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?

This past week has seen a fair share of scandals that demonstrate what happens when government gets too big.  In addition, we’ve got some more news on the Zimmerman-Martin Incident.  So ….

First—the sex: So a group of Secret Service agents are now in hot water, after the shocking revelation that, while preparing for a presidential visit to Colombia … said group got involved in prostitution.  Apparently, the curtain was lifted — get this — when one of the agents refused to give his girl the payment she demanded.

Let’s recap: First, they let in those two party crashers.  Then, they fail to completely check out and clear a route from our embassy in Ireland, resulting in The Beast (the President’s Cadillac) actually getting stuck on a ramp.  And now … this?

Look, sometimes truth is stranger than fiction — but Glenn Beck understandably smells a  rat: the Secret Service is renowned for its discipline.  They are the best of the best.  Never — and I mean never — before  have they demonstrated anything even close to the incompetence they seem to be suffering over and over in this Administration.  So … what  changed?

Glenn suspects sabotage — either by the “pig”-hating Leftists in the Administration, or by the Russians.  (Anna Chapman was just the beginning.)  Make of it what you will, but I agree, at least, that something’s not right….

Second—the lies: No, not from me … from the media.  Only now — after all the threats of riots, the bounties and threats from the New Black Panthers, and the swearing up-and-down that the shooting of Trayvon Martin was racial … only now, after George Zimmerman turns himself in to stand trial, are photos released that show him with a bloody scalp — presumably inflicted on him by his “victim”.  Oh, and Trayvon was apparently expelled from school…and was already suspected of taking part in robberies.  (Wait … didn’t Zimmerman note in the 9-1-1 call that … he was on watch that night because of some break-ins … ?)

Of course … that doesn’t fit the narrative, does it, NBC?  And so … the narrative continues, despite Bill Cosby crying foul on the nonsense.  (Of course, Bill — bless his heart — followed that with a call for gun control.  Ah, well ….)

But dishonesty extends beyond this scandal.  This week also saw Ted Nugent being called to the woodshed for using — shock! — combat metaphors … for the November election.  Meanwhile … we see Louis Farrakhan once again getting away with “predicting” violence on the streets — and assassinations of leaders who “sell out”.  (By the way … Calypso Louis’s also ranted about Barack Obama having been “corrupted” from a “beautiful human being with a sweet heart” to “A MURDERER SITTING IN THE WHITE HOUSE—WHO WILL SAY IT?!?”)

Remember — this guy’s got the ear of millions in this country.  He is, to be blunt, a dangerous man.  But of course, the media doesn’t dare “smear” such a great, noble, honorable civil rights leader.  Nugent’s the baddie—Farrakhan’s good!

One last thing in the “lies” section—we’ve heard over and over and over that voter-ID laws are racist!  They say — I kid you not — that such laws are on par with Jim Crow!

As if that wasn’t absurd enough—we have Attorney General Eric Holder swearing with a straight face that there’s no real problem with voter fraud.  Needless to say … James O’Keefe proved him wrong in the most … interesting way possible.

Amazing.

Finally — the videotape: You’ve probably heard of this by now — the GSA takes a romp in Vegas, baby … for a “conference”, or something.  The clown … the music videos … the wine glasses and the bathtub — and don’t get me started about Gumby.  The guys responsible went before Congress — and pleaded the Fifth, again … and again … and again.

Remember — this is the GSA we’re talking about.  They’re  responsible for making sure that the federal government doesn’t waste money on stupid things.  And yet, somehow, they’re so shameless about living high on the hog — off the taxpayer’s dime — that they’re making videos about it!

Needless to say … here we have yet another example of what happens when big government runs amuck.  All Mitt Romney needs to do here is play up for all its worth his experience at cutting costs and streamlining budgets.  We’ll be good to go.

Your vote is your voice. It is really that simple. If you don’t vote, you don’t have a voice. Remember, it doesn’t count if you don’t cast it.

See, there is this misconception that whichever candidate has the most money automatically wins. That is simply not true. A candidate can have campaign contributions equivalent to the U.S. national debt. But if no one ever votes for him, he won’t win. That’s because our system is still based on the fact that people have to cast their vote. It requires a physical action on our part to exercise this particular right.

So what are the consequences of not voting?

Well, you lose your voice. You fail to convey your feelings about the job the politician is doing. In other words, it is like a boss not evaluating an employee the entire time they have been there. By casting a vote against the individual, you are saying you don’t like the direction he is leading.

Look at it this way as well. If the same people vote the same way even if they are in the minority, then their voices are the only ones that count. The only reason that some groups are considered in the majority is because more of them vote.

In fact, voting is the only real way to change things. That is the way the system is set up.

But it is more than a right, it’s a responsibility. It is a responsibility to ourselves to ensure that our government is representing us properly. It is a responsibility to ensure that government isn’t stepping on our fundamental rights granted to us by the U.S. Constitution. It is a responsibility to ensure that the government isn’t overreaching its boundaries. It is a responsibility to ensure that the government isn’t taking more power than it needs and throwing it away.

Yes, this is even true in Presidential elections where the Electoral College casts the final votes for President. You see, the Electoral College votes on the popular vote. The popular vote is determined by the number of people who actually cast a ballot. The popular vote is not determined by the number of people registered or the number of people who didn’t bother to show up or fill out an absentee ballot. The Electoral College can’t read minds. They can only read the number of actual votes or the popular vote. Only in very extremely rare cases has the Electoral College gone against the popular vote and in those cases it hasn’t changed the outcome.

Next time someone tries to tell you that your vote doesn’t count, don’t listen.

Your voice matters. Your vote matters. Your vote counts.

(U.S. Navy photo)

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.

The last Federal Budget was passed by President George W. Bush. Yes, you read that right. President Obama has not had a Federal Budget passed since he took the office. If that shocks you, you should consider that for the first two years of his Presidency, President Obama had both a Democratic House and a Democratic Senate. Of course, he is only responsible for signing it into law because the real responsibility is on Congress to get one passed.

In the last four years, that responsibility sits squarely on Senator Harry Reid’s shoulders.

The typical passage of a Budget works like most pieces of legislation. It is created in the House of Representatives through a committee. The committee votes on it and passes it on. It goes through a few changes and the entire House votes on it. Once it passes through there, it goes to the Senate.

From there, a committee in the Senate looks at it and crafts their own version. After the committee vote, it goes up for a vote to the full Senate. Once the Senate passes their version, representatives from both the House and Senate get together and compromise on the final version. Then it goes before both to get a final vote. Finally, the President signs it into law.

What has happened with the Budget is that is has essentially stalled in the Senate. This is because Senator Harry Reid won’t bring up the Budget to the full Senate to get a vote on it. Nor has President Obama put any type of pressure on Senator Harry Reid to get it passed.

If you are wondering why a Federal Budget is such a big deal, think about your household income and expenses. A budget essentially tracks all of your money and what you are spending it on. Without a working budget, your household can easily get into financial trouble because you don’t know where your money is going. The first piece of advice anyone is going to give you to dig yourself out is to make a budget.

The Government is making the exact same mistake. Without the Federal Budget, they don’t know where the money is going. As a result, the deficit keeps growing and growing. It won’t stop growing until Congress grabs back control of their finances with a Budget. At over $15 trillion dollars and counting, there is no country on Earth that can provide that type of money for a bailout. It just isn’t going to happen. Unfortunately, that’s reality and not a political viewpoint.

But more importantly, a Budget leads to accountability. A Federal Budget means governmental accountability. Accountability is the one thing that has been totally lost this administration. If you don’t have a Government that is accountable to the people, then all the “feel good political legislation” that gets passed before election day doesn’t mean a thing.

It is time that the American people stood up and held the Congress and the President accountable for the money that they are spending. It is time to demand that a Federal Budget gets passed. Otherwise, all of the promises spewed out by the President and Congress are just empty words. So, President Obama, let me ask you this. Where’s the Federal Budget?

Ron Paul has lately been engaging in the typical Leftist talking point (which…I believe was formally coined “chickenhawk” by Al “The Joker” Franken for his Leftist creed, Rush Limbaugh Is a Big Fat Idiot) that if you haven’t been in the military, and fought in a war—you have no business deciding whether or not America should go to war.

Of course, if Ron were as well up on the Founding Fathers as he so smugly claims, he’d have to hold to the same standard , say…Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and John Adams.  While George Washington and Alexander Hamilton were off fighting, Ben and John were off in France, negotiating for French intervention—

Wait.  Intervention—Ron Paul’s against intervention in wars that he claims don’t concern us!  “Imperialism,” it is!  Of course…had it not been for a little “foreign intervention”—encouraged by the “chickenhawks” Franklin and Adams—there would not have been a United States today, let alone a Constitution.

Back to the present.  You know…Ron Paul Revolutionaries are funny.  If you weren’t in the military, and you support the War, you’re a “chickenhawk”.  If you’re an officer in the military, and you support the War, you’re a member of the Military-Industrial-Complex.  It’s a win-win propaganda campaign.  (Of course…Ron Paul was only in the military for two years—as a physician.  If we’re going to go by his argument…John McCain had a lot more credibility talking about the War than Ron does.  “But McCain’s a NEOCON!”  So what?  He served his country a lot longer than Ron Paul did….)

Now—we’re fair and balanced, here.  Newt Gingrich is engaging in some disgracefully pathetic talking points, too—with the help of Rick Perry.  That not-so-dynamic duo, in nothing less than sheer desperation, have attacked Mitt Romney’s record as CEO of Bane Capital—the investment firm that helped out such legendary companies as Staples, Toys-R-Us, and Burlington Coat Factory.

Naturally, Bane would become a target for attack from the Left.  However, the kind of anti-Wall-Street rhetoric you’d expect from the Democrats…is now coming from the mouths of Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry—of all people!

The accusation is that Mitt is a “vulture capitalist”—a “corporate raider” who bought out struggling companies, mercilessly breaking them up…and selling off the parts, leaving innocent workers out in the cold.  In short, Mitt’s supposed to be Gordon Gekko—wrecking Bluestar “because it’s wreck-able, all right?!”

Look…Mitt Romney’s nothing if not a good businessman.  And any good businessman knows that if a company can be brought back, it’s more profitable to restore than to destroy—it makes more money, in the long run.  If a company can’t be brought back—if it’s too far gone—then, a break-up is necessary.  Better that than a slow, painful death which would’ve caused even more turmoil for the “victims” in Newt’s 30-minute documentary/hit-job.  Better to have them look somewhere better for work now, than drag them down with a sinking ship.

As Danny DeVito said in Other People’s Money, as venture capitalist Lawrence Garfield, “This company is dead.  I didn’t kill it…don’t blame me…it was dead when I got here….  Let’s have the intelligence—let’s have the decency—to sign the death certificate, collect the insurance, and invest in something with a future!”  Same goes for the four companies Newt’s been ranting about (three of which, by the way, weren’t invested in by Bane until after Mitt left to save the Olympics)—they were dead when Bane got there.  The buggy whips were going out of style…and Newt’s documentary is a prayer for the dead.

(Watch Larry’s entire speech here—it’s a harsh dose of reality, for haters of “vulture capitalism”.)

As convenient these kinds of attacks are for emotional appeals…they have no basis in reality.  Newt and Perry are now running dying campaigns, and Ron’s only a protest vote—he can’t win, as I’ve stated before.  All three should drop out, ASAP—they’re only hurting the causes they claim to support.  The good of the party, the good of the country…their own dignity depend on it.

I must admit, I’m not surprised at the results of this “poll”—released by Fairleigh Dickinson University (who?).  Disappointed, but not surprised.  After all, competition brings out both the best and the worst in people—and often encourages smears of this kind.

Okay, here are just a few of the problems in the story:

The sampling is too limited. The poll surveyed 612 New Jersey natives—and that’s it.  The article smugly asserts the all-too-local results somehow prove that, across the country, Fox News viewers are less informed than, say…readers of The New York Times.  (You know, the paper with Paul “There’s-no-proof-that-Gabby-Giffords’-shooter-was-a-Teabagger-but-the-odds-are-that-he-was” Krugman as the premier liberal voice…and David “I-love-the-crease-in-Obama’s-pants” Brooks as the premier “conservative” voice.  But I digress….)

You want to poll viewers across the country?  Poll viewers across the country.  For all we know, those “results” are just a local phenomenon.  And—His Supreme Awesomeness Chris Christie notwithstanding…NJ, last I checked, is traditionally a blue state.

The sampling demographics are not provided—not in the article, anyway.  Exactly how many Fox viewers did this no-name university poll?  How many MSNBC?  How many New York Times readers?  How many—and I got such a kick out of this part of the poll—how many Jon Stewart viewers?

All we know is that the pollsters have assured us that they accounted for partisanship.  Somehow, that doesn’t reassure me.  Anyhow…for all we know, the poll oversampled FOX viewers, so as to register enough “dumb” viewers to cancel out the smart ones.  Since the article conveniently leaves out the details…we may never know.

What were the questions?  Well, let’s see: “Fox viewers were 18 points less likely [than non-news-watchers] to know that Egyptians toppled their government and 6 points less likely to be aware that Syrians have not yet overthrown theirs.”

Okay…as someone who has his apartment room’s TV nearly always tuned into Fox, I happen to know that Fox leaves no room whatsoever for confusion regarding Syria.  Story after story lately has concerned the Syrian government struggling with the rebellion—and the UN’s condemnation of its “crimes against humanity.”  So…I guess we can assume that these “dumb” Fox viewers conveniently tuned out those stories.  (Translation: the poll failed to distinguish how often said viewers actually watch the channel.)

As for “Egyptians toppling their government”…ah, which government are we talking about?  As my colleague Ronald Rowe  noted last week…Egypt’s got a new government, and a new PM.  Last time I checked, the people haven’t toppled that one…yet.  For all we know, the viewers were confused by the question, to that effect: “Oh, they did it again?  Wow, I didn’t know that!”

Next—apparently, MSNBC fans know better than Fox viewers that Mitt Romney is the front runner.  Wait a minute.  This article came out last week.  Last time I checked, Newt Gingrich was topping the polls.  Before him, it was Herman Cain.  Maybe Mitt was briefly the front-runner amid the transition, but still…it’s a toss-up between him and Newt.  (I wonder how many respondents said, “Newt”?)

In other words…it’s the pollsters that have a problem here, not the viewers.

The only other example of “idiocy” provided by the article concerns party identification of the Occupiers.  The victims are MSNBC viewers.  But you know…they’re not that dumb.

You get the idea.  Other than that, we don’t know what the questions were—let alone, how they were worded.  And considering the known slant of the majority of university professors (and again—this is a no-name university in a traditionally blue state)…I’m not getting my hopes up on “fair and balanced”.

So there we have it: this article, more than anything else, indicates the pure jealousy—and desperation—of a “mainstream media” who can’t handle the competition.  And the constant invoking of “polls” like this—along with an unfortunate incident of the late lamented Steve Jobs, a registered Democrat, misrepresenting Fox—indicates that said desperation extends to their fans, as well.

But, hey—what do I know?  I’m a Fox viewer.

Second: CBS cut off broadcasting the debate after the first hour.  Apparently, the second hour has Lindsey Graham and Jim DeMint make appearances.  If nothing else, this demonstrates the immense inconvenience of network television—and why cable news should probably be the sole forum for these things.

Okay.  Here’s the rundown:

Herman Cain: Herman kicked off the debate, reminding us of the Iranian people’s opposition to Ahmadinejad— and articulating his strategy for handling the country’s nuclear threat.  He analyzed Pakistan’s problems, and the need for clarification on its friend-or-foe status.  He laid out the need for advisors bringing alternatives to the table.  He carefully answered the question on torture — challenging America to define what is torture.  He wins, albeit not as big as usual.

Mitt Romney: Mitt Romney began by articulating Obama’s failures regarding Iran.  His correctly challenging the moderator regarding his time was superb.  The audience cheered his response to the Al-Alwaki question.  Once again, he discussed reining in China, and its “currency manipulator” status.  (Again, he’s more or less taking the reins from Donald Trump on this.)  He wins.

Newt Gingrich: Newt had a most clever remark about Obama’s “ways to be dumb” on Iran.  His analysis of the Taliban—and its sanctuary in Pakistan—was most thought-provoking.  He had great points on foreign aid, Egypt, and the disturbing anti-Christian trends in the Arab Spring.  When Major Garrett asked whether he’d care to criticize Mitt’s foreign policy, Newt smirked, and simply said, “No”—to thunderous applause.  He laid out the defense between criminality and acts of war—to similar cheers.  He wins.

Rick Perry: Rick appeared more confident, more relaxed, and less drunk than last time.  He had good recommendations on the issue of foreign aid—and Pakistan’s dishonesty towards America.  His self-deprecation on his previous flub was golden—and well received by the audience.  His remarks on Communist China, and cyber-warfare, were excellent.  His comments on aid to Israel were well laid out.  Overall, I think this was Rick’s best debate—and this win might well redeem him.

Michele Bachmann:  No one can accuse Michele of lacking knowledge on foreign policy—she began by articulating the many mistakes in the War on Terror, under Bush and Obama.  She pointed out Al-Qaeda’s proximity to Pakistan’s nuclear technology…and a potential nuclear war, centered on Israel.  She defended the CIA’s interrogation policies well.  She wins.  We’ll see if it’ll help reverse her fall.

Jon Huntsman: Jon began by claiming that we no longer need to be in Afghanistan, saying we need to focus more on intelligence and preparing the Afghans to fight on their own.  Fair enough…but his lecture on “values and principles” regarding waterboarding was, of course, based on emotional sentiment, and not facts.  He gets borderline.

Rick Santorum: Rick began seeming rather tired, aside from his brief complaint about not getting enough questions.  His criticism of Bush was interesting, as was his defense of a more aggressive stance towards Iran than Newt’s proposal.  He asserted the necessity to have Pakistan on our side, and brought up an interesting point on foreign-aid spending creating jobs here.  In contrast to Herman, Rick laid out the need for people who agree with you.  He did okay, winning overall…but I don’t see him rising up the polls, unless something surprising happens in his favor.

Ron Paul: Yes, Ron, we know it’s Congress’s power to declare war—that wasn’t the question!  His claim about “war propaganda” was also rather pathetic—Ahmadinejad’s violent threats against Israel are on record.  Still, his answers overall were far superior to his previous statements on foreign policy—at last, he appears open to going overseas, provided it’s done according to constitutional protocol.  His answer on waterboarding, however, was filled with straw men—and based on emotions (shared by the screaming Revolutionaries in the audience), not facts (like the information gleaned from the waterboarding of K.S.M. leading to the foiling of the LA Library plot).  I’ll be generous and give him borderline, because he wasn’t as pathetic on foreign policy as he usually is.

See you next time….

Deniers tend to “counter” this with absurd ramblings about “Faux News” and the Military-Industrial-Complex…conveniently ignoring, for example, the free pass the “mainstream” media’s given the Occupiers…amid all the rapes (settled quietly, “for the good of the group”), all the anti-Semitic rants, the seizing of the Brooklyn Bridge (which led to the first wave of arrests— rightfully so; after all, they held up traffic) — and most recently, the Oakland flash mob engaging in graffiti and window-smashing.  Meanwhile, the cops are smeared for “police brutality”—a claim supported by the media.  Only a few independent outlets like The Blaze—or, as it were, Fox News—show the actual video evidence of who’s really in the wrong.

But the biggest example of media bias and hypocrisy this week can be seen in the treatment of Herman Cain.  Observe:

Last Sunday, the Politico released a story concerning two former female employees of the National Restaurant Association, who claimed that Cain had sexually harassed them, and that the Association had settled out of court.

In case you’re wondering, “Politico has confirmed the identities of the two female Restaurant Association members who complained about Cain but, for privacy concerns, is not publishing their names.”

No identities, no names: “Politico has a half-dozen sources…”  “One source closely familiar with Cain’s tenure in Washington confirmed…”  “…and her identity was confirmed by two additional sources.” All this—amid a constant barrage of “allegedly”, “apparently”, “may have”, etc.

The specifics?  “These incidents include conversations allegedly filled with innuendo or personal questions of a sexually suggestive nature.”

Next: “There were also descriptions of physical gestures that were not regarded as overtly sexual but that made women who experienced or witnessed them uncomfortable, and that they regarded as improper in a professional relationship.”

Yes…you read that right.

As the article reached its end, we finally saw some names—and they all agreed: Herman Cain is not a molester.  That is not the man they know.  He has always been gracious and courteous to those around him—men and women alike.

Of course…that part has been conveniently downplayed.  Equipped with unnamed—but “reliable”, don’t forget—sources, the news swept the press.  Suddenly, a third woman—and a fourth!  Who are they?  We don’t know.  Something about a “confidentiality agreement”.  (Funny…didn’t stop them from leaking in the first place….)

Meanwhile, the only one actually giving any concrete details is…Herman Cain.  Herman told Fox News’s Greta Van Susteren that the only allegation he remembers involved an incident where he compared a woman’s height to his wife, bringing his hand to his chin.  Other than that…he doesn’t recall a thing.  Any settlements were done without his knowledge.  He has never harassed anyone—any claims to the contrary are false.

(Note: Companies often settle with false accusers to avoid the hassle and expense of court.)

The press’s reaction: That’s not good enough!  Cain should come out with the full story, to prove his innocence.

Cain should?  News flash: Last time I checked, in America, we were Innocent Until Proven Guilty!  (Come to think of it, there’s also the right to face the accuser.)  So…why won’t Politico—or anyone else—come out with the details they so confidently claim to have?  Why aren’t those “reliable sources” revealed for all?  In short…where’s the proof?

Nothing.

Some years ago, the late lamented Ted Kennedy drove drunk with a girl—into a river.  He escaped, and ran off.  The girl drowned.  The press forgave it.

They forgave Bill Clinton for Gennifer Flowers, the story buried even when she provided audio evidence.  They forgave him for Paula Jones.  And with Monica Lewinsky…remember, the press actually sat on the story.  It took an internet pioneer named Matt Drudge to reveal the truth—guilting the media into doing their job.  (Drudge had to do it again, when the Blue Dress turned up.)

But with Herman Cain, it’s different—just as it was, to be honest, with Clarence Thomas.  For a black conservative, all it takes is a few “allegations”—equipped with a dubious source or two—and you’re the main story of the week…or the month.

Of course…Anita Hill had the guts to come out and give details. I’d wager Cain’s accusers don’t want to end up like she did: remembered by history as a discredited “source”. . .