening to get (so much so that the liberal media has struggled to ignore them — not glorify them, as they used to), the more I think of The Beatles, and their classic song “Revolution”.  For those of you who don’t know, John Lennon and company wrote the song after the counterculture of the ’60s asked them to really offer their support for the cause.

Except John wasn’t impressed.  Although he’d be known as the guy who wrote “Imagine” — which, when you take away the powerful melody and beautiful music, reads chillingly like a simplified Communist Manifesto — nonetheless, one thing he, and the other Beatles, would not put up with was the use of violence to bring about change.  Hence: “When you talk about destruction — don’t you know that you can count me out!”

But that wasn’t the only beef The Beatles had: “You say you got a real solution?  Well…you know — we’d all love to see the plan.”  Lo and behold … what plan do the Occupiers have?  Nothing but railing against “the 1%”.  They march, they chant, they “mike-check” to the point of parody (“I would like to thank—”  “I WOULD LIKE TO THANK—”  “All of you—”  “ALL OF YOU—”  “For coming here today!”  “FOR COMING HERE TODAY!”).

But what are their solutions?  They don’t have any.  Frankly, I don’t blame them: any solution might cause a lot of people to leave their coalition (or what passes for it).  After all … if all you’re doing is ranting against “the system”, or “the establishment”, or something similarly vague … well, sure you’re going to get a lot of people intrigued.  It’s the blank slate.  How do you think Obama got elected?

But our Fab Four didn’t stop there.  If and when you do have a solution, make sure it doesn’t look “out there”: “You want to change the Constitution?  Well … you know — we all want to change your head.  You tell me it’s the institution?  Well … you know — you’d better free your mind, instead.  But when you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao — you ain’t gonna make it with anyone, anyhow!”

Needless to say  … the counterculture shrugged off John’s advice — and the movement collapsed.  And the Occupiers?  Increasingly, when they do give specifics, they sound like Marxists.

Interesting note: John Lennon reportedly went all the way, reforming in the late ’70s to an honest-to-goodness Reaganite!  Say what you will about John — his romance with Yoko Ono probably wasn’t the most dignified time of his life (“Bed for Peace” indeed!) — but, liberal as he was for so long, he was always an honest liberal.  The Beatles railed against high taxation and government waste in “Taxman” (“Don’t ask me what I want it for … if you don’t want to pay some more.”).  And from what I’ve heard, John wasn’t one to go blindly into foreign-aid fundraisers — he would ask where the money would really go.  (George Clooney, take note!)

A lot of celebrities could learn from his example.  As could the Occupiers.

Thus, I admit it is difficult not to feel a certain satisfaction when such people get theirs, at long last.  Herein, I shall discuss one such incident from last week — emulating the distinctive style of the person in question.

The person in question, of course, is Keith Olbermann — Leftist icon well known for helping define the decidedly leftist spin of MSNBC, and notoriously noted for a decidedly diminutive quantity of politesse and etiquette.

To wit, his words regarding Michele Malkin—and I quote: “A mindless, morally bankrupt, fascistic bag of meat with lipstick on it.”  Further, regarding S.E. Cupp, he labeled her a living example of the need for Planned Parenthood.  I admit, I always find it fascinating, how able the likes of Olbermann have been to be so essentially exonerated by a lenient Left that fails to be so lenient when far milder mannerisms are muttered by those on the Right.

But misogyny’s not the limit of his shameless shower of raining rants.  In a declaration so demented as to invoke the belittling bewilderment of Jon Stewart, Keith Olbermann had the acrimonious audacity to refer to now-Senator Scott Brown as, and I quote, a “tea-bagging supporter of violence against women and against politicians with whom he disagrees.”

In short, in Keith Olbermann, we find a persistently permanent pattern of profane, puerile, and plentifully pompous pontification and proclamation — a whining weasel, who spends his daily life wrangling and wondering what collections of chaotic confrontations and conflagrations he can conflate upon those who fail to conform to his collective concepts.  Were he a Conservative, he would be completely condemned throughout all media circles — and, indeed, rightfully so.  And yet, the sort of rhetoric so self-righteously stated by this … big joke — is dismissively overlooked by those same whining watchdogs, on the grounds that he allegedly “speaks truth to power” — an excuse never allowed for the likes of Michael Savage.

Well, Keith Olbermann, at last your game is up.  Strike one — your suspension from MSNBC, for financial fumblings regarding support for congressional candidates.  Strike two — your subsequent firing from said network.  And strike three — your firing this past week from Current TV, for a lack of patience and politeness, an insoluble insubordination — and indeed, your decided lack of decency, sir, at long last.

Frankly, sir … the fact that even a channel specifically created by Al Gore to be a refuge for otherwise laid-off Leftist larks could not contain you for an extended period of time — such, sir, speaks volumes about what final judgment media historians shall impose.  Indeed, my sole regret upon hearing this news of your all-too-timely professional demise is that it was simply due to matters of personal character, as opposed to professional integrity.

And sir, if you have ANY desire at all to NOT have the day of your final firing celebrated as a national HOLIDAY amongst the increasingly vast empire of the New Media — as a momentous victory in the battle to restore honor and decency in the world of news and analysis … THIS LAST PIECE OF ADVICE, Mr. Olbermann, sir:

When somebody ASKS you, sir, about your disgraceful attacks on the Tea Party —

When somebody ASKS you, sir, about the many military families who support their loved ones, respecting their sacrifices — instead of bashing former President Bush for his…“GOLF GAME”—

When somebody ASKS you, sir, about your bravely bringing onto your show ONLY people with whom you agree —

When somebody ASKS you, sir, about your … SELFLESS promise to … TONE DOWN THE RHETORIC, in the name of Gabrielle Giffords — only to resume said salivations, so as to smear and skewer S.E. Cupp —

When somebody ASKS you, sir, about your abject hypocrisy — your general shamelessness — your constant self-righteous contempt for the mere mortals of the masses, all while purporting to be their VALIANT defender —

THIS ADVICE, MR. OLBERMANN, SIR:

SHUT…THE HECK…UP!!!

Good night and good luck….

We’re Number One!

Sounds good, I know…but of course, there’s a catch.  In this case, as of this past Sunday (April 1st — what do you know?)…we’re number one in a bad way.  Thanks to Japan doing the smart thing and cutting their corporate tax rate, we now have the highest rate of them all.

You know… I always find it bitterly amusing when I hear the self-righteous Leftists, Occupiers, and Populists slamming Evil-Greedy-Corporations for shipping jobs overseas.  Really?  We impose the highest tax rate on businesses in the world — to say nothing of all the burdensome, gruesome, confusing, and ever-increasing regulations … and they wonder why companies don’t want to make their money here?  Say what you will about Rick Santorum — or Mitt Romney, for that matter — but at least they’re talking about doing something about that garbage!

In the meantime, though … we have a class-warfare president who doesn’t dare cut taxes on The Evil 1%—and so, we’re stuck with a mostly jobless “recovery” until, God willing, the first Tuesday in November.

Got Gas?

Gas prices are now crossing the $4 mark — and counting.  In part, we can blame world events: Iran’s nutcase leaders figure if the world won’t let them go nuclear, they’ll just pressure the oil market upward, or something.  Still, the OPEC embargo didn’t deter Ronald Reagan, back when he did the one thing that apparently had slipped the mind of Old Jimmy: roll back government interference in our oil industry — and let them do their jobs.  Gas prices plummeted back then, and we said goodbye in the ’80s to the long gas lines of the ’70s.

And yet … leave it to Barack Obama, to conveniently forget history.  No … he won’t get out of the way.  Those evil oil companies are gouging people and making record profits, don’t you know?  We must tax them even more — regulate them even further!  And so, prices go up … and the Left refuses to allow for a perfectly good pipeline from our friends up north — which would also have created a LOT of jobs.  Of course … now Canada’s PM — a stand-up conservative fellow, by the way — feels forced to deal with China, instead.  We can only hope and pray that those talks will be delayed long enough for Obama to be defeated — and for our guy to get that deal rolling again.

Nine Angry Men and Women:

Well, at long last, the Health Care Law was argued before the Supreme Court, last week.  Of course, the Administration’s solicitor general had to defend one of the most absurdly complicated — and tyrannical — pieces of legislation in American history… and it seemed like he knew that.  He stumbled, stuttered, and made error after error — to the point where Justice Stephen Breyer (one of the “Liberals”, mind you!) started teasing him about his apparent indecision on whether or not the darned mandate is a tax or not….

Interestingly enough, guess who tried her best to bail the guy out with “clarifications” of her own?  Why, no one except— oh! — Justice Elena Kagan…Obama’s previous solicitor general.  She wouldn’t recuse herself, apparently … and now, her clear conflict of interest is on display for all to see … and she couldn’t really care less.

Still, my biggest nod goes to the great Justice Antonin Scalia, who managed to keep his cool as he pointed out the various flaws in the arguments one by one … while maintaining a sense of dark humor about the whole thing.  When it seemed as if the solicitor general wanted the judges to read the long and drawn-out hodgepodge (that apparently was too complicated for Congress to read before voting), so as to look for things to salvage if the worst should happen and the bill should be overturned … Justice Scalia gave the line of the week: “Mr. Kneedler, what happened to the Eight Amendment?”

It looks pretty close, folks.  Stay tuned.

(Photo: USDA)

Last year, it was Gabrielle Giffords.  Paul Krugman had the nerve to assume — before anything about the nutcase shooter was discovered — that he was a right-winger who shot the congresswoman for political reasons.  The rest of the Leftist media jumped on the bandwagon, accusing talk radio and the Tea Party of creating a “climate of hate” — leading President Obama to give a beautiful speech about the need for civility in politics which, as it turns out, he had no intention of applying to his own side.

Of course, it turned out that the shooter had never listened to talk radio—and that practically his only political knowledge consisted of Mein Kampf and the Communist Manifesto.  Naturally…the Left shrugged this off as an unimportant technicality.

Give a Leftist a chance, and he/she will invariably try to find some way to politicize a tragedy.  This week, we have a new example.

Let me take you (figuratively) to my home state, Florida.  For readers who aren’t up on gun laws, Florida has a policy called the “Stand Your Ground” law.  Basically, it’s an important application of the 2nd Amendment, allowing law-abiding citizens to defend themselves with a gun, without having to try and run, first.  (It’s related to the “Make My Day” law, which affirms the right to defend your private property with a gun — just more general.)

Now … this law specifically states that the citizen has to have been threatened in order to be protected by the self-defense claim.  However, despite that, the Left is now attempting to shrug that common-sense clause off, and smear the law in total as evil.  And surprise…they have a tragedy to go with it.

I’m referring, of course, to the shooting of Trayvon Martin, the 17-year-old kid who was gunned down by a self-appointed guardian of the community named George Zimmerman.  From what the 9-1-1 calls made by Zimmerman indicate, he had it in for Martin just because the latter “looked” suspicious.  He ignored the dispatcher’s instructions to stand down — and apparently just went after the kid.

I say “apparently”, because there’s a lot we don’t know about the case.  The shooter claims that Martin did threaten him.  The cops weren’t sure what to make of it, so now the state police and even the feds are involved.  (Somehow, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder just can’t resist sticking his nose in issues he claims are race-related — and precious little else, to be blunt.  In this case, Zimmerman apparently invoked a racial slur….)

What we do know is: 1) Martin was unarmed when his dead body was searched; 2) Zimmerman has a record of being overly aggressive — to the point of resisting arrest with assault and battery (translation: he attacked a cop); and 3) the activist Left, predictably, has reared its ugly head.

Amid the more … interesting explanations for the incident (including Geraldo Rivera claiming Martin’s hooded jacket could’ve made him look suspicious), there is the growing chorus that “Stand Your Ground” was the cause.  “See?  See?  This is why we need gun control!  This is why people can’t be allowed to have guns!”

Okay.  Once again, in order to make their argument, the Left has to conveniently ignore/downplay certain facts of the case.  In this case, as former governor Jeb Bush noted, “Stand Your Ground” allows you to…stand your ground.  If  Zimmerman really was standing his ground as he claimed — unlikely — then I don’t care what the sob-story is: he was in the right.  But … if, as the known facts imply, he just went after the kid—then Zimmerman was the provoker, and therefore “Stand Your Ground” does not apply.

Either way, the problem is not the law.  The problem is not the guns.  The problem—as always—is the people.

Until next week…

Now, to the main topic.  This past week, I’ve been enjoying spring break at home.  As readers of my column know, my father, Steven W. Blake, is running for property appraiser of Polk County.  Much of this week has been spent gaining signatures, to put his name on the ballot.  (The deadline is May, by the way — and we still need thousands of signatures….)

Anyway, much of that was done at a flea market in Auburndale.  I assisted my father and a capable guy named Chris Cash in manning our booth, asking for registered Polk County voters.  We also looked for signatures outside the courthouse—after all, if you’re going for jury duty, that means you’re on the voter list … right?

Not according to them.  Heaven knows how many times we’ve asked, “Are you a registered Polk County voter?” only to get a “no”.

Now…perhaps the flea market folks can be forgiven for it.  You’d be surprised how many folks were from Canada, or whatever, just here to warm up.  Still…many times, we were waved off without a word — the universally-recognized sign for, “Outta my FACE!”

A few others were more honest — answering, “No … and I don’t want to vote!”

This seems to be a common attitude, lately.  I remember some guy who commented on the original Lakeland Ledger press release announcing Dad’s campaign.  He was of the impression that everyone in office is a crook — and anyone running for office is a crook.  (He also said all churches are child-molesting cesspools, but that’s another story entirely….)

Let’s face it: a lot of people are so cynical towards the system, they don’t bother to vote.  Now, at first glance, that seems understandable: “It won’t change anyway!”

But … here’s the question.  What if someone shows up who wants to change the system?  What if that someone brings business/management know-how to the table—and with it, credibility that they can change things, and make a difference?  Another thing: what if there’s an entire movement of reformers — say… the Tea Party — seeking to change things en masse?

“I don’t vote — and never will.”  Then how will things change?  Don’t you want it to change?  Obviously, you do — otherwise, you wouldn’t be complaining.

Now for the big question: do you want to help bring about that change…?

See, here’s the truth:  Hyper-cynicism is just an excuse for people to not do something about the problems they see around them.  “Oh, it won’t make a difference, anyway.”  Really?  Signing a petition just talks up a handful of minutes of your time — what’s the harm in that?  Same for voting — I’m sure these hyper-cynics have free time, don’t they?  Voting doesn’t hurt you — it just requires a little time.  But you won’t do it, because “It won’t make a difference”?  How will you know what difference it’ll make, if you just sit back and do nothing?

Look, if you’re going to complain about how bad things are, I’ve got one thing to say: put up or shut up.  You don’t like how things are?  See what you can do to change it.  If you won’t run — do what you can to help someone who will.  Otherwise, you don’t have the courage of your convictions — and to be blunt, you therefore don’t deserve to be listened to with any credibility.

“But I don’t want to waste my time for something that doesn’t matter!”  Uh-huh.  Like it or not, politics affects every aspect of your life—your business, the crime on the streets, inspections/appraisals, firefighting, and so on.  Who’s in office does matter — and they’re in there because of your vote … or your lack of a vote.

So get involved, folks.  Your life depends on it.

I could write an entire article about that — but circumstances have led me to focus on a different, yet slightly related, incident.  I’m referring to the debacle spanning the past two weeks concerning Rush Limbaugh and a contraception activist by the name of Sandra Fluke.

You’ve heard the story: Fluke gallantly goes before Congress, lamenting the woes of being a student at Georgetown University (one of the more expensive law schools in America, by the way), and somehow not being able to afford contraception — to the tune of $3,000.  The school is Catholic — and won’t dare cover the Pill under financial aid!

(Funny…I was under the impression that birth control — even spanning a full stint at a law school — was nowhere near that expensive.  Don’t Wal-Mart and Target have dirt-cheap plans for that, or something?)

Anyway, it’s all going well, despite a detailed, thoughtful call-out by that monstrous Bill O’Reilly.  But then…then Rush Limbaugh enters the debate — Limbaugh … that vile, fascistic, fat—

Wait…he’s thin, now.  Sorry…better put aside my Al Franken mantras.

Okay…Rush invoked this simple line of reasoning: aside from the really expensive choice of Georgetown — (kind of makes you wonder if she’d been planning to stir things up…) — Miss Fluke called for a really expensive contraceptive plan.  I’m guessing the super-size price isn’t due to simply using the Pill for health purposes (again, easily covered by the Wal-Mart plan).  Therefore … Fluke is supposedly over-indulging in birth control.  In all likelihood, she’s either lying, so as to rob America via the sympathy card … or she’s taking extra precautions “just to be sure”.

Therefore … by asking Congress to spare no expense to bring “reproductive justice” to Georgetown … Miss Fluke is effectively asking taxpayers to pay her to have safe sex, thereby making her a —

Well, you know.  After a firestorm that extended into the weekend, Rush apologized—first on his website, then on the air, noting that he’d fallen to the level of those he so eagerly calls out.  And the Left?  Did they accept his apology, in the name of tolerance and good will?

Are you kidding?  They doubled down, refusing to let things lie.  Sandra Fluke also smugly dismissed it, on the grounds that he was only doing it to stop the tide of sponsors leaving Limbaugh over his words.  Even Ron Paul carried the tune — as if conservatives needed another reason to not choose him.

(Three things: the number of sponsors people keep reporting is greatly exaggerated — they keep including advertisers on the stations that carry him.  Carbonite, the most vocal of the dissenters, took a sharp plummet in stock after it dumped Rush.  Finally … new sponsors are coming in.  Go figure.)

It took Kirsten Powers to call out the hypocrisy of those on her side—the fact that Bill Maher, Ed Schultz, and Keith Olbermann have gotten away with far worse.  As far as I know, Maher has yet to apologize for calling Sarah Palin a “dumb c—”.  But you know … he’s a comedian.  He’s entitled to it….

(Interesting: Maher himself has weighed in, begrudgingly defending Rush, noting that this refusal to accept the apology was decidedly immature.  Last I checked…Maher and Rush are not exactly the best of friends.)

But…what about Rush?

Look, I can’t see into his heart, but I strongly believe the apology was sincere.  My colleague Ron Rowe notes that Rush failed to do the smart thing and hold firm, and instead gave fuel to the fire.  I agree …  Rush didn’t do the smart thing — he did the right thing.  He took the fall when it’d be hardest to take — and he did the one thing his Leftist counterparts seem incapable of doing.

He manned up.  And that’s all we can ask of him.

Um…why shouldn’t laws be enforced?  Isn’t that the Constitutional point of a president—to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed”?

Okay…let’s make something absolutely clear: for all the rambling about Rick allegedly wanting to look into your bedrooms and tell you how to run your life — Rick has made it absolutely clear, over and over and over, that he has never, nor will he ever, take part in any policy to forbid, say, contraception.  As a devout Catholic, he doesn’t believe that it’s moral—but he doesn’t think it should be illegal.

Frankly, that seems to be a common misconception with Leftists — and many libertarians, while we’re at it: “You social conservatives want to impose your beliefs on us!”

Excuse me, “Progressives”… all we’ve been doing is pointing out the effect that your beliefs have had on our society.  What did the sexual revolution bring us?  Oh, let’s see…HIV, AIDS, and so on; rampant teenage pregnancies and massive upsurges in single parenthood— and along with that, a permanent underclass of people who’d never had the proper guidance for life; countless deadbeat fathers who abandon women and leave them to abort their unborn children.

That’s the “progress since the ’50s” that Rick Santorum wants America to “roll back”.  Is that so wrong?  And again — we’re not talking about “checking up on what everyone else is doing”.  We’re talking about education — calling out this so-called “progress”.  And you would compare this to racism?

No one’s talking about criminalizing contraceptives.  But the fact that people with Rick’s viewpoint are so readily smeared and trashed by their opponents should shed light on who is really “imposing” their points of view on others….

“Rick Santorum is against gay marriage.  Well, excuse me, Mr. Bigot: It’s unfair that heterosexual couples get tax exemptions, but homosexual couples can’t!”

Interestingly enough, Ron Paul has an excellent point on this: why should marriage be a problem for the government, period?  Tax exemption, indeed!  To be blunt, the tax code is far too complicated already.   Replace it with the Fair-Tax, for example—and you won’t need to whine about “tax exempt status”!

(Indeed, I find it amusing that one of our commentators here, though a staunch Ron Paul supporter, seems to want to have his cake and eat it, too: he knows Ron Paul wants to get rid of the tax code that has all those exemptions, and yet said commentator calls for more tinkering of the code — along with higher taxes on the rich, but that’s another story….)

Still, while we have this code: isn’t the whole point of the term “civil unions” so that gay couples can get that status, without the cultural impact of re-defining marriage?  No?   Well, then, what was the point of inventing the term in the first place?

While we’re on the subject of homosexuality, scientists still have yet to find a “homosexual gene”.  And when your “evidence” is a Wikipedia article (which frankly grasps at straws like “typical characteristics” to make its point)—just remember: Wiki’s not a credible source for your college paper.  It shouldn’t be held as the standard for debates, either.  For now, I’m with Dr. James Dobson: it might be a product of one’s surroundings, influences, etc. — but such doesn’t take away one’s responsibility of conduct.

“There — see?  You want to tell us how to run our lives!”

Pipe down.  It’s not about imposing lifestyles.  It’s about the effects lifestyles have on our culture.  You can’t look at the rampant rotgut, say, in the celebrity realm and tell me “They’re hurting no one but themselves!”  They’re hurting their families, and their friends.

All Rick is doing is promoting greater awareness of this simple fact: cultural immorality breeds cultural instability, like it or not.

WINNERS:
President Obama
Another week gone by and the Republicans are no closer to choosing a candidate to oppose the President. A few months ago he looked like a dead duck. There was no way he could be reelected.  The economy is still in the toilet, Obama still hasn’t delivered on any of his campaign promises, and his go-to excuse of blaming President Bush is wearing thin. But none of that matters if the GOP can’t find somebody – ANYBODY – that they can agree on.  President Obama’s ticket to 4 more years is being punched by his opponents without him having to lift a finger.
Ron Paul
I recently wrote an article saying, in essence, that I agree with 90% of what Ron Paul says but the other 10% scares me. I then sat back and waited for the insults and hysteria of the offended Ron Paulers to come pouring in. Instead I received a number of well thought-out and polite responses from Paul supporters attempting to explain Paul’s positions to me. I still don’t agree, but the fact that Paul supporters, who are well-known for trolling any internet commentary even slightly derogatory toward their guy, have toned down the rhetoric and upped the rational arguments bodes well for his future. Now, if only they could do something about the fact that he’s roughly 112 years old.
Eric M. Blake
Camp Campaign’s Eric M. Blake wrote the article that will not go away on January 2, 2012. Six weeks and 208 comments later, the debate is still going on with no end in sight. At the rate things are going he’ll be able to invoke Godwin’s Law at some point soon & claim victory.
LOSERS:
Anyone Hoping To Get Some News Coverage This Week
With the networks devoting roughly 23 hours a day to covering Whitney Houston’s untimely death and the remaining hour to mocking Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum as being out of touch and a religious zealot, respectively, there just wasn’t enough time for the Talking Heads to get to anything else. Better luck next week.
ESPN
Referring to the New York Knicks’ first loss since the ascendance of superstar Jeremy Lin as “A Chink in the Armor” was so not-PC that it was almost funny. It would have played well on a late-late-night animated TV comedy targeted to teenagers and drunks. But for the premier sports network on the planet? Just not appropriate.

Yes, I know Ron Paul is not really 112 but is in reality just a spritely 76 years old.

Now — I should be absolutely clear: by “Revolutionaries”, I do not mean the average Ron Paul supporter. You want to support Ron Paul?  More power to you.  The people I refer to are the militants — the ones who engage in the antics of “seminar callers”, and trash the messenger — me, in this case — as someone who “wants to bring us to the brink of WWIII”, or “is a neocon shill”, or “hates the truth”.

I have, I admit, made it a point to address those who comment — discuss matters of fact with them, and the like.  Needless to say, they usually end up smugly announcing that they won’t debate anymore, because I supposedly won’t listen to reason and don’t care about the truth!  And their idea of “truth”: claims that Iran’s regime calling for the collapse of “the Zionist regime” doesn’t mean it wants Israel to be destroyed — and therefore, Iran must be allowed to possess a nuclear bomb; claims  that Israel may have been complicit on 9/11 (I swear); claims that  Ron Paul’s failure to monitor his own newsletter should not cast doubts regarding his leadership abilities … and so on.  (Just kidding—they ignore that last point.)

Now … I must also admit that the vitriol is not restricted to the “Revolutionaries”.  There have been posters on “my” side, who’ve compared Ron Paul to Hitler.  I personally think that’s really unfair.  Ron, in his offers to reach out to Iran’s anti-Semitic, 12-er, West-hating regime in “friendship” (his word, not mine) is more akin to Neville Chamberlain.  He’s seriously misguided, and he  fails to comprehend the threat that radical Islam poses to the world.  But I hardly think he’s evil — or Hitler.

Let me state for the record: there are many things Ron Paul says that I agree with.  I agree that the Federal Reserve needs to be reined in.  Abolished, maybe not: I’m one for auditing it regularly, and taking away its ability to fix interest rates.  The Constitution allows for “coining money, regulating the value thereof,” and “borrowing money”.  Limit the national bank to that.

Another thing: cutting spending drastically.  That is something seriously needed.  I’ve been an advocate of the Ryan Plan, and the Mack-Penny Plan.

I agree that we shouldn’t have bases where we aren’t fighting wars—which is why I’m always amused at the false dichotomy that, “If you don’t support Ron’s foreign policy, you must want bases everywhere!”  I also agree that we shouldn’t give foreign aid to our enemies — let alone Israel’s enemies.  However, I firmly believe we must be sure to support our allies — and that includes Israel.

Now… Israel seems to be the main line of contention between me and a lot of “Revolutionaries”.  They bash Israel for our discovering some spies many years ago — as if we don’t/shouldn’t gather intelligence on our allies.  (Trust blindly, then?)  They bash Israel for having nuclear weapons — as if Israelis don’t have the right to maintain a balance of power with nations that want to destroy them.  They bash her for not being willing to “compromise”— with, again, nations that want to destroy her.  (“But they don’t really mean that!”)

There’s also the matter of foreign intervention.  As I said in another article, if it hadn’t been for a little “foreign intervention” on the part of France — France! — we would not have won the American Revolution — there would be no United States — and there certainly would be no Constitution!

While we’re on the subject of the Constitution, I recall that it gives our government power “to define and punish piracy committed on the high seas, and offenses against the Law of Nations”.  I would think Iran’s regime is engaging in such an offense — but that’s just me.  (Indeed, for all his claims to being an expert on the Constitution … this is a clause Ron Paul seems to forget exists.)

Anyway — my basic point is: I stand by every word I have published in criticism of Ron Paul.  Let the tomato-throwing commence….