A date that still lives in infamy

It seemed a normal Sunday morning for Oahu's military contingents. Early risers were out for morning chow, Sunday services, or the beaches and golf courses. Some would sleep in, burdened by the lingering affects of a late night. No one awoke anticipating war on 07 Dec 41. But the plan of the day changed when the first Japanese warplanes swarmed over Hickam Field, Schofield Barracks, and Battleship Row.

Within hours, well-trained Imperial Japanese Navy pilots had decimated the Pacific Fleet's battleships, destroyed hundreds of aircraft and buildings, and killed thousands of men. The attack drove a nation still reeling from a decade of economic depression to the edge of panic. Rumors swirled and West Coast residents feared a Japanese armada would appear on the Pacific horizon at any moment. In terms of national horror, only the War Between the States exceeds Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor.

You're fortunate if you've been privy to a firsthand account of the raid. I enjoyed that opportunity with Bill Rudder -- a Gastonia, NC newspaper man and inventor after the war -- who was an electrician with the 259th Q.M. Detachment assigned to the 7th Bomber Command at Hickam Field on 07 Dec 41. His contribution won't place him alongside Alvin York or Audie Murphy in American military lore. But Bill was there, he fought, and he lived to tell his story.

After realizing Pearl Harbor was under a genuine attack Rudder and two buddies, John Strickland and Sanford Garrett, rushed to the armory. They were given Springfield bolt-action rifles, an infantry staple from the First World War. Once armed and having overcome problems loading the Springfield, Rudder aimed ahead of a Japanese aircraft and sent a .30 caliber slug hurtling into the Hawaiian sky. He hit nothing, but jokingly claimed to have fired the first American rifle shot of World War II. Undeterred by his miss, Rudder joined fire on another Japanese plane, which trailed smoke and crashed at Fort Kam. Rudder later examined the wreckage, finding American-made Philco tubes in the Japanese plane's radio.

In the photo Mr. Rudder's vehicle is seen parked at the base of a flag pole while a bombed building burns in the background. According to Mr. Rudder, the tattered American Flag was the result of repeated machine gun fire from Japanese fighters. What a story.

The late Bill Rudder won't commemorate the 70th Anniversary of Pearl Harbor. In fact, few men remain who witnessed America's entrance into the Second World War. The youngest Pearl Harbor survivors are in their late eighties and their numbers are dwindling. As they die, so too will die their innumerable stories of anonymous bravery, stories like Bill Rudder's.

The last American veteran of World War I, Frank Buckles, passed away last February. In May, the world's last known WW I veteran, Claude Choules, died in Australia. When the last "Bill Rudder" dies America's firsthand connection to WW II will be forever lost, just as our connection to the "Great War" is lost. Pearl Harbor, 07 Dec 41, will remain a date that lives in infamy. But it will live as factual history, lacking the personal reference to which we've been accustomed. It will be a great loss.

The question of character

If a political candidate's personal conduct doesn't reflect their public character, said character is only as good as the nearest camera lens. That seems the reality, as determining political character becomes more and more a matter of party affiliation than genuine ethics.

For instance, Republicans roasted Bill Clinton for his womanizing ways. Yet many are excusing Herman Cain for what seems equivalent behavior. Democrats reverse the roles. Although Cain's guilt remains unconfirmed, Democrats treat him like the Devil incarnate. Clinton, conversely, could philander to his heart's content while Democrats marveled at his ability to lie. Is it too much to ask for a little consistency?

Herman Cain's credibility faces a stern test from Ginger White, a supposed 13-year mistress. Cain supporters are left wondering if their candidate is a scoundrel or the victim of an elaborate media smear. Either way no one should be surprised. Scoundrels abound in political circles and newsrooms have a history of intolerance toward Republicans. But media bias doesn’t mean a candidate is immune from personal investigation. That fact appears lost on Cain's attorney, who said of the purported affair:

This appears to be an accusation of private, alleged consensual conduct between adults - a subject matter which is not a proper subject of inquiry by the media or the public. No individual, whether a private citizen, a candidate for public office or a public official, should be questioned about his or her private sexual life.

The explanation seems founded in privacy rights and liberty. What happens between candidates and their spouses is their business. But when marriage vows are compromised it raises questions about a candidate's honesty and integrity. Thus the lawyerly explanation is just spin and illusion, as one of our distinguished Founding Fathers would attest. Thomas Jefferson said, "When a man assumes a public trust, he should consider himself as public property." For my money, Jefferson's logic applies to anyone aspiring to assume a public trust as well. There is no private life for anyone who desires to become President.

Extramarital affairs aren't automatic disqualifiers from public office, as Jefferson himself would confirm. Furthermore, waiting for a perfect candidate is itself an exercise in imperfection. However, seeking public office means exposing one's life to public scrutiny. Any situation that speaks to a candidate's trustworthiness becomes the public's business. If a candidate genuinely expects privacy on the campaign trail the public should question not only their credibility but also their judgment.

Since lawyers speak for their clients we must assume Cain's counsel spoke for him. Therein lies a problem for Herman Cain's teetering candidacy (Cain has since left the campaign). Whether the various allegations against him are true or false have taken a back seat to a greater principle. When a man would assume a public trust he must consider himself public property. Transparency hardly seems an unreasonable requirement for a prospective leader.

Herman Cain has arrived

Political candidates are nowhere until their ethics are challenged, their morals are questioned, or their character is assassinated. No one can be considered a viable candidate for elected office until they're targeted for destruction. Judging from this week's news, Herman Cain has arrived.

A story that began with two women alleging "inappropriate behavior" has grown to include a third woman, female staffers from a conservative talk radio show in Iowa, and hush money from the National Restaurant Association. Yet the details about what occurred, if anything, have thus far been silenced, if they're known at all. With each "revelation" the Cain saga seems more and more like Clarence Thomas' confirmation hearings.

If you'll recall, Anita Hill offered no credible evidence of "inappropriate behavior" on the part of Thomas. It was a case of "she said" so "he did." The seriousness of the charge trumped the nature of the evidence. But at least we knew the accusations against Thomas, and his accuser. All we know about Cain is that anonymous women once accused him of misconduct, which could mean anything from a passing compliment, to a wink, to a grope.

No claim against Cain has, as yet, become public. But the lack of details hasn't prevented the media -- namely Politico -- from running with the story. Funny how the public's need to know is quickly served whenever scandal descends on a conservative, especially when that conservative's popularity has been steadily rising.

The media had little interest in Bill Clinton's sordid and sundry escapades. Juanita Broaddrick was treated like a stalker, Paula Jones was dismissed as trailer trash, and media outlets had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the Lewinsky affair. Reporters and anchors marveled at Clinton's uncanny aptitude for misrepresentation. The dominant media also ignored John Edwards, at least until the National Enquirer broke Edwards' sleazy story and it grew too big to cover-up.

Not even the civil rights activists will come to Cain's defense; he'll have to exercise his demons alone. If he were a proper black man, one firmly planted on the leftist plantation, he could play the race card. But as a black conservative, Cain isn't black enough to charge racism. He's fair game. Assassinating a conservative's character is always in season, regardless of their race.

I'm not necessarily defending Herman Cain's innocence or endorsing his candidacy. But he does exhibit some likable qualities. For example, he's a Washington outsider without political experience. We need another politician with experience in creating trillion dollar deficits and multi-trillion dollar debt like Eliot Spitzer needs a dose of Cialis.

Everyone has skeletons in their closet. A political candidate's skeletons are held in reserve until said candidate gains momentum. There's simply no need to waste time and effort demeaning an also-ran. The fact that Herman Cain is the eye of a media storm means he's now considered a viable candidate.

Judge Judy tackles entitlements

Arguments persist over just how America arrived at insolvency's precipice. There may not be a single reason, program, agency, policy, or bureaucracy to shoulder the entire blame. The fact that we're here is the culmination of a methodical, long-term process. However, there's one culprit that is central to nearly all government expansions, and thus to our fiscal deterioration. It's one that every productive member of society from the street sweeper to the CEO should blame . . . the bum.

A bum is everything the name implies, from irresponsible slacker to societal parasite. However, America is afraid to blame bums for their lowly condition; it's politically incorrect. People who were yesterday's bums, loafers, and freeloaders are today's disenfranchised and less fortunate. They are the losers of life's lottery, relegated to poverty because someone else stole a disproportionate share of America's prosperity.

Thank God for television's Judge Judy. She isn't afraid to blame the bum for being, well, a bum. Her public courage has earned my respect and gratitude. She should earn yours, too. Watch the video and you'll agree.



Judge Judy is 100-percent correct in her assessment of both the plaintiff and defendant. The two parties in this case exemplify greed in its purest form, the "me" attitude that hampers America's economic growth and leads to fiscal insanity. Their general disdain for self-sufficiency reflects the core of the entitlement mentality. One sues to collect rent that she herself never paid. And the other considers government grants and subsidies a birthright. These two people, and millions like them, are drains on society, contributing nothing while believing themselves entitled to their heart's desire.

According to a quote attributed to economist Arthur Laffer, "When you tax something you get less of it. When you subsidize something you get more of it." Liberal politicians have done a thorough job of taxing productivity and subsidizing unproductiveness. Therefore they have generated an ever-increasing segment of the population with no compunction about living off the production of their neighbor, as the two people in Judge Judy's court demonstrate. And Judge Judy wants to send the aforementioned video to Congress, as if most members care?

Congress, through 40-plus years of various welfare, entitlement, and Not-so-Great Society programs, created the parasites in her courtroom, people who believe they're entitled to enjoy life's necessities, pleasures, and perks at someone else's expense. Such entitlement parasites are the liberal voting base, and an exponential expense to the rest of us. Not only has the entitlement mentality become a drain on federal revenues, it has deprived the marketplace of what the entitlement recipient would've otherwise produced. We lose on both counts.

Go ahead and send the video Judge Judy, with my blessings. But frankly, you're wasting your stamp.

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.

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.

Gingrich took one for the team

Among the first lessons a young baseball player learns is the importance of getting on base. As his skills improve he learns the various methods for accomplishing that task. One of those ways is to get hit by a pitch. It’s an effective, albeit painful way to reach base. That’s why a hit-by-pitch is called “taking one for the team.”

Newt Gingrich must’ve played a little ball in his day, mastering the art of getting on base and carrying that proficiency into adulthood. During his political career Newt has done everything necessary to put America first, and he's definitely reached base.

Gingrich’s adventures in Adulteryland are fairly well chronicled. He cheated on two sick wives, divorcing them both before marrying the mistresses. But how can we blame him for his Clinton-like escapades when he did it all for us? During an interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network the probable 2012 presidential candidate blamed his indiscretions on his passion for America. He was stressed; the affairs helped him perform at his best.

So Newt took one (maybe more?) for the team. But you won’t find stitch marks on his forearms or the name “Rawlings” imprinted on his back. Indulging one’s carnal pleasures isn’t exactly taking an Aroldis Chapman fastball between the numbers.

In the same interview Gingrich sought God’s forgiveness, and presumably the public’s, too. Strange as it sounds, he’s right. God will forgive the repentant: you, me, and Newt Gingrich. However, a vital element in absolution is realizing that forgiveness grants no right to continue wallowing in failure or to avoid the consequences of one’s actions.

Conservatives weren’t eager to hear Bill Clinton’s lame explanations for his bimbo eruptions, especially the Lewinsky episode, nor were his shameless lies dismissed with impunity. Sure, Clinton remained president. But he paid a price in public ridicule and confirmed his reputation as a manipulative womanizer. John Edwards also earned mockery for his affair with Rielle Hunter.

Democrats can’t make an issue of Gingrich’s trysts; they set the bar low when they excused Clinton’s philandering. But are Republicans themselves ready to overlook Newt Gingrich’s affairs when they so readily condemned Clinton and Edwards? Or should the GOP choose a candidate who strikes a positive image, one that commands respect and breeds trust?

There’s no question that Newt Gingrich espouses solid positions on a host of issues. He is experienced, savvy, and an expert communicator. However, this matter goes beyond personal failures, which everyone experiences. It’s about respect for the voter’s intelligence. Gingrich will be hard pressed to sell conservatives the insulting notion that his adulteries resulted from patriotism. To resurrect a favored conservative phrase from the Clinton years, “we should expect more from a president.”

Personally, I hope Newt has made peace with God. Gingrich would make a fine cabinet member in a future GOP administration. But blaming his failures on a passion for America sounds childish if not a little loopy. Maybe during his playing days (baseball that is) he took one for the team while he wasn’t wearing a batting helmet.

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.

Dr. Hoyer diagnoses the TEA Party

Steny Hoyer’s time as the House’s second in command is complete. But he didn’t accept his demotion quietly. Instead he delivered a psychological evaluation of TEA Party activists. Dr. Hoyer’s diagnosis: “My presumption is they have unhappy families.”

Thank you Dr. Hoyer. Your keen insight has revealed the true mental state driving the TEA Party. TEA Partiers hate their mothers. They have low self-esteem due to incessant emotional and physical abuse suffered at the hands of their domineering fathers. Likely as not they want to wed their siblings, or perhaps their family pets. The root causes of their familial dysfunctions are limitless. But obviously TEA Partiers were forced to eat too many Brussels sprouts when they were young.

There’s only flaw (only one?) in Dr. Hoyer’s dysfunctional family theory. Steny Hoyer isn’t a doctor.

Hoyer’s résumé includes a substantial list of accomplishments. He holds two degrees, both from prestigious universities. Hoyer has served on numerous boards and caucuses in both the private and public sectors and he’s a career attorney. But nothing in his background qualifies him to render a psychological evaluation on Aunt Matilda’s Miniature Schnauzer, much less on a grassroots political movement comprising millions of individuals.

Someone on the congressman’s staff must’ve realized the nature--and possible repercussions--of his gaffe and made an attempt at damage control. According to an Investors.com article, his office released this statement:

Mr. Hoyer clearly meant that everyone has to compromise sometimes as part of a family and that compromise is necessary to successfully govern. He obviously was not referring to the personal family life of a large group of people.

Yeah. And then there’s the one about the goose that laid the golden egg. Hoyer’s “clarification” spins like a category five hurricane. And spin is exactly what one might expect from an attorney who is also a left-wing politician.

If Hoyer didn’t intend to snipe at his political opponents, why comment on the TEA Party at all? He certainly wouldn’t have reached into his “Li’l Shrinks Junior Psychologist Kit” for a psychopathic connection between political activism and family contentment. Had he really meant to highlight the TEA Party’s lack of interest in compromising with Democrats he could’ve said so. It’s not like that's a guarded secret or deep revelation. In terms of discovery, uncovering acrimony between the TEA Party and liberalism isn’t exactly Columbus’ landing at San Salvador.

Hoyer’s statement wasn’t meant to question the TEA Party’s willingness to reach across the aisle. He meant to discredit his opposition to the greatest possible degree. That’s how demagogues operate; casting dispersion on threatening opinion is a fundamental tactic of the tyrant. It’s Orwellian in theory and totalitarian in practice.

Well, it appears I’m psychoanalyzing Steny Hoyer’s motives. So what? My qualifications for determining another person’s mental state are at least on par with his. After all, I’m not a doctor.

A “gay-friendly” military demands a cultural transformation

Our country is based on individual liberty, meaning people can interact as they will. As long as a chosen act doesn’t compromise our neighbor’s liberty our actions remain our personal choice. That includes what two people may deem proper behind closed doors. Gay activists, seemingly, would welcome such a concept. But that’s seldom the case. Cultural norms must yield to accommodate homosexuality.

Gay activists experience problems with the subject of privacy, for they generally aren’t content to interact privately. Gay activists prefer flaunting their sexuality and forcing others to accept and support their sexual decisions. Oppose their lifestyle and you’re instantly equated to the white-robbed segregationists from the early 20th Century. However, open homosexuality presents cultural problems extending beyond questions of right and wrong. These issues will come to a head in our military when “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” becomes “Don’t Ask, Do Tell.”

Politicians, bureaucrats and military leaders have weighed in on both sides of open homosexuality. These high-level dialogues focused primarily on military preparedness and unit cohesiveness under such a policy. While such discussions are valid, they ignored fundamental issues that affect both qualities. Lest we forget amidst the swirl of self-congratulatory open-mindedness, heterosexual and homosexual service members must now interact openly on a daily basis.

Men and women don’t share living quarters, showers and other personal facilities for several reasons, chiefly sexual privacy and cultural morals. Integrating men and women in intimate situations is an invitation to sexual advances, including those of the unwelcome variety. Can anyone believe that similar indiscretions won’t occur between gay or lesbian and straight service members?

Yes, there are methods for dealing with unwanted sexual attention. But such rules can also govern current heterosexual conduct. Therefore, if it’s sensible for straight men to shower and bunk with gay men, and straight women likewise with lesbian women, shouldn’t heterosexual men and women shower and bunk together, too? Isn’t segregating them according to their heterosexuality a form of discrimination? Besides, think of the recruitment campaign we could create.

Integrating straights and gays is a unique dilemma. Can the Pentagon keep everyone free from sexual harassment while simultaneously preserving modesty and privacy? Ordering straight men to room with gay men is equivalent to ordering women to room with men in general. The same holds for rooming straight women with lesbians. Bunking lesbians with straight men won’t work either. Men and women would still be integrated in intimate conditions even though the women, being lesbians, wouldn’t be interested in the men.

Another possible solution is to have gay men shower and bunk with straight women. No, that’s totally unworkable. Women could feel threatened (perhaps aroused?) by the gay men’s presence. Another downside to this proposal is the number of straight servicemen who might suddenly declare their homosexuality so they could join the straight women in the shower. Or, we may have straight women declaring lesbianism so they can shower with the straight men. Each scenario is downright confusing.

Regardless of an individual’s gender or their sexual attraction there invariably exists the possibility of feeling vulnerable, uncomfortable, compromised, intimidated, threatened, or violated from the opposite sex’s presence in personal situations. Every relationship, every interaction, is muddled when time-honored gender and sexual boundaries are erased. And we haven’t even considered the affect bisexual and transgender personnel will have on the aforementioned interactions.

Is there an option that will satisfy everyone? The Pentagon can provide separate facilities for each gender and sexuality. Or, all personnel can exist in one communal environment where accommodations resemble Roman bathhouses. Men, women and transsexuals, heterosexuals, homosexuals and bisexuals can shower to the rhythmic refrain of the Village People’s In the Navy.

Pandora’s Box is open wide. The potential outcome is an abundance of fraternization and sexual harassment charges from and toward all genders and sexual preferences. Only one bet is safe: I’ll wager that gay activists will dismiss any sexual harassment complaint lodged against a gay service member as baseless homophobia on the part of an intolerant heterosexual. Any takers?

The Pedophile’s Guide is another sign of our moral decline

A novice sailor will notice when a large vessel veers drastically from its charted course. But even experienced seamen may not realize the change when course deviations are slight. Societies react to cultural variations in similar fashion. People will balk when the moral code is abruptly altered. But when the transition is slow, over several generations, the original course is lost before the change is perceived.

Philip R. Greaves’ book, the Pedophile’s Guide to Love and Pleasure: A Child-lover’s Code of Conduct, indicates another subtle change in America’s moral bearing. It should shout “Warning!” at the top of its lungs, for it illustrates how a society can adapt to moral degeneration. The first step is to rationalize the irrational and defend the indefensible until deviant behavior is mainstreamed. Greaves is willing to give it a whirl. He claims his book doesn’t endorse pedophilia, but establishes guidelines for pedophile relationships. Injurious acts are off limits and certain principles must be adopted to ensure safety for the child. Greaves explained, “I hope to achieve this by appealing to the better nature of pedosexuals.”

Apparently, since pedophilia undeniably occurs, it should be woven into our cultural fabric. Notice the change? Child molesters are no longer twisted pedophiles but “pedosexuals.” The word lends legitimacy to the act, similar to how homosexual, bisexual and transsexual have legitimized behaviors once considered immoral.

Even if Greaves’ were correct in assuming that physical injuries common to pedophilia can be eradicated, the psychological traumas linger for years. Furthermore, adults who seek sexual fulfillment from children are exhibiting not only a complete disregard for long-established cultural boundaries but also for plain good sense. If pedophiles were governed by the “better nature” Greaves’ references, they wouldn’t molest kids to begin with.

Granted, the Pedophile’s Guide to Love and Pleasure hasn’t exactly mainstreamed the pedophile. The book was removed from Amazon.com amid a flood of customer complaints and, shall we say, “slow” sales. Still, it should prompt a thorough cultural examination. How did we arrive at the point where a child molester’s guidebook is available via a respected retail outlet? Similar to how ships change course unbeknownst to their crews. The Pedophile’s Guide is but another moral degree that our culture has strayed from its original course.

For instance, marriage was once the sacred domain of a man and a woman, with sexual relations reserved for matrimony. That cultural norm has changed. Four in ten Americans now consider marriage obsolete and “shacking up” is nearly as common as matrimony. The thought of reserving intercourse for marriage is summarily dismissed, as evidenced by the increase[1] in unwed[2] pregnancies over the last 40 years. Such pregnancies are now standard fare where once they were cause for shame.

Homosexuality, bisexuality and transsexuality--previously shunned as the domain of deviates--are alternative lifestyles. Homosexuality is even considered the superior attraction in some circles. In Hollywood, for example, it’s “in” to be “out.” The thought of same-sex marriage never crossed the mind a generation ago. But it’s rapidly gaining popularity across the societal spectrum, reaching majority status among Americans under age thirty. Anyone who questions the purity in such activities is labeled homophobic, which is almost like being identified as a Klansman.

Moral bearings aren’t lost overnight. It’s the result of incremental course deviations. Bit by bit the unthinkable becomes commonplace. Considering the slight alterations in cultural morality that produced our present state, is it beyond belief that future generations will consider “pedosexuality” an “alternative lifestyle?” We’d be foolish to dismiss the possibility.

Few people believe that mankind has ever practiced perfect virtue, in public or in private. But it’s blatantly naïve to think the deviancies we tolerate today wouldn’t have caused our grandparents to wash our minds out with soap. Humanity’s moral ship is adrift. The Pedophile’s Guide to Love and Pleasure is the latest deviation toward a wayward destination.

This column first appeared at American Thinker.

[1] National Center for Health Statistics, Health, United States, 2006, With Chartbook on Trends in the Health of Americans, Hyattsville, MD: 2006, p. 145, Table 10 (pdf file, p. 162)
[2] Hamilton BE, Martin JA, Ventura SJ. Births: Preliminary data for 2007. National vital statistics reports, Web release; vol 57 no 12. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics. Released March 18, 2009, p.6, Table 1.

Finally! A politician with nothing to hide

If there were a Spin Doctorate program at Political University the requisite course would be Obfuscation 101. No one survives in contemporary American politics without a thorough mastery of the subject. Obfuscation 101 instructs the neophyte politician on how to tell voters what they want to hear while having no intention of fulfilling the obligation when elected. The politician becomes adept at issuing promises and making pledges that are as foreign to their character as Sharia Law is to the Southern Baptist Convention.

That’s how the world turns in American politics and there seems to be little anyone can do about it. Aren’t there times when you long for a politician who has nothing to hide? Rest easy, I have found just the candidate for you.

Meet Sara May, a candidate for a district council seat in Warsaw, Poland. Sara is self-described as honest, sincere, independent, consistent, ambitious and hardworking. In short, Sara May appears everything you could want in a politician, everything most politicians aren’t. She’s also willing to prove that she has nothing to hide, as her campaign poster (shown below) attests.


That’s our babe, uh, I mean, candidate. As you can see, Sara isn’t exposing all of her secrets. But she has revealed more about her self than will most political candidates. And the few personal “issues” she’s kept hidden are much more appealing that what most politicians conceal. At any rate, Sara is quite a change from the stereotypical leader in the once-communist Poland, huh?

Sara’s campaign poster will get her noticed, that much is certain. Whether the notoriety translates into votes is another story. But for us, here in America, Sara May’s poster should cause us to reassess our desire for more openness from our own politicians. Imagine Nancy Pelosi, Diane Feinstein, or Barbara Mikulski adopting Sara May’s nothing to hide campaign philosophy. Now there’s a standard for mean-spiritedness that would make even Rahm Emanuel cringe.

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.

Ines Sainz is no innocent victim

Our politically correct media culture demands immediate confession. Any offense, real or perceived, sends damage control teams rushing for microphones, issuing apologies in all directions. Seldom will common sense prevail, especially if it contradicts a good story. Bring in Ines Sainz.

Inez is the female sports reporter who became the target of “locker room” commentary when she entered the New York Jets’ locker room. The PC media culture immediately circled the wagons around Inez, condemning the crude and boorish behavior the Jets players and coaches exhibited.

Yet the question remained, was Sainz harassed or not? At first glance she appeared to be offended by the various hoots and whistles that hailed her arrival in the world of the New York Jets. But, within a few days, Sainz refuted the harassment claims. She told the New York Daily News, “I want to make clear that in no moment did I even feel offended, much less at risk or in danger while there.”

It turned out that a colleague and the Association for Women in Sports Media contributed to turning a rather minor incident into a world-wide frenzy.

Now let’s be frank. Ines Sainz is a woman of rare features. She’s exceptionally pretty with a gorgeous figure. But none of those qualities is an excuse for grown men to behave like horny high-school kids. Jets personnel are responsible for their actions regardless of the situation.

In a perfect world Ines Sainz could strip naked and wiggle her caboose through the darkest subway station without fear of rape, assault, abuse, or accost. Also in a perfect world I could don a Confederate Army uniform and carry the Rebel Flag through South Central L.A. while singing Massa’s in de Cold, Cold Ground. But our world isn’t perfect and neither act represents a prudent choice.

Ines Sainz wasn’t assaulted in any substantive way. No one groped her or offered her an evening to remember. Her person wasn’t insulted; her professionalism was. On this point Ines cannot claim innocence. While a provocatively dressed woman doesn’t excuse a man’s loutish behavior, such behavior is no surprise. And it’s equally true that professionalism begins with the person. Has Ines cultivated a professional image?

Sainz looked rather comfortable in her body-hugging denim Capri’s and low-cut blouse while cavorting with two Indianapolis Colts linemen at last year’s Super Bowl. When she visited the Jets her jeans were again seductively snug. This is her rule, not her exception. Sainz routinely packages her assets in jeans tighter that those worn by the lead singers of 1980s hair metal bands. Her bikini photos aren’t unspectacular either.

Not being someone who’s offended by a pretty woman in sexy clothes, let me be the one to go out on the limb. Yes, Ines Sainz looks great in her Frederick’s of Hollywood wardrobe. Her bikinis are fit for the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue and her jeans superb for trolling the club scene. But, if she wants professional treatment she should dress professionally while on the job.

When someone presents a serious, professional image their chances of being treated seriously and professionally escalate. Yes, woman can dress attractively and still present a professional appearance. Fox News’ Megan Kelly and Gretchen Carlson prove it everyday. But when a woman dresses provocatively on the job it should surprise no one when she’s ogled.

Researching Ines Sainz’s wardrobe choices and pontificating on who is at fault and why is easy. Solutions that prevent similar episodes are more difficult. Fortunately, I have an answer. Since locker rooms and clubhouses are filled with athletes in various stages of undress no reporter, male or female, belongs there.

Locker rooms and clubhouses are the athlete’s refuge, their haven to concentrate on the game ahead, reflect on one completed, or simply unwind. Locker room reporters are a distraction whether they come in the form of sexy women in skin-tight jeans or bald men in sport coats. Reporters have ample opportunity to interview athletes outside the locker room.

Ines shouldn’t have received a stripper’s reception at the Jets’ facility. However, her choice of attire was imprudent. She didn’t present the image of someone who wants to be taken seriously. In fact, the Redskins’ Clinton Portis was quite correct. Ines looked more like a teenager seeking a date for the prom that a reporter conducting an interview.

Character matters, regardless of party

Another politician has been caught with his pants down--literally--and it’s becoming tiresome. South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford is the latest to think the grass is greener on the other side of fidelity. So, instead of exploring a run at the 2012 Republican presidential nomination he’ll be playing pinochle with John Edwards, Elliot Spitzer and David Vitter.

However, Sanford’s adultery isn’t the prime reason to dismiss his political viability. Even the staunchest of evangelicals knows that an affair doesn’t necessarily prevent someone from fulfilling a governmental obligation. Look at Israel’s King David.

David committed adultery with Bathsheba. He then manipulated his subordinates in a failed attempt to conceal his transgression. Eventually, his deceptions would have Bathsheba’s husband eliminated.

Talk about political intrigue. It seems our apples aren’t falling far from an age-old tree. Yet David retained his throne and to this day remains one of Israel’s most revered leaders.

It’s up to South Carolinians, the Sanford family and Sanford himself to determine his fate as governor. Neither the national media nor the main political parties should make that call. Even so, Sanford’s White House aspirations disappeared on a flight to Argentina, and not because of adultery alone.

Personal character does matter. It is indispensable in assessing presidential timber. Sanford’s indiscretions felled his tree. Beyond violating his wife, children and staff, Sanford violated his office. He vanished without properly delegating his authority or communicating his location. That’s selfish and irresponsible.

Elected officials are on duty 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Sound harsh? Not at all. Thomas Jefferson once said, “When a man assumes a public trust, he should consider himself as public property.” Contemporary politicos may argue with that point, but I’ll side with Jefferson.

Mark Sanford may be a private person. But Gov. Sanford is public property and he owed South Carolina better than he gave.

However, a word to the wise is in order. Democrats should tread lightly in using Sanford’s infidelity as a political tool. They’ll only end up with egg on their faces.

Bill Clinton had numerous affairs while Governor of Arkansas. Yet Democrats defended him to the White House and beyond. It was all about sex, if you’ll recall, and everyone lies about sex. Thus Democrats have no case against Sanford’s adultery. They must either defend his infidelity as irrelevant, like they did Clinton’s, or admit that adultery matters to them only when it’s politically advantageous.

Conservatives do believe that Sanford’s unfaithfulness--to both his wife and the governorship--matters. We’re not ready to sweep it away for convenience’s sake. Yet it’s disappointing to see his star flame out, not just for him but for the republic overall. He’s one of the few governors who properly understands the relationship between the states and the federal government.

Most governors grovel for federal funds, even though all federal funding is taken from their states to begin with. And they’ll gladly accept any federal diktat to get their paws on the money. Sanford correctly recognized that the “stimulus” money Washington promised had rightly belonged to his state first and could be used as the state saw fit. It is the proper federal-state relationship, and few there are with the guts to support it. That’s why Sanford was a rising conservative star. Not anymore.

For conservatism to regain its popularity, which the GOP has effectively squandered, its proponents must remain consistent. We didn’t excuse Bill Clinton, Jim McGreevy, Elliot Spitzer, or John Edwards. All were exposed and examined. Sanford is no exception regardless of whether or not he remains in office.

If we don’t demand character in our public officials it indicates a lack of character in our private lives. We shouldn’t excuse politicians who dishonor their office. And if we learn nothing else from all this philandering we should learn this: we cannot and should not look to politicians--who can’t even keep their pants up--to solve our problems.

We’re all human and humans fail. But it’s high time we established character as a prerequisite for public office. It’s high time we make it a part of our lives, too.