Obama and the audacity of fairness

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.

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.

For example, President Obama promised, "We can build a nation where . . . everybody plays by the same rules."

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.

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.

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 polling place no judicial review was warranted. In fact, the pending case against them was summarily dismissed.

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 Solyndra and the Chevrolet Volt, 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?

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?

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 2009 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 net beneficiaries 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"?

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.

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.

Dick Durbin tests the Water Balloon Theory

No one likes high bank fees, especially in an era of bailouts, Wall Street occupations, and Washington deciding which banks survive. So a $5 monthly debit card fee creates an ideal situation for a manipulative politician, and Sen. Dick Durbin is ready to reap the populist hay.

Bank of America initiated the $5 debit card fee and you'd have thought they'd reinstated debtor's prison. No sooner was the fee announced than Durbin pounced.

Bank of America customer, vote with your feet. Get the heck out of that bank. Find yourself a bank or credit union that won't gouge you for $5 a month and still will give you a debit card that you can use every single day. What Bank of America has done is an outrage.

Did Durbin forget that Bank of America never charged a monthly debit card fee until he legislated "fairness" into the banking industry? No, he didn't forget. He's just a hypocrite. Then, to cover his trail, this dim bulb encouraged a bank run that would, if fulfilled, result in Bank of America's insolvency.

Yesterday the federal government bailed out "too big to fail" Bank of America with 45-billion taxpayer dollars. Today Dick Durbin has declared B of A expendable. I don't know which is more insulting: the inconsistency, or Durbin's belief that Bank of America customers need his prompt to seek a new bank if they find the debit card fee egregious.

How can Durbin feign such self-righteous indignation over the debit card fee anyway? He created it. Durbin's amendment to the Dodd-Frank banking reform legislation placed an artificial cease-and-desist order on the debit card fees banks once charged. Bank of America predictably sought new revenue streams to replace those Durbin's amendment disallows. It's the natural action for an institution whose revenue is disrupted.

When a business is squeezed in one area it will redirect its quest for profits, a phenomenon clearly illustrated in my Water Balloon Theory. If you fill a long balloon with water and compress one area, the water will be forced to a new location. No matter how hard you squeeze, you can't contain the water in one place. It will always move to a spot of lesser resistance. The only way to stop the process is to compress the balloon until it bursts.

Sen. Durbin tried to disprove my Water Balloon Theory, but he failed. His attempt to constrain the bank's fee structure simply forced those fees to a new location. At Bank of America the bulge appeared in the form of a $5 monthly charge for debit card use.

The Water Balloon Theory remains intact. Exerting political pressure on businesses will push their hunt for profits in a new direction. Continually increasing said pressure will cause businesses to fail, just like a balloon. We should apply this theory whenever we're tempted to demand congressional action on a perceived unfairness. Otherwise we, like Durbin, will end up all wet.

Debbie Wasserman Schultz: Big bark, little dog!

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz is like a little dog, maybe a dachshund. She charges her adversary, teeth barred and yapping viciously, until realizing the other dog is larger. The realization sends her scurrying for cover, where she yelps, snarls and whines. While this analogy may seem ridiculous, it perfectly illustrates Schultz’s “confrontation” with Rep. Allen West and her political persona in general.

Schultz bit Rep. West during a speech on the House floor. Well, more like she nipped him on the heel. She never mentioned West by name, yet he was obviously her target. During a rambling, platitude-laced diatribe about the debt ceiling, Schultz accused Rep. West of denying Social Security checks and Medicare payments to senior citizens. West responded directly to Rep. Schultz, telling her exactly what he thought of her unprofessional tactics. Like a yapping, obnoxious little dog, Schultz tucked her tail and ran for the cover of her supporters, who were quick to oblige.

The President of Emily’s List, Stephanie Schriock, issued a thinly disguised fund-raising message in which she described West’s response as angry, threatening, sexist, and demeaning. “We don’t have to tolerate this kind of behavior,” she wrote, demanding a formal, public apology from Rep. West.

However, it was Schultz’s choice to play rough. She wasn’t genteel, professional, or ladylike toward Allen West. Rather than face West directly, Schultz hid behind the House microphone and her leftist supporters. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, like a dachshund, proved to be all show. She barked a good fight, but that was all. Schultz should’ve heeded West’s admonition to “shut the heck up.” But once safe from West, she feigned ferocity once again.

Schultz accused House Republicans of using the debt ceiling debate to establish a dictatorship. Conservatives, she charged, planned to inflict pain and suffering on as many Americans as possible. How she arrived at this conclusion is anyone’s guess. But logic played no part in Schultz’s accusation. It seldom does. She was again the angry dachshund on the attack, barking loud, creating commotion, becoming an annoyance, and accomplishing nothing.

Rep. Schultz can play the tough poser. But the threat she presents is as miniscule as her understanding of dictatorships.

Dictatorial powers are invested in a central figure, not a legislative body. No dictator worthy of the title allows outside forces to exercise more than a token influence on governmental decisions. Dictators rule without regard to outside opinion. Anything resembling a deliberative body is a smokescreen, a rubber stamp. And there’s no room for citizens’ representation.

Schultz can sniff all she wants. She won’t find the dictator’s mindset among genuine Conservatives. But, ironically, her Democrat colleagues seem ready, even eager, to yield dictatorial powers to the Executive Branch.

Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-SC) finds nothing controversial or inconsistent about a Democrat President unilaterally bypassing the representative body. He’s not alone; other Democrats echoed Clyburn’s sentiments. In fact, many Democrats have encouraged President Obama to act unilaterally in spending the public’s money and increasing the public’s indebtedness. True, Obama himself hasn’t acted on his colleagues’ wishes. But he's made it clear, in his own words, that wielding absolute power has entered his mind.

The seeds of dictatorship are present in Rep. Schultz’s party. A Democrat president dreams of making his own rules while alleged representatives encourage him to assume authority his office doesn’t legally possess. Did Schultz fail to notice her colleagues’ support for authoritarian rule, or conveniently ignore it? Perhaps she’s too busy barking at imaginary dictators to focus her attention on the tyrannical attitudes residing within her own party. Or, more likely, she shares their thirst for despotism.

Rep. Schultz is the perfect example of an absurdity. She’s a belligerent party hack with a blind eye for the obvious. She possesses the courage of a Doberman when unopposed, but can shrink into a whining whelp at a moment's notice. Like a dachshund, Debbie Wasserman Schultz is a general nuisance who makes a big show, does nothing, and runs for cover when challenged.

Liberals rise to a new low

The left wasted no time in spinning the attempt on Rep. Gabrielle Giffords’ life for their political advantage. Uncivil dialogue, liberals argued, had prompted the attack. The fact that Giffords’ assailant was apolitical, or even leaning left, didn’t matter. Leftists heeded Rahm Emmanuel’s advice, capitalized on a crisis, and demanded political civility as they define the term.

Apparently, liberals believe any criticism toward them or their positions constitutes uncivil dialogue. However, a running discussion about raping conservative legislators -- and how in need of being raped they are -- represents cutting-edge political commentary, protected free speech. “Raped” may sound like a strong word. But how else can we define “hate” sex?

Former Air America “comedian” Marc Maron (henceforth, Marc Moron), said on HBO’s “Real Time” with Bill Maher, “I hope Marcus Bachman (Michelle Bachman’s husband) takes all that rage into the bedroom with her. I hope he f---s her angrily, because that’s how I would.” Fellow panelist Dan Savage chimed in about “f---ing the s--t out of Rick Santorum.”

Here’s the situation as it exists. When conservatives challenge liberals on their anti-freedom, big government, authoritarian policies we’re inciting violence. But when liberals snicker about the violent rape of conservative representatives it’s a legitimate avenue toward a political point. Marc Moron dismissed his perverted insanity in exactly that fashion. “It’s a political statement I’m trying to make,” Moron explained.

Citing Moron as an example of Air America’s vapid programming eliminates all doubt as to why the network failed. But one thing is certain, if he ever has sex -- hate or otherwise -- with Michelle Bachman he’ll have to use force. Rep. Bachman is an attractive, intelligent, successful woman. Moron is today’s prototypical liberal, a condescending, insufferable, sniveling little pervert. And Dan Savage is even worse. What more needs to be said about a “sex expert” who wistfully details the violent sodomy of a male congressman?

Imagine the left’s reaction had a conservative directed such a reprehensible “joke” toward a liberal legislator? What would leftists say if Rush Limbaugh talked about “hate sex” with Hillary Clinton? The DNC would demand Sean Hannity’s arrest if he said “let’s bone that Barney Frank boy” on national television, as Savage said about Santorum.

One point must be granted. It’s believable that a depraved little toad like Moron would fantasize about committing sadistic sex acts on Michelle Bachman, or Sarah Palin, or Nikki Haley. These prominent conservative women are physically attractive. Name a prominent liberal woman who induces even the most fleeting erotic thought? Anyone want a turn at Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, Diane Feinstein, or Barbara Mikulski? Frankly, I would rather drink from a sewer pipe than have even consensual relations with one of those barking hags.

I would like to believe that Democrats and their media puppets wouldn’t condone the vile, near-criminal “hate sex” and homosexual puke Moron and Savage spewed on Maher’s freak show. But I’m not so naïve. In fact, neither the propaganda press nor the Obama White House -- both central figures in spinning the Tucson shooting -- have uttered a peep of censure toward Moron, Savage, or their equally slovenly host, Bill Maher. In fact, some leftist media outlets defend their debauchery.

Don’t think for a moment that these three stooges are fringe elements. Maher, Moron, and Savage personify liberalism’s core and represent the mainstream in Democrat policy. And the Democrat figureheads in Washington and the media have the gall to demand political civility and bipartisanship? Why would any human being, regardless their party affiliation, want to cooperate with such disgusting maniacs?

Dealing intelligently, morally, and maturely with stupid, wicked, and infantile adversaries is a fool’s errand. Honorable and ethical people have no common ground with contemporary liberalism (a.k.a. Regressives). Today’s liberals are psychotic liars, pathological degenerates, and detestable tyrants -- directing a legion of useful idiots -- whose greatest character strength is their filth and decadence.

Outraged or shocked at Casey Anthony verdict? Think again!

Social media is abuzz with condemnations for Casey Anthony. Celebrities are tweeting their outrage while media pundits from Joy Behar to Bill O’Reilly air their displeasure with the Anthony verdict. The court of public opinion had Anthony convicted and all but executed. Anger toward Casey Anthony united this country like nothing since Pearl Harbor. How could the jury disagree with the majority? But disagree they did.

The prosecution couldn’t produce sufficient evidence to erase the jury’s reasonable doubt about how Caylee Anthony died, or at whose hand. So Casey will go free, in complete agreement with America’s judicial system.

We the people empower the State to execute offending citizens, or imprison them for life. To balance that power, the State must bear the burden of establishing guilt. Were accusation, or public opinion, the primary evidence for determining a person's guilt the right to life, our most basic liberty, wouldn't exist. A State-induced, mob mentality would serve America no better than it did Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, or Islamic caliphates.

Yet the calls for Casey Anthony’s head are myriad. From Twitter to Facebook the protests rage, virtual vigils are held, and Casey Anthony is strapped into an imaginary electric chair. She knows whether or not she killed her daughter. But the State didn’t prove her guilt to the jury’s satisfaction. So Casey will be freed. There is no appeal, no re-trail. She cannot be “subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.”

I didn’t follow the Casey Anthony trial. I think publicly airing criminal proceedings cheapens our courts and transforms them into quasi-reality dog and pony shows. Courts are serious, not a judicial version of American Idol. Their purpose is to try the charged and determine guilt or innocence to the greatest degree possible within an imperfect, human system. Most of the time they work. Sometimes they fail. That’s life; get over it. When courts become public entertainment they’re no longer tools of justice and tranquility, but of tyranny.

Nothing in Casey Anthony’s acquittal indicates she is guiltless. Casey prefers partying to parenting. She’s a maternal nightmare, similar to Susan Smith and Andrea Yates, and exceeds the Octomom for irresponsibility. She’s no matron of motherhood. But for many of Anthony’s detractors, condemning her for considering Caylee an inconvenience is somewhat hypocritical. Why is a child’s death, for the sake of convenience, considered evil only when it offends the public?

More than a million babies die for the sake of their mother’s convenience every year. Had Casey Anthony aborted Caylee she would’ve been a heroine to the pro-abortion activist. The only difference between Casey Anthony’s alleged crime and an aborted pregnancy is the timing. The underlying attitude is the same. At least Caylee’s accused killer stood trial. Where’s the media, celebrity, and public outrage for the unknown babies sacrificed to convenience in abortion clinics every day?

Another interesting twist on the Anthony verdict is the eagerness with which her detractors want her punished. The nation is angry at Casey Anthony. Therefore, she should fry like scrambled eggs. But the condemnations contradict the normal attitudes our social superiors have towards accused, and even convicted, murderers.

Many of Casey’s harshest critics are altogether opposed to capital punishment. When an accused murderer is convicted, activists demand tolerance regardless of either the perpetrator’s brutality or prior record. Social activists excuse duly convicted murderers as products of an unjust society. They piously remind those of us in the great unwashed about the danger of executing an innocent person, even when the condemned has been tried and found as guilty as John Dillinger.

Those voices are quiet in the Casey Anthony aftermath. Or, they have joined the self-righteous calls for Casey’s guilt and execution. And they hold this opinion about someone who was tried and exonerated in criminal court? It's a double standard that defies all reason.

Blatant inconsistencies are evident in the public's reaction to Casey Anthony acquittal. The State didn’t convince a jury of Casey’s guilt, meaning she's innocent. Calling for her head is an affront to our fundamental liberty. Abortion activists believe pregnancies represent an inconvenience to women. Yet they're angry toward Casey Anthony for, allegedly, considering Caylee a drain on her lifestyle. And “open-minded” opponents of executing duly convicted murderers are convinced that an exonerated defendant should bite the dust.

The nation's reaction to Casey Anthony's exoneration confirms that a lack of consistency is the only constant in contemporary public discourse.

Democrats are the butt of the Weiner jokes

Anthony Weiner left the House of Representatives as the butt of a thousand jokes. And why not? Any man named “Weiner” who spreads his digitized anatomy around the Internet should expect ridicule. Yet while the Weiner saga overexposed a congressional member, the Democrat Party emerged the biggest joke of all.

Anthony Weiner is a man of poor judgment and unmitigated arrogance. Internet anonymity is a long shot even for the most obscure person. Add celebrity to the equation and privacy dissipates like a vapor. Only a man of indescribable juvenility and pomposity would believe he could beat the stacked deck. Weiner lost his bet, with his own party calling his hand.

No one would’ve batted an eye had Republicans called for Weiner’s resignation. Manipulating promiscuity for political advantage is somewhat a tradition in Washington. Democrat’s struck the David Vitter and Mark Foley scandals with the venom of a thousand cobras. But Republicans had little to say about the Weiner matter.

Republicans were content to let Democrats rebuke Anthony Weiner. Their silence was a wise strategy, leaving Democrats caught in their own web. Defending Anthony Weiner would’ve again exposed the Democrat Party’s lack of moral conscience. In showing Weiner the door the Democrats have screamed their hypocrisy at the top of their collectivist lungs.

What did Anthony Weiner do that was worthy of resignation? So he sent risqué photos to a few women, some of whom were willing participants. Sure, he exercised poor judgment, loose morals, and complete dishonesty. But such depravity is common fare in Washington. If every irresponsible, immoral, or lying politician were forced to resign few would remain on Capitol Hill. Frankly, Democrats showed exceptional gall in demanding Weiner’s departure.

Anthony Weiner is far more virtuous than one of the Democrat Party’s ultimate heroes, William Jefferson Clinton. All Weiner did was engage in cyber sex: a text here, a photo there, his Congressional member everywhere. But it doesn’t appear he touched another woman. Clinton touched another woman, and another, and another, and another: Paula Jones, Juanita Broderick, Kathleen Willey, and Monica Lewinsky.

Bill Clinton didn’t waste his time on sexting and exhibitionism. He settled for nothing less than the genuine article. Not only did he and Lewinsky have an affair, but the affair occurred in the Oval Office on the taxpayer’s dime. Yet the Democrat Party excused not only the Lewinsky relationship but also Clinton’s other escapades. Not even feminists, who preach hellfire and brimstone against self-indulgent men, would criticize Clinton for routinely objectifying women.

But didn’t Anthony Weiner lie during his press conference? He did. Weiner’s claim that his Twitter account was hacked is akin to Newt Gingrich blaming his adulterous affairs on his love of country. Weiner lied, but Clinton lied worse.

Bill Clinton waved his finger in America’s face and lied like a used car salesman. But he wasn’t finished. Clinton also denied the Lewinsky affair in a sworn deposition. Sexual contact itself was redefined under Clinton’s watch. Oral sex was no longer sex; it was stress relief, like visiting a massage therapist. What’s more, the Democrat Party and their blind apologists excused both Clinton’s adultery and dishonesty. They explained how everyone lies about sex. If promiscuity and falsehood were acceptable behavior for Clinton, why weren't they acceptable for Weiner?

Anthony Weiner made several mistakes that led to his downfall. First, he erroneously believed his electronic erotica would remain anonymous in a techno age. Second, Weiner thought the best cover for an immoral act was another immoral act. But his greatest error was becoming embroiled in a congressional sex scandal and thereby embarrassing his party.

Anthony Weiner has learned a hard lesson: Congressmen are expendable, Presidents aren’t. The same Democrat Party that defended Clinton to the ends of the earth tossed Weiner aside like last week’s leftovers. It may be Washington politics as usual, but the hypocrisy makes Democrats the ultimate butt of the “Weiner” joke.

Arrogance and narcissism reign in King Barack’s Court

Arrogance is defined as an inflated degree of self-importance with a supplementary contempt for others. Narcissism describes a person totally infatuated with their own persona and possessing an overblown sense of ability or worth. Arrogance and narcissism are somewhat synonymous. Yet there is sufficient difference between the terms to apply both to the persona our current Commander-in-Chief embodies.

President Obama is a walking contradiction. Acts he once considered an abuse of authority are but policy recalculations when he exercises them personally. Other presidents have overstepped their authority. Obama, however, is uniquely intelligent and supremely qualified to properly wield powers he once considered abusive and to rule a free people. “Rule” isn’t a word chosen at random; it’s a term Obama himself has used to describe his administration.

Barack Hussein Obama doesn’t see himself as merely the United State’s 44th President; he is her liege, King Barack the First.

Obama’s use of signing statements confirms his narcissism and arrogance. Obama’s position on signing statements is similar, but in mirror image, to John Kerry’s position on the Iraq War. Remember how Kerry voted for the war prior to voting against it? Obama was against presidential signing statements before he used them.

Before his coronation Obama considered signing statements beyond the president’s constitutional authority. He pledged not to use such statements to circumvent Congress, a charge he leveled at his predecessor. However, when Obama’s signing statement accompanied the recent budget deal he had to redefine his position.

King Barack has changed his mind. Signing statements aren’t beyond the president's power after all, as he stated when campaigning in 2008. But such executive statements shouldn’t be abused in the way his predecessor abused them. Note the arrogance and narcissism. Other chief executives have abused the signing statement. Obama, however, possesses the virtue, wisdom, and sound judgment necessary to exercise the signing statement effectively without crossing the line into abuse.

Obama further displayed his royal manner in his refusal to comply with Congress’ ban on White House czars. Worse than his contempt for Congress, a feeling with which most Americans can empathize, is his disregard for the U.S. Constitution.

The President, according to Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution, will appoint various officers of the United States subject to the Senate’s review and consent. The language represents a problem for czar appointees, who aren’t presented for Senate review. The President may also appoint inferior officers, which could be interpreted to include czars, at his discretion. However, such discretionary appointments can be made only if Congress has empowered the presidency to make them. A Congress that can grant discretionary appointment authority to the president via legislation may revoke that authority in like manner, as this Congress did in the budget bill.

Yet the czars remain and Congress’ duly passed law is ignored. King Barack the Arrogant and Narcissistic simply snubs Congress and the Constitution’s directives on presidential appointments.

Instances abound to confirm His Majesty's elevated sense of worth and authority. Obama also thumbed his nose at a judge’s decision declaring Obamacare unconstitutional. If you or I ignored such a ruling we would be arrested. But people of superior intellect and insight, like King Barack, can't be bothered with trivialities, such as court rulings, that would apply to those of us in the great unwashed.

Arrogance allows Obama to travel on the publicly-funded Air Force One at $70,000 per flight hour while demonizing corporate CEOs for flying privately-funded aircraft at a fraction of the cost. Narcissism vindicates King Barack the First when he compensates his supporters with taxpayer provided stimulus cash while praising his administration’s exemplary ethics.

Signing statements aren’t the problem, be they issued by King Barack or a simple president. But a President serves within the office’s authority at the pleasure of the governed. A King serves at his own discretion, believing the contemptible governed are beneath questioning or comprehending their ruler’s decrees. Rulers embody arrogance and narcissism individually and simultaneously, a feat thoroughly possible in the Court of King Barack the First.

A ride on the Regressive Tilt-a-Whirl

County fairs and traveling carnivals were once the prime entertainment for rural Americans. A staple attraction at those amusements was the Tilt-a-Whirl. For the uninitiated, the Tilt-a-Whirl platform simultaneously tilts and rotates while each passenger car spins independently. The Tilt-a-Whirl can be a dizzying, stomach-churning experience that leaves passengers incapable of determining a proper direction.

Don't fret if you’ve never had the pleasure of riding the Tilt-a-Whirl. You can live the experience, multiplied exponentially, simply by listening to a leftist (Regressive) politician. But be forewarned; the dizziness, nausea, and lack of a coherent direction you’ll experience on the Regressive Tilt-a-Whirl is hazardous to your liberty, fiscal solvency, and your very sanity.

Buckle up tight. Your ride on the Regressive Tilt-a-Whirl begins with mindless meanderings and banal rhetoric from Nevada’s Sen. Harry Reid. Reid recently accused Republicans of legislating to bar women from cancer screenings. But that’s not all. Reid claimed preventing such screenings was the GOP’s top priority.

Did Reid hit the nail on the head? Did Republicans win the 2010 mid-term elections with a platform built on fiscal responsibility, rejecting Obamacare, and preventing women from getting cancer screenings? Sure they did, I remember it now. Denying cancer screenings to women has always been a winning campaign strategy. Certainly it played a prominent role in the GOP’s November victories and its current House majority.

Sen. Reid has reminded everyone just how determined Republicans are to impose a lingering demise on women. Scare tactics? Nah! Just a little spin, as is common aboard the Regressive Tilt-a-Whirl. Are you feeling a little nauseous? Hold on tight; this ride has just begun. And, as the saying goes, you ain’t seen nothing yet!

Rep. Louise Slaughter’s unintelligible drivel makes Sen. Reid seem a Greek orator. According to Slaughter, the current Republican House is the worst ever, a veritable gang of Nazi storm troopers bent on killing women. She didn’t merely insinuate that Republican policies would intentionally deprive women of cancer screenings and lead to premature death, as did Reid. No, not Slaughter. Republican legislators want to kill women outright. Slaughter thinks the Republican attempt to revoke Planned Parenthood’s taxpayer-funded subsidies is akin to how the Nazi regime ruled Germany.

With no due respect to Rep. Slaughter there hasn’t been a single Planned Parenthood facility where "Jew owned" has been painted on the doors and windows. The Gestapo hasn’t stormed Planned Parenthood offices, seized workers, tattooed them with serial numbers, issued them lab coats with the Star of David on the back and carted them off to concentration camps. Also worth noting, just for Slaughter’s information, is the fact that more death results at Planned Parenthood facilities, via abortion, in one hour than at every Republican convention since the dawn of time. Furthermore, Planned Parenthood was born from a mindset (the Birth Control Review, April 1932, p.108) similar to the one that drove Nazi Germany.

However, neither fact nor logic will deter Louise Slaughter from her swirling, spinning, talking points. Thus the Regressive Tilt-a-Whirl rages on. Are you dizzy, perhaps queasy and disoriented? Take some Dramamine before the next example of leftwing nonsense.

Sen. Charles Schumer thinks you’re a flea. At least he thinks the conservative legislators you elected are fleas, which makes you a flea by proxy. Schumer sees the conservative legislators this way: "What we have here is a flea . . . wagging a dog." Schumer means a few conservative Republicans (the fleas) are determining the government’s (the dog’s) direction. Nancy Pelosi agrees, encouraging Republicans to take the party back from the radicals, with "radical" identifying anyone opposed to leftist dogma, or who helped depose her as House Speaker. Pelosi extended this advice to the Republican Party "so it doesn’t matter so much who wins elections." Then, Pelosi reasons, America can pursue its shared goals and do what’s right for children and seniors.

Pelosi is correct in one regard. If Republicans adopt her advice it won’t matter a whit who wins future elections. Still, I can’t recall Pelosi expressing indifference to the 2006 election results, which made her Speaker of the House. And I fail to recollect a single instance where Sen. Schumer opposed obstructionism when that tactic benefited his party or his ideological bent.

In these few instances the mindset driving the leftist agenda is laid bare. Conservatives are Nazi sympathizers who hate women and would kill them if possible. Republicans should eschew the conservative doctrines that once distinguished them from Democrats. Conservatives must relinquish their principles and allow Democrats to have their way. Otherwise they are obstructionist, power-mad, Nazi zealots.

The Democrat Party’s survival depends on spin and swirl, wielded expertly by people for whom shame is a non-issue. They are perpetual operators of the Regressive Tilt-a-Whirl. Leftists ignore the problems their policies have created and have thus rendered Congress impotent for correcting them.

Don’t think for a minute that Reid, Slaughter, Schumer, and Pelosi are fools. Granted, their rhetoric is sophomoric. But they are masters at manipulating an inattentive electorate, utilizing even the most outlandish of arguments to peddle a totalitarian agenda. The sad realization lies not in leftist politician’s apparent foolishness but in the multitude of useful idiots who swallow liberal vacuity hook, line, and sinker, year after infuriating year.

The ride is finished, for now, and you may disembark the Regressive Tilt-a-Whirl. But accept a word of caution on your way out the gate. Dizziness and disorientation are common to your experience, and you’ll likely suffer sufficient nausea to light up the city of Las Vegas. The more you ride the Tilt-a-Whirl the less bothersome these symptoms become. They’re just as severe each time. But liberal politicians are banking on your becoming so accustomed to them you’ll no longer notice the spin.

This column first appeared on AmericanThinker.com.

What a difference a war can make

How times have changed! The United States isn’t the imperialistic, blood-for-oil war machine that it was just a few years ago. We’ve shed the “I ride alone” image and become acceptable in the world community. Every charge levied against the United States following the Iraq invasion is yesterday’s news and America can again wage a just war. All we needed was a change of party at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Remember the arguments against President Bush’s decision to invade Iraq and depose Saddam Hussein? Those arguments aren’t heard today, now that a Democrat administration has led us to war in Libya. Oh, I know President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton don’t consider the Libyan no-fly zone a war, but it is a war. When bombs are dropping, missiles are launching, guns are firing, and people are dying, that’s a war. No question about it. Ask any Korea or Vietnam veteran to describe a “police action.”

While hardline pacifists are stridently against the administration’s “rush to war” in Libya they have gained little traction compared to their efforts to demonize the Iraq War. Dennis Kucinich, Code Pink, Michael Moore and the usual culprits are screaming. But few among the Democrat leadership and their media allies seem to care. The reason is that their opposition to the Iraq War was political, not principled. Now, to borrow from Jeremiah Wright, the Democrat’s chickens have come home to roost. Factually, George Bush was on much firmer ground with Iraq than Obama is with Libya.

Bush’s detractors accused him of rushing America to war with no clear objective. Actually, Bush’s agenda was quite clear. The United States would depose Saddam Hussein and then help Iraq hold elections and establish a constitution. Those goals were accomplished. Admittedly, not all subsequent events unfolded as planned. Iraq’s elections produced Shiite majorities, which is the same ideology that holds sway in Iran, and their constitution amounts to Sharia Law. But each goal was reached.

President Obama has no clear objective in Libya. First he said Col. Gaddafi must relinquish power. Then he said Gaddafi could remain in control if he promised to play according to Hoyle. Obama has since reversed course again, and Gaddafi must go. We’re unsure of our objective, if indeed we have one. Even identifying our enemy is harder than in Iraq. Gaddafi is a loon no doubt, an unpredictable despot with a terrorist history. But the rebel forces we aid in Libya are linked to al-Qaeda and could prove worse than Gaddafi.

For a proper perspective on our current alliance, look at World War II. What if America had fought Nazi Germany in Europe while joining forces with them on the Russian Front? The scenario sounds ridiculous. But that’s what we’re doing with al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and Libya.

Bush was accused of acting unilaterally in Iraq. But his coalition for the Iraq War included more countries than Obama’s coalition in Libya. What’s more, Bush built his allies. Obama joined a work in progress and is quite comfortable passing the leadership role to NATO.

Did Iraq attack America? According to Democrats and their media lapdogs Iraq did not. However, reality intercedes with their convenient fantasizing. Iraq did attack the United States and our interests. Hussein’s forces invaded Kuwait, a move outside their borders that threatened international trade shipping routes. Hussein agreed to cease-fire terms upon Iraq’s expulsion from Kuwait. He violated those terms flagrantly and, yes, attacked American forces directly. No-fly zones were established over Iraq as part of the cease-fire. Iraq, however, fired on American aircraft patrolling those zones, directly violating the agreement.

Gaddafi’s government hasn’t directly attacked U.S. interests in years. In fact, in the last ten years the Libyan government acknowledged responsibility for the Lockerbie bombing and agreed to restitution for the victims, renounced terrorism (supposedly) and abandoned its nuclear and chemical weapons program. Furthermore, Bush’s critics charged him with involving America in Iraq’s civil war. So what’s happening in Libya? Vacation Bible School? Obama bears more guilt for interceding in a sovereign civil war than did Bush.

The Iraq War began without Congressional authorization. Or did it? Congress adopted a resolution granting President Bush the authority to use force, at his discretion, to combat terrorism wherever he determined it existed. And Congress authorized President Bush to use force directly against Iraq to ensure compliance with resolutions outlined in the Gulf War cease-fire pact.

The Obama administration simply began dropping bombs and firing missiles into Libya. No consent was sought from Congress. No strategy is evident and there’s no meaningful definition of victory. All we really know is that American forces are preventing a humanitarian disaster in Libya, where a mad dictator is killing his subjects. Wasn’t the same true in Iraq?

Does anyone honestly believe Saddam Hussein didn’t kill his own people? Tell that to the Kurds, upon whom he used chemical weapons. Tell that to the victims of the torture chambers U.S. troops uncovered after Hussein’s fall. What’s more, if humanitarianism serves as criterion for American air strikes, the bombs should soon fall on Sudan, Zimbabwe, Ivory Coast, North Korea, and a host of other unruly nations and authoritarian regimes.

The arguments used to implicate Bush as an international war criminal should also apply to Obama’s decision to bomb Libya. I’ll concede that America entered Iraq with some unrealistic expectations, but we weren’t meddling in their affairs. Hussein’s actions demanded our response. But even Robert Gates has found no compelling U.S. interest in warring with Libya.

Nothing mentioned thus far should promote sympathy for Muammar Gaddafi. He is a despot and an enemy of the United States. I’ll loose no sleep if he disappears beneath a Tomahawk missile. I also support our troops’ safety and their mission's success. Alas, there’s no appearance of a mission to support, no clear objective. The rebels receiving our support may be a worse enemy than Gaddafi; Obama has abandoned our military leadership role to NATO, bypassed Congress, and surrendered our sovereign authority to wage war to the United Nations.

The outrage that greeted the hawkish Bush has dissipated. The peace marchers who were the darlings of dissent when Bush was the target are today as irrelevant as Keith Olberman. Few people, if any, are denouncing American imperialism or Obama’s military-industrial complex. Obama hasn’t been labeled a Nazi and I’ve yet to see the first effigy go up in flames.

What a difference a war can make!

This article originally appeared on American Thinker.

Seeking humor in assassination

Blaming journalists for biased reporting isn’t unique. Adherents to all political ideologies accuse the media of aligning with their opponents. However, Washington Post syndicated columnist Esther Cepeda gives conservatives a leg-up in proving leftist favoritism in the "mainstream" media. Either that or she’s a total dunce.

Ms. Cepeda has issues with the audience at Rep. Paul Broun’s (R-GA) town hall meeting. Apparently, the audience laughed when one constituent asked, "Who’s going to shoot Obama?" In perfect media fashion Ms. Cepeda parlayed the incident, which the Secret Service investigated and deemed a poor joke, into a blanket hatred for Obama based on his race and a "perceived socialist slant to government" since he took office. What happened, she lamented, to the outrage against such incendiary language after Gabrielle Giffords was shot?

Esther Cepeda finds no humor in jokes about assassinating President Obama. I’ll second that motion. But where was she when jovial leftwing pranksters had George W. Bush all but in the grave? It would be naïve to think she suffers from poor memory. More likely she has selective memory, or she’s a prejudiced media stooge.

First, no one has forgotten about Rep. Giffords or her battle to recover from the Tucson shooting. It’s just that rational observers quickly realized that blaming the representative’s injuries on conservative speech was a media generated myth. Second, Ms. Cepeda should know that crude comments about presidential assassinations didn’t originate with Obama’s inauguration.

The left’s outrage over tasteless references to presidential assassination depends not on some newly discovered high moral plane but on who’s in the crosshairs. Remember how President Bush’s opponents treated him? He was labeled an international criminal and accused of single-handedly initiating a war Congress had authorized him to wage at his discretion. Yet Bush was an evil tyrant, a blood-thirsty liar and a despicable fraud. He was Hitler, Stalin, Genghis Kahn and Attila the Hun all rolled into one genocidal package. The left did more than joke about Bush’s death; they fantasized about it.

Review a photo gallery from an Iraq War protest march and you’ll find plenty of knee-slapping calls to punch Bush’s ticket to the Great Beyond. His opponents had no qualms with a movie depicting his death from a sniper’s bullet. In fact, Peter Dale broadcast such a film (Death of a President) on British television. Dale found the film "serious" and "thought-provoking," even defending the use of Bush’s likeness rather than a fictional president because "it’s absolutely legitimate to deal with contemporary named figures."

Ha! I get it! Quite the card that Peter Dale.

Amazingly, Dale’s attitude is tame compared to British columnist Rod Liddle. Liddle said the movie depicting Bush’s death would strike a popular chord in Britain and predicted the actor who played the assassin would drink free in any British pub. The movie’s theme, according to Liddle, was entirely reasonable.

What a jester! And the jocularity surrounding Bush’s demise wasn’t confined to crackpots at anti-war rallies and movie sets. It was available in printed form, too.

A novel titled Checkpoint also hinged on threatening Bush’s life. The main character, named Jay, pulled no punches with his hatred for George W. Bush or his desire to kill the president in a variety of torturous ways. "I’m going to kill the bastard," Jay railed at one point while promising Bush would be "one dead armadillo" at another.

How’s that for civility, Ms. Cepeda? Where was your outrage when Bush was the bull’s eye of death by a thousand jokes? Did you not care, or were you simply ignorant of this leftwing merriment? The latter is difficult to swallow.

I doubt Ms. Cepeda is a fan of the conservative media. Therefore it’s equally doubtful she would review such outlets to discover the left’s witty jabs at Bush. But she needn’t have soiled her hands with World Net Daily, Town Hall, or Newsmax to uncover the premise behind Death of a President and Checkpoint. She didn’t need to scour the archives at the Weekly Standard, National Review, the Limbaugh Letter, or (God forbid) Fox News.

The reactions to the previously mentioned movie and book appeared in the Washington Post, with nary a sign of condemnation from the writers, I might add. Yes, Ms. Cepeda, the same Washington Post that employs the cesspool of columnists in which you swim. Feeling slimy, Ms. Cepeda? Perhaps a bit foolish? You should! But I’ll bet the farm you don’t.

Ms. Cepeda’s outrage rings as hollow as Obama’s promise to wisely spend the public’s funds. Crass jokes about killing presidents aren’t new, they didn’t originate with Obama’s ascendancy, and they arise from all points of the political spectrum. Vitriol isn’t the "knuckle-dragging" conservative’s copyrighted material. Put aside your self-righteous indignation, Ms. Cepeda, and open your eyes to reality. The left is to spiteful venom what Fort Knox once was to gold bullion.

If Cepeda and her "progressive" media cohorts truly find no humor in joking about a president’s death the newspapers and airwaves should’ve been flush with condemnation when leftist cranks and nutcases openly advocated for Bush’s demise. Did it slip their minds? Or did they find more pressing matters to attend? Hardly! Most media outlets simply weren’t too concerned when Bush was the dead man walking. Maybe there is humor in assassination only when the president has an "R" beside his name.

This column first appeared at American Thinker.

WWRD: What would Reagan do?

I omitted posting this column, which originally appeared on American Thinker. Sorry for my oversight. AWH.

Event the casual observer will notice the regularity with which President Obama invokes the ghost of Ronald Reagan. When Obama speaks about American leadership he’ll call on Reagan. If he’s focusing on fiscal solvency he’ll call on Reagan. Both are ironic, since America has become tepid internationally and experienced exponential spending growth under Obama’s administration.

Obama cites Reagan rather easily for such a decidedly leftist president. You have to wonder how many people are falling for his bluff. Obama needs to alter his image if he desires to prove his affinity with Reagan. The union showdown in Wisconsin grants the President an opportunity to achieve that goal. Failing to follow a Reagan course will confirm Obama’s rhetoric as politically-driven hot air.

Thousands of Wisconsin’s public employees, most notably teachers, have walked off their jobs. Union bosses claim the employees are demonstrating for their collective bargaining rights. Actually, they’re staging a de facto wildcat strike. Employees have called in sick when they aren’t ill, and doctors are allegedly providing excuses so those employees can receive their sick pay. In short, the public employees and their sympathetic physicians are irresponsible, undependable liars. The protesters are receiving paychecks from public funds under false pretenses, which make them cheats and thieves as well.

Many Christians wear “WWJD” bracelets. When they face a moment of truth they ask, “What would Jesus do?” Wisconsin is a moment of truth for Obama. A “WWRD” bracelet will remind him to ask, “What would Reagan do?”

He needn’t guess. History shows him exactly what President Reagan would do under similar circumstances. When air traffic controllers walked off their jobs in the summer of 1981 President Reagan told them not to let the door hit them on the way out. Controllers called Reagan’s hand and discovered that he wasn’t bluffing. If Obama truly desires credibility as our 40th President’s disciple--a President whose popularity is waxing, by the way--he can build it in Wisconsin.

Obama, however, hasn’t embraced the attitude toward Wisconsin’s public employee unionists that Reagan held toward air traffic controllers. Actually, he has taken a diametrically opposite position. Not only has he refused to denounce the protesters, he has embraced them. And for what cause other than the unionists’ demand that Wisconsin continue to fund their wants with money the state doesn’t have? That’s not Reagan-like, Mr. President.

To be fair, Obama can’t follow Reagan’s example in practicality. The Madison marchers are state employees whereas the air traffic controllers were federalized. But he can adopt Reagan’s attitude. Don’t bet the farm on that happening. Obama is light years from filling Reagan’s legacy in this area, or any other for that matter. Each reference he makes to Reagan is as much smoke and mirrors as his claim that healthcare reform reduces the deficit or the stimulus package created jobs.

If Obama possessed even the slightest interest in emulating Reagan he would support Governor Walker’s attempt to restore fiscal discipline to Wisconsin. The Governor’s plans aren’t unreasonable. In fact, they reflect nothing more than what millions of private sector employees deal with every day. Poor economic conditions affect private sector pay and benefits. Budget constraints should have a similar affect on the public sector. Carrying a union card and paying a monthly tribute shouldn’t shield public employees from fiscal reality.

What would Reagan do? He would support Gov. Walker’s attempt to address Wisconsin’s fiscal reality. He couldn’t deal with these strikers like he dealt with the air traffic controllers, considering they are state employees. But he wouldn’t hold them up as the supreme example of America’s work ethic either.

What will Obama do? He’ll cater to the unions who keep his campaign coffers flush with cash and he’ll bolt from any proposal that promises to slow government’s growth. Obama will prove that his budget hawk rhetoric is as empty as Nancy Pelosi’s head and that the only commonality he shares with Reagan is having parked his derrière in an Oval Office chair.

Is President Obama a racist?

What would you think of evidence that suggested Barack Obama is a racist? And what if that evidence indicated his prejudice wasn’t against white people but against blacks? And what if that evidence were supplied by Rev. Kojo Nantambu, President of the Charlotte (NC) NAACP?

Nantambu recently declared Charlotte a bastion of racism and called on parents to hold their children out of school on Martin Luther King Day. According to Kojo, the black community is “appalled and incensed” with the school system’s “disdain and disrespect” toward them. What so upset Kojo and the NAACP?

MLK Day is a scheduled school holiday. Charlotte-Mecklenburg schools held class anyway, needing to make up for snow related closures the week prior. Said one parent who honored the boycott, “I think he (King) would have wanted all of us to protest today. I think this injustice (sic).” Attendance was down on MLK Day and about 100 people shouting “No justice, no peace” marched in uptown Charlotte.

Perhaps, by now, you’re wondering how Kojo’s diatribe paints America’s first black President as hostile to black equality? Take a guess where Obama observed MLK Day. If you answered, “At a school,” take a gold star. Not only did Obama visit Stuart Hobson Middle School in the nation’s capital, he took Michelle and his two daughters with him.

Apparently the President isn’t alone in his “disdain and disrespect” for black Americans. Stuart Hobson is an 86-percent black school in an 87-percent black school district. Should we then conclude that Stuart Hobson students, parents, and the predominately black community are racist against themselves?

In all honesty, MLK Day is a holiday at Stuart Hobson and those who attended school, Obama included, were participating in volunteer projects. But sometimes the absurd is best illustrated by absurdity. This is one of those times.

Just as there was no racism on the part of the Stuart Hobson community or the Obamas in participating in school centered functions on MLK Day, there was no racism involved in the Char-Meck decision to hold class. President’s Day is also a designated Char-Meck make-up day. What’s more, President’s Day isn’t even a school holiday; it just happened to fall on a teacher work day. Memorial Day, too, is a snow make-up day. Charlotte schools will also hold regular class schedules on Lincoln’s, Washington’s and Jefferson’s birthdays. Now, explain to me how MLK Day has been singled out or disrespected due to racism?

Equally incredible is Kojo’s charge that Charlotte is a hotbed of racism. Charlotte-Mecklenburg is 64-percent white. Yet that racist, white population elected a black mayor and black mayor pro tem. Black residents are well-represented on the city council, county commission and school board, too. Oh, and Charlotte employs a black police chief.

Kojo’s outrage may earn him 15 minutes of fame. But beyond that it’s utterly nonsensical. Does anyone think Dr. King would want his legacy honored by keeping black children out of school when one of the changes he sought was greater educational opportunities for black children? Isn’t it more logical to commemorate King’s life by attending classes instead of cutting them? I doubt King would feel honored when kids waste his day rather than seizing its opportunities.

Kojo Nantambu’s racism charges have nothing to do with genuine discrimination. He’s exploiting racism to increase his social standing and relevance. Kojo, and those like him, conveniently find Klansmen around every corner. Yet who demagogues the problems facing black communities--illegitimacy, educational failure, drugs, gangs--while offering no viable solutions? He should recognize these problems as matters of personal behavior, not conditions imposed through systemic racism.

Kojo has manipulated a non-issue and found racism where none exists. He did so for purely selfish reasons. It’s a repugnant tactic that everyone should repudiate regardless of their race, color, or creed.

Jared Loughner: Timothy McVeigh reincarnated

The similarities between the 2010 election results and those in 1994 are evident. In 1994 frustrated voters vented their disgust with a Democrat administration’s leftist direction and gave Republicans control of Congress for the first time in decades. What happened in 2010? The American people again rejected a hard-left push from the Democrat Party and Republicans won overwhelmingly. Within months of each election the Left used an unspeakably violent act to falsely portray conservatives as vicious, unstable cranks.

It was Timothy McVeigh and the Oklahoma City Bombing in 1995. It’s Jared Loughner and the Arizona shooting in 2011.

Before anyone concludes that I’m launching a conspiracy theory let me state that I don’t believe the Left orchestrated either the Oklahoma City Bombing or the Arizona shooting. But their reactions to both tragedies prove that they’ve learned Rahm Emmanuel’s lesson quite well: a crisis is a terrible thing to waste. Arizona, like Oklahoma City before, has fueled a left-wing crusade the sole intent of which is to denigrate and silence political opposition.

To the Left, human suffering equals political opportunity. It was so with Oklahoma City, and with Hurricane Katrina, and with the Jena Six. They demagogued the massacres in Stockton (CA), Killeen (TX), Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois. Now they’re demagoguing the Arizona shooting. It’s shameless, and it’s time to call the Left on their duplicity.

Democrats and their media allies seized the moment when Timothy McVeigh struck, just like they’re doing now. Before the rubble had cooled at the Alfred Murrah Building they had blamed everyone from Rush Limbaugh to Newt Gingrich and the Republican Congress. Before Arizona’s first victim was eulogized the Left was blaming Sarah Palin, talk radio and the “new media” for pushing Jared Loughner over the edge.

Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD) went so far as to blame the Arizona rampage on the First Amendment. He thinks there are just too many media outlets and too much information available to those of us in the great unwashed. We simply lack the intelligence to distinguish his truth from our concocted fantasies. The accusation is perfectly clear. Conservatives are half-cocked knuckle-draggers ready to go off at the slightest provocation. We must be led on a government leash.

The prevailing media sings the chorus with equal intensity. Leftist commentators and journalists dissected the influence that conservative discourse played in driving Loughner’s rage. Their conclusion: Anyone espousing conservative thought, debate, or activism shares culpability for Loughner’s massacre. Even after acknowledging that no evidence exists to link Loughner to conservative positions or personalities, the Left continued to promote the connection.

Democrat strategists used the Oklahoma bombing to silence conservatives and quell the support for a smaller federal government that existed in 1994. There was no factual basis for their argument. McVeigh himself was something of a loner and neo-Nazi sympathizer--not a constitutional conservative. But the accusations had an affect. The game plan is the same with the Arizona shootings and Jared Loughner now. The similarities between the Left’s manipulation of Oklahoma City and Arizona cannot be dismissed, nor can they be allowed to flourish.

Little information has been verified concerning Jared Loughner’s political inclinations. The most credible evidence paints Loughner as a mentally unstable recluse motivated more by occult interests than a political agenda of any stripe. And nary shred of evidence has been presented to link Jared Loughner to conservative causes or right-wing rhetoric. Ironically, there is more hearsay evidence to link Loughner to left-wing radicalism than to right-wing conservatism.

Yet leftists continue to spin the Arizona tragedy for political advantage. It is they who are using incendiary language to divide our nation. It is they who exploit duped followers with blatant lies about political opponents. This time, unlike the spring of 1995, conservatives must hold the line against the Left’s baseless attacks.

Democrats aren’t appalled by the so-called “inflammatory rhetoric” coming from conservative politicians, talk radio hosts, or the TEA Party. They fear the substance behind the arguments. Therefore those voices must be marginalized by whatever means necessary. This time conservatives must stand their ground. History may repeat. But the end result must be changed.

A five-step program for the Republican majority

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The five myths of Regressive politics #1: Conservatives are racist.

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

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

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

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

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

TV ads are annoying, but Senators are worse

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A leftist confuses exceptionalism with superiority

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

In the comments section “PGBACH” wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

Christopher Columbus: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Originally published on American Thinker.

Silence is Jimmy Carter’s remedy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Behind the mind of an American apologist

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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