So now we're banning toy guns

Gun control activists built their anti-liberty agenda around a simple theme: Guns kill. Never mind that firearms -- like any weapon or tool -- can accomplish neither good nor evil without an operator. Firearms are so evil that children shouldn't even play with toy replicas. But banning toy guns is ridiculous, isn't it? Not so fast.

In Michigan, toy guns have apparently replaced the so-called assault rifle as the criminal's weapon of choice. Republican Senator Rick Jones explained, "People are taking imitation guns that look real, cutting off the orange end and then threatening people." But do criminal acts with toy mock-ups warrant a ban? Quite the contrary, it would seem a reason to further liberalize right-to-carry laws. Toy gun toting gangbangers will think twice before pointing airsoft pistols at people who might be sporting the genuine article.

Gun control advocates will argue that armed citizens prompt criminals to use real guns, escalating the danger. Yet criminals already have that option. So why do they choose toy guns? Modifying toy guns is cheaper than obtaining real ones, and using them carries a lesser sentence upon conviction.

If S.B. 779 becomes law, brandishing a modified toy gun would be punishable by up to 18 months in prison. Why only 18 months, and why aren't such offenders treated as armed criminals now? The perpetrator who misrepresents a toy gun as the real McCoy is selling the threat, not the gun. Since the intimidating affect is real to the victim, the threat is the same as if a real gun were used. And should the victim unlimber their own firearm and kill the perpetrator their act would be just as much self-defense as if the perpetrator's gun were genuine. What's more, the aggressor would be just as dead.

Such a law is ambiguous, too. Jacksonville, FL police killed a robber who confronted them with a modified toy gun. But San Jose, CA officers appear to have overreacted when faced with a toy gun. Regardless the situation, no one finds joy in wounding or killing another person. But does either shooting validate criminalizing the possession of a modified toy? In the first example the robber received exactly what he requested. Thinning the herd, it's called. Why shed tears on his behalf? In the second incident, officers perceived a danger. But the gun wasn't presented in a threatening manner. Why should the wounded man face charges?

Rather than criminalizing toy guns for lacking orange muzzles we should recognize violent behavior for what it is and treat it accordingly. The last thing we need is another impotent gun law.

When one person threatens another the real crime isn't the presence of a gun, whether genuine or imitation. The crime is the aggressor's attempt to gain advantage through the threat of bodily harm, or even death. The criminal is telling the victim that their right to life and property exists only at the criminal's discretion. Isn't that crime's true nature?

Has everyone gone "Lin-sane?"

How can a single innocuous phrase land one ESPN employee a 30-day suspension, cause another employee's termination, and prompt a national rant about racism? In a bygone day, when common sense trumped banal emotionalism, we'd have laughed at the possibility. But it's today's reality and we're all worse for our so-called enlightenment.

ESPN's broadcast and electronic media employed the phrase "Chink in the armor" in reference to New York Knicks guard Jeremy Lin's first subpar performance. Lin is of Asian heritage. The offending parties became instant racists, and the comments pronouncing their guilt are as innumerable as they are mindless. My question is, quite honestly, has everyone lost their minds?

Only someone seeking offense, or wholly ignorant of what "chink in the armor" means, could consider the term an affront to Asians. The phrase dates to the 1400s and has nothing to do with race or ethnicity. It identifies a vulnerability or weakness. Since Lin had experienced his first bad game as a Knicks starter, the phrase was wholly appropriate for questioning a perceived flaw in his game that future opponents might exploit. Had the headline read "Chink blows Knicks' winning streak," the outrage would be understandable. But even Lin dismissed any racial intent. That should've ended it.

The mere presence of a word that can be used as a derisive term isn't in itself racism. We might consider the ESPN employees naïve for not anticipating reprisals for their choice of terms. However, intentionally interpreting a word or phrase out of context is equally foolish, if not downright stupid. If only this were the first time speech manipulators had twisted words to propagate racial strife. It's not.

ESPN took the coward's way out. The network could've defended their employees without offending anyone of Oriental heritage. All ESPN needed do was present the true definition of "chink in the armor." But ESPN chose to toss their people overboard, reflecting a longstanding tradition of irrational reactions at ESPN and their partner, ABC Sports.

Remember the Rush Limbaugh-Donovan McNabb controversy? Limbaugh said nothing that demeaned McNabb as an athlete or as a man. Yet he resigned from ESPN's Sunday NFL Countdown for political reasons. Limbaugh's not alone. ABC dismissed Howard Cosell for saying of Washington Redskins' wide receiver Alvin Garrett, "that little monkey gets open, doesn't he?" As obnoxious as Cosell was, no one cognizant of his history could've considered him racist. Cosell was an avid defender of black athletes. Yet out the door he went.

Cowardly judgments concerning race and offense aren't unique to ABC and ESPN. In fact, they are culturally systemic. Either ignorance is hailed as enlightenment, or people eager to prove their tolerance intentionally take words and phrases out of context. The culture has become so saturated with politically correct censorship that every speaker and writer must guard their words to avoid being labeled a racist goon. Free speech can't exist, let alone thrive, is so hostile an environment.

No Nazis in the Corp

I served in the United States Navy I participated in the natural inter-service rivalry with the Marine Corps. "Jarheads" they were. And that was on a good day. At other times we referred to the "junior branch" in terms unfit for family reading. But the rivalry was more brotherly than adversarial. Let someone outside the family insult or assault a "jarhead" and we "squids" would defend them tooth and nail. This is one of those times.

　
Unless you've spent the last week chasing wooly mammoths across the Siberian tundra you've seen the photo of a Marine sniper unit posed beside a "Nazi" flag. The "SS" certainly resembles the insignia made infamous in the German Gestapo, the secret police loyal to no one but Hitler, the murderers of millions of Jews who were guilty of nothing more than being born Jewish. Obviously this sniper squad did a poor job of researching their logo choice, thus creating a public relations nightmare. But, does anyone really believe these Marines intentionally posed with a Nazi symbol? You might be surprised.

There are people who not only believe the Marines realized the implications in their symbol beforehand, but actively embrace the evil it once represented. Sen. Dick Durbin would certainly agree that the Marines in question avow Nazism, since he once compared American soldiers directly to Nazis.

　
Friends, this isn't the first time a slanted "SS" has shown up in a public place. Anyone remember KISS? Yes, that KISS, in all of their costumed, blood-puking, skyrocket shooting, overblown, and choreographed infamy. The KISS that wrote one song, recorded it a hundred times and became multi-millionaires. Look at their logo, the basics of which have remained largely unchanged for 35 years. Notice any similarities between the "SS" in KISS and the "SS" on the Marine flag, or on the Gestapo uniform? Certainly KISS generated their share of detractors. But I can't recall their being accused of headlining the Ravensbrück Rock Reunion at the Auschwitz Amphitheatre.

It's one thing to question war, the reasons behind it, and the strategies involved. It's something else to demean our soldiers for innocuous acts. Besides, the U.S. military bends over backwards to investigate alleged misconduct. Eight Marines were prosecuted for their roles in the so-called Haditha Massacre. The result was a single conviction and no jail time. We treated Abu Ghraib like the worst atrocity in human history even while our enemies were beheading civilian contractors and reporters. That's not to say that all American troops are Sgt. York and Audie Murphy. War is a collection of horrors and some soldiers snap under combat pressure. But we have policed our military reasonably well.

Covert racism undoubtedly exists across all racial, ethnic, and cultural lines. That's still no excuse for ignoring or tolerating overt racism within the military, no matter its origin or target. If said sniper unit has an established pattern of Nazism that's one thing. But a bad choice in unit insignias isn't racism and shouldn't be treated as such.

The American left sees the U.S. military as the world's preeminent force for evil and will pounce on any opportunity to demonize our troops. Thus they've seized on this flag fiasco to paint Marine snipers as Nazi death squads. But where's the evidence to support the notion that these Marines have pledged allegiance to der Fuhrer, aside from an errant choice of insignia? Aren't Marines innocent until proven guilty? What's more, they've earned the benefit of the doubt.

There's no off-season for the professionally offended

A professional athlete, no matter the sport, enjoys a certain time of year called the off-season. Off-seasons allow athletes to clear their minds and heal their bodies. As an added benefit, off-seasons prevent fans from becoming bored with the sport. Professional offense-takers should follow that example. Maybe their minds wouldn't be so cloudy and the rest of us wouldn't grow so sick of them.
　
Feminists head the herd when it comes to taking offense. They can find affront at the drop of a hat. Feminists have taken umbrage at everything from Victoria's Secret to My Little Pony. Anything that fails to promote feminism's "strong" woman -- the bra-burning, gruff, nagging, sea hag -- renders women doting airheads suitable for serving the patriarchal society.
　
Okay, same song; men are pigs. What's new?
　
Well, something is new. The venerable LEGO is marketing the latest indoctrination tool for a chauvinistic society bent on creating an entire generation of models for the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue. Specifically, the LEGO Friends line of toys. According to offended feminists, LEGO Friends "limits creativity and healthy role development" and encourages "damaging gender stereotypes."
　
That sounds serious. But have no fear; the offended will arise to save little girls from childhood fun. In fact, the offended are petitioning LEGO to pull the toys from distribution. The petition's initiator -- Carolyn Costin, MFT (the "T" stands for tyrant, you can decide what the "MF" represents) -- said, "Presenting slimmer, more fashion oriented LEGO people for girls falls right into the pervasive cultural messages for them to focus solely on their appearance and being thin."
　
Really? Are we supposed to believe that playing with LEGOs will cause a generation of young girls to want to look like their LEGOs? Children of the 70s -- I am one -- played with green army soldiers, Evel Knievel stunt cycles, and cap guns. How many of us wanted to turn green when we grew up, or jump Caesar's Palace, or become a gunslinger?
　
In fairness, the LEGO Friends collection is rather sugary. Girls can choose from sets such as Olivia's Tree House, the Butterfly Beauty Shop, and Stephanie's Cool Convertible, complete with a puppy for the back seat. Sickening? Infinitely! The LEGO Friends are more nauseating than shotgunning a keg of corn syrup. But for Pete's sake, they're toys!
　
Even if Carolyn Costin (the MFT) is correct and these toys do cause kids to desire a slimmer figure, is that automatically a problem? We're inundated with stories about what fat slobs Americans have become, even those who grew up idolizing Barbie. Another "thin is in" message might be a godsend. Anyway, what would Carolyn consider a suitable image-building toy: Roseanne Barr's Tub-O-Lard Doughnut Shop, or Gloria Steinem's Chopemoff Vasectomy Clinic?
　
Still, give Carolyn her due. She's quite the pro at poking her nose into other people's business; a genuine Buttinski Hall of Famer. If only there was an off-season.

♫ Santa Claus ain't coming to town ♫

♫ No need to watch out. ♫
♫ You might as well cry. ♫
♫ Go on and pout, I'm telling you why. ♫
♫ Santa Claus ain't coming to town. ♫
♫ There won't be any reindeer, or sleigh for you to see. ♫
♫ We've banned them all so we can prove our great sensitivity. ♫

It's no joke! The North Pole's favorite son was banned from his annual appearance at the Hollings Cancer Center in South Carolina. Said spokeswoman Vicki Agnew: "Because of our state affiliation, we decided not to have a Santa presence this year." The Center, Agnew continued, wanted to be "more secular and respectful to all beliefs. People who are Muslim or Jewish or have no religious beliefs come here for treatment."

Doesn't that make perfect sense? We can't have the State promoting biblical characters like Santa Claus, now can we? After all, according to the Book of Blitzen, Chapter Three, it was Santa Claus who led the Israelites out of the Arctic Circle, parting Rudolph the Red-nosed Sea along the way. And the Gospel according to Comet tells how Santa came to grant strength to the lame, sight to the blind, and knowledge to the foolish.

Ms. Agnew contends the decision wasn't "meant to be cold." If that's true, then it was meant to be stupid; it's the only other plausible explanation. What a shame Vicki Agnew wasn’t there when Santa was bringing knowledge to the foolish; she could use a miracle.

Oh well, 'tis the season. America has come to herald each Christmas with renewed assaults on common sense. We ban Santa Claus and prohibit nativity displays. We purchase "holiday" trees from big box stores whose clerks are instructed to greet us with the innocuous "happy holidays." Schoolchildren participate in "winter celebrations" rather than Christmas plays. And we endure it all so as not offend the perpetually offended. Has Christmas ever genuinely insulted anyone who wasn't seeking insult to begin with?

Frank Cloyes, the Center's volunteer Santa, wonders when all this politically correct nonsense will end. "Let's have a little joy in our lives," he said.

Mr. Cloyes can take some solace. The Hollings Center revisited their lunacy after South Carolinians revolted. However, his fundamental complaint remains unresolved. Political correctness is the antithesis of joy, existing only to prevent joy and prohibit fun at every turn. Life must universally suck for PC multiculturalists to be satisfied. And the nonsense won't end until enough people summon the courage to tell hand-wringing busybodies like Vicki Agnew to go jump in a hole. In the meantime the Priests of High-minded Sanctimony will continue sacrificing America's cultural and spiritual traditions to political correctness, their god most high.

♫ So you better not count on seasonal cheer. ♫
♫ It hasn't a chance with bureaucrats near. ♫
♫ Santa Claus ain't coming, ♫
♫ Santa Claus ain't coming, ♫
♫ Santa Claus ain't coming to town. ♫

In defense of Western Culture

Imagine what the world would be like had the United States fought the Second World War as we have the “war on terror.” Thankfully, Americans then weren't tepid in war, nor did they care if their attitudes agitated the Germans and Japanese. The World War II generation sought nothing less than total victory. If the enemy was offended, well, so be it. Times have certainly changed.


The United States has sunk to new depths of political correctness. We're so conscious of offending Islam that our culture is becoming its sacrificial lamb, methodically slain on the altar of a mythical peace with radical Muslims. Political correctness wields undue influence on our attitudes, exacerbating our insatiable desire to placate our enemies even at the expense of values we ostensibly hold dear.


Enter the politically incorrect Rev. Terry Jones. Government, media, and religious leaders sang Jones' condemnations, and rightly so, when he ignited his copy of the Koran. But what duplicity! What has happened to our zealous defense of free speech? Burning offending items is a protected First Amendment right, is it not? Perhaps free speech exists only when desecrating items of significance to the United States and Western Civilization.


Wise and insightful protesters are engaging in dissent when they burn the flag of the United States. In fact, torch the American flag and you’ll become a folk hero to the same people who censure Terry Jones. Offending religion is equally acceptable, so long as the religion is associated with Western culture. For instance, an eccentric "artist" submerges a crucifix in urine and receives rave reviews for cutting edge artistic expression. But let that same "artist" sink a statue of Muhammad in a jug of whiz and see what happens.


One peek at the riots in Afghanistan should serve to indicate how Islamists respond to the degradation of their beliefs, be the offense real or perceived. Remember the outrage when Dutch cartoonists depicted Muhammad as a bomber? Remember Salman Rushdie, or Molly Norris? Rushdie lived under a death order for ten years and death threats forced Norris to surrender not only her profession (she was a cartoonist) but her very identity.


The only surprise in the Afghan response to Terry Jones is that anyone was shocked at all. This isn't the first time Muslims have deemed destruction the proper avenue for venting their anger at the enemies of Allah. In fact, reactionary violence in Islamic lands is the norm, not the exception. Amazement at the Islamists' overreaction to Terry Jones is akin to tossing a rock in the creek and being stunned when it sinks.


In fairness, we must recognize that the Afghans didn't entirely escape blame for their violence. But shouldn't we be troubled when a single insignificant minister pulls a boneheaded stunt and more outrage is directed at him than toward widespread violence perpetrated at the Taliban's behest? Explaining how Jones' bonfire doesn't justify mob scenes becomes something of an afterthought, an obligatory complaint offered without sincerity. There's no reason for Westerners to apologize to a people so ignorant they will toss Molotov cocktails on their neighbors and attack unrelated entities in response to one person's alleged blasphemy.


I’m no fan of book burnings regardless the literature serving as the fuel. Burning books indicates a vapid intellect, a mind void of purpose and reason. But Jones’ campfire did nothing to threaten Islam as a religious doctrine. It did, however, reiterate the Islamist's propensity for committing horrendous violence to the glory of Allah. The appalling aspect is seeing so many ostensibly intelligent Americans tripping over each other for the opportunity to apologize to an enemy. We’re too interested in avoiding the appearance of "Islamophobia" to recognize the pattern of our enemy's behavior and the threat they pose to Western culture.


When Fourth Division troops advanced from Utah Beach’s D-Day landing zones, the 101st Airborne paratroopers greeted them with this advice: don’t trust the Nazis. America wasn’t afraid to identify and aggressively target our enemies during World War II. We're afraid to do so now. Could those divergent attitudes explain why complete victory in World War II took less than four years while the "war on terror" drags on ad infinitum?

The United Caliphates of America?

If the United States had fought the Second World War as we have the “war on terror” we would now speak German east of the Mississippi River and Japanese west of it. Thank God Americans weren’t concerned about offending the sensibilities of Hitler and Hirohito in 1942. The World War II generation put this country first and settled for nothing less than defeating our enemies. Times have changed.

Either the United States has succumbed to unbridled political correctness, or we’ve lost heart to the point we’ll sacrifice our culture and our very survival to the mythical concept of peace with Islamic radicals. Perhaps it’s a little of both. Political correctness influences our attitudes to an unreasonable degree. But a greater problem is our insatiable desire to placate our enemies, even at the expense of values we allegedly hold dear.

When Rev. Terry Jones ignited his copy of the Koran our government and media rose to condemn his intolerance. Ah the duplicity! What happened to free speech? I thought burning an offending item was a protected First Amendment right. Perhaps free speech extends only to desecrating items of significance to the United States and Western Civilization.

Insightful and wise protesters can burn the flag of the United States with impunity. In fact, torch our flag and you’ll become a folk hero to the same people who condemn Terry Jones. Offending religion is just as acceptable, so long as the religion is prevalent in Western culture. For instance, submerging a crucifix in urine is hailed as cutting edge artistic expression and the “artist” is an eccentric genius. Try sinking a statue of Muhammad in urine and see what happens.

Why do we abandon our heritage, sacrifice our culture, and belittle our values? What is honorable in elevating depraved ideologies above our own?

I’m no fan of book burnings regardless the literature serving as the fuel. But where is the condemnation for the Muslims who are using Jones’ campfire as their latest excuse to commit horrendous violence for the glory of Allah? And why are so many ostensibly intelligent Americans tripping over each other for the chance to apologize to an enemy? We’re too interested in avoiding the appearance of intolerance toward Islam to recognize the threat radicalization poses to America’s future, or even our own assaults on our liberties.

When Fourth Division troops advanced from Utah Beach’s D-Day landing zones the 101st Airborne paratroopers greeted them with this advice: don’t trust the Nazis. America wasn’t afraid to identify and aggressively target our enemies during World War II. Isn’t it time we revived our ancestors’ attitudes before we awake in the United Caliphates of America?

Two lessons from Rev. Terry Jones

To say the United States faces problems is an understatement. The economy is stagnant. Congressional authors of $1.5 trillion budget deficits haggle over a few billion bucks as if that sum is significant. Lethargy is rewarded and productivity is demeaned. Number among those problems our inability to properly assign responsibility and to recognize enemies.


The case of the eccentric Reverend Terry Jones supports this theory. Jones and his diminutive flock put the Koran on trial, found it wanting and burned it at the stake. Call the mock trial a witch hunt if you like, but the actual burning was nothing more than symbolism. No one was injured and no property, except Jones' copy of the Koran, was damaged. Yet Jones' protest sent Afghanistan into a frenzy and America's intelligentsia scrambling for the nearest microphone, eager to blame Terry Jones for Afghanistan's violent reaction.


This may come as a shock, but the flame-throwing Terry Jones is absolutely correct in denying responsibility for Afghanistan's bloodshed. Yes, Jones burned the Koran with full knowledge his act was controversial and outrageous. However, does such desecration justify rioting, arson, and killing on the part of offended Muslims?


Bill O’Reilly and General David Petraeus think so, and they've joined voices with like minds to publicly denounce the otherwise obscure Terry Jones. Jones' one-book bonfire was hateful and intolerant, the critics charge, and endangered U.S. troops serving in Islamic lands. Their arguments ring hollow. Jihad has a long history of outrage against anything Western. Had Jones' mock trail exonerated the Koran, Islamic radicals would've invented another outrage to justify their hostility. Torching a Koran excuses Islamic riots no more than closing a Japanese restaurant validates the bombing of Pearl Harbor.


Where Terry Jones is correct and his opponents are wrong is in assigning blame for the Afghan violence and in recognizing the deficient morals Islamic fundamentalism espouses. Jones rightly blames the Afghans themselves. They alone rioted, pillaged, and killed their countrymen. Yet America’s brightest minds refuse to blame Afghans for the carnage wrought in Islam’s name. Gen. Petraeus, in fact, believes the Afghan brutality may be justified. Why? Because an insignificant someone half a world away burned a book? Pardon me if the roiling “Muslim street” seems a mite oversensitive.


Are Muslims then bound to silence when their favored texts and shrines are marginalized or desecrated? Of course not. But when their outrage induces indiscriminate killings it says plenty about their ideology and the danger it poses to civilization worldwide. Were Islam the sole religion to suffer an insult Muslim anger might be understandable. But that scenario is as far removed from reality as the east is from the west.


Christians are offended when alleged artists submerge crucifixes in jars of urine and smear elephant dung on paintings of the Virgin Mary. Christians don’t, however, retaliate with arson and murder. Both Christians and Jews would be offended if an obscure imam burned the Bible or the Pentateuch. But would either Christians or Jews embark on a homicidal rampage? Hardly, for such a response contradicts the tenets of both doctrines. Yet within Islam violence follows offense as surely as dogs trail the butcher’s wagon. What’s more, violent overreaction is expected from Muslims. Otherwise, Western “leaders” wouldn’t be falling all over each other to placate Muslims with apologies for our intolerance.


Ample evidence exists to convince even the harshest skeptic that vicious responses to perceived injustices are harmonious to Islamic tradition. American cartoonist Molly Norris surrendered her career, and her very identity, after her work offended Islam. A fatwa forced Norris to become what George Orwell termed a “non-person.” Salman Rushdie’s Satanic Verses prompted the “religion of peace” to place a bounty on his head. Now there’s a bounty on Terry Jones’ head to the tune of $2.4 million.


Name a time when Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, or Sikhs resorted to violence as readily as do Muslims. Under Islamic Law both non-Muslims and Muslim apostates can face stoning or decapitation for their heresy. And Terry Jones is labeled a militant? Tell me, has Rev. Jones commandeered an airliner in the name of Christ? Has he lopped the head from an unrepentant sinner? Has he convinced young men to don dynamite-laden vests and detonate at bus stops for the glory of God? Friends, violence was an Islamic hallmark long before Jones struck his first match.


Burning books is a vacant gesture that, of itself, accomplishes nothing. Even so, the pyromaniacal Terry Jones has granted America a genuine favor. His irreverent act reminds us of both the virulent intolerance common to Islamic fundamentalism and of our own tendency to lay blame on everyone except those responsible. Rather than condemnation, America should extend gratitude to Terry Jones for highlighting two more flaws we desperately need to correct.

Government sharks feed on Big Tobacco

Sharks are among nature’s most amazing creatures. They are quick, graceful and superior hunters. But above those qualities they are relentless. The scent of blood can drive sharks into a feeding frenzy that continues until their hapless victim is totally consumed.

Come to think of it, government is similar to a shark. That’s not to say the two are twin brothers mind you. Government moves quickly only when jumping to conclusions and embodies the grace of a blind, three-legged hippopotamus wearing snowshoes. Brothers they aren’t, but cousins indeed. Government is a relentless and thorough predator. Like sharks, government utterly devours wounded prey.

Government’s shark-like demeanor has been illustrated by its voracious appetite for tobacco companies. First blood was drawn when government determined when and where tobacco could be used. But government wasn’t satisfied. Legislation then dictated how, when and where tobacco products could be marketed, restrictions that predictably increased with time. But government wasn’t satisfied.

Through lawsuits and coercive settlements government forced tobacco manufacturers to compensate customers for healthcare costs and damages even though smokers continued to use a product the health risks of which have been common knowledge for 50-plus years. But government wasn’t satisfied. Government then forced the cigarette makers to fund campaigns designed to prevent people from using their perfectly legal, albeit unhealthy, products. Still it wasn’t enough; government’s feeding frenzy continues.

As long as scraps remain on Big Tobacco’s carcass the government shark will not relent. It will consume every bite: meat, gristle, fat, bone and all. Tobacco companies will next fund advertisements in which they’re forced to admit to committing fraud and mischaracterizing their products.

The Justice Department has devised a list of “corrective statements” that tobacco companies must publicly announce. In one statement the cigarette companies will disclose lying about light and low tar cigarettes in order to maintain their markets. Another government prepared statement compels the companies to acknowledge manipulation of nicotine levels so as to sustain addictions and create a perpetual customer base.

Each corrective statement- -in print or broadcast form- -will announce which tobacco manufacturer sponsored the ad and that it was released “under order of a federal district court.” A more fitting disclaimer would reveal that cigarette makers produced the ad under coercion, or direct threat, from a government more akin to the defunct Soviet Union than to the United States of America.

Tobacco companies are fighting the government’s dictates. But they have as much chance to avoid their fate as a wounded seal has to escape a Great White. Legal challenges are a dead end thanks to judicial activists such as District Court Judge Gladys Kessler. Kessler has publicly declared her desire to force the industry to fund the government’s “corrective statements.” Big Tobacco has no reason to think that Judge Kessler, or any judge of like manner, will grant them a fair shake rather than ruling according to predisposed attitudes?

It’s not my desire to defend tobacco companies or the use of their products. Tobacco in any form is a good habit to avoid and the health risks are the worst kept secret of the last half century. However, tobacco isn’t an impossible habit to kick; millions of people have done so, including me. I forsook smokeless tobacco cold turkey after using it for fifteen years. For a smoker to think light cigarettes mitigate the ill health effects of tobacco indicates a foolish person, or someone intent on rationalizing their habit.

We have far more to fear from government intrusions than from tobacco peddlers. Big Tobacco never forced a single soul to smoke; it was a personal choice for which the smoker bears ultimate responsibility. Conversely, government can force our actions through fines, imprisonment, or even death. We should be wary of government’s willingness to publicly vilify any private company, even one as politically incorrect as tobacco, just as a swimmer should be wary of doing the breast stroke in shark-infested waters. Just as government has denigrated tobacco it can denigrate any company or industry it chooses for any reason it deems necessary.

Actually, governments are more dangerous than sharks. Stay out of the water and the shark risk is mitigated. Where can one go to avoid government’s feeding frenzy?

George Washington said, “Government is not reason; it is not eloquent, it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.” Sharks or fire, the victim is consumed just the same.

Death by a thousand firecrackers?

People in Dearborn, MI can breathe a little easier; a mad bomber is off the streets. Roger Stockholm is safely locked in the jug, charged with issuing terrorist threats and possessing explosives.

Stockholm, a 63-year-old Californian, was arrested outside the Islamic Center of America. In his car was a veritable arsenal. Well, it was an arsenal if a cache of Class-C fireworks constitutes an ammo dump. Apparently, Stockholm intended to bring down the Islamic Center with a battery of Black Cat firecrackers. Even so, Dearborn Police Chief Ronald Haddad said after Stockholm’s arrest, “I think the society he wanted to impact is safe.”

Really Chief Haddad? Safe from what: putting out an eye or losing a finger? It’s difficult to imagine Stockholm inflicting mass casualties or widespread damage with explosives that can be bought at a convenience store. And just what was his plan of attack: illuminate the target with sparklers and utilize bottle rockets for suppressing fire while deploying M-80s to blow the mosque apart brick-by-brick? Sure, fireworks can be dangerous. But this case seems a mite overblown.

In my youth my friends and I played with similar weapons of mass destruction. No model airplane, Hot Wheels car, or plastic soldier proved a match for our FDTs (Firecracker Demolition Teams). Yet the only times we inflicted casualties was when we’d stuff firecrackers in anthills. We never damaged so much as a dog house, much less a mosque. Furthermore, today’s M-80s aren’t comparable to those of yesteryear, which would instantaneously transform a wooden birdhouse into toothpicks. Destroy a mosque? If Muslims want to play the terror victim they’ll have to do better than this.

When it comes to plotting terror attacks Roger Stockholm is a rank amateur compared to Islamic militants. Stockholm chose roman candles. Muslims pack a skiff with high explosives and sail it into the hull of a U.S. Navy warship. Stockholm had a carload of firecrackers. Muslims detonate remote control car bombs in the midst of open-air markets and have elevated the dynamite vest into a demolition art form.

Admitted, Stockholm does appear something of a crank. But in this case he’s guilty of no more than poor judgment and possessing illegal fireworks, which makes him as much a terror threat as a 13-year-old kid on summer vacation. So what purpose is served--other than the obvious comic relief--by terrorism charges against Stockholm?

Perhaps this is the latest attempt to prove that terrorism isn’t exclusively Muslim. Of course, no one has claimed it was. Not all Muslims support terrorism. It’s unlikely a majority of them do. Yet it’s undeniable that a significant number of Muslims find their epiphany in converting the world to Islam one suicide bomb at a time.

If Islam’s best counter to the Muslim terrorist stereotype is a 62-year-old kook with a carload of fireworks they have precious little evidence to offer. I suggest they go back to the drawing board.

This column first appeared at American Thinker.

Thoughts and questions on various matters

A large number of Americans believe that less productive people deserve more and that more productive people deserve less. If that weren’t true, politicians like Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Charles Schumer and Patrick Leahy couldn’t get elected dog-catcher, much less to Congress.

No matter the dictates of multiculturalism and political correctness, Christmas remains the prime reason for December celebrations. “Prove it,” you say? Alright. How many people would tune in to watch the annual presentation of Dr. Seuss’ How the Grinch Stole Kwanzaa?

Is it possible to sell our fellow citizens on the virtues of individual liberty and personal responsibility when so many have become quite comfortable in the veritable bondage of government dependence?

Whether a person considers a political advertisement a truthful assessment of a candidate’s positions or an unsubstantiated attack on their character rests solely on whether their preferred candidate is the ad’s target or its originator.

A sticker on a bottle of lamp oil reads, “Danger! Do not drink!” What purpose can this warning serve? If someone is so dense as to drink lamp oil, that person isn’t smart enough to read and understand the warning label.

Here is another undeniable truth of Interstate driving. You must travel 75 miles per hour to pass the same car that you were about to run over when traveling at 50 miles per hour.

No matter the trade or profession, and regardless of the employer, each shift claims to do all of the work while the other shifts laze about accomplishing nothing.

Are the people who think Rush Limbaugh and other conservative commentators are dangerous zealots who must be countered by the Fairness Doctrine also the people who consider Keith Olberman a reasonable, logical and balanced reporter? If I were a gambling man, I’d wager yes.

The long-term trend toward greater judicial activism, legislative hostility and public apathy bode poorly for our constitutional republic’s future. The 2010 election results can be a positive step toward correcting the first two problems, but only if it means we have rid ourselves of the third.

Not being big on conspiracy theories, the “birther” movement holds little interest for me. However, I do consider Hawaii’s certificate of live birth a redundancy. Isn’t the fact that someone is standing in front of you proof positive that the person was born alive?

When then-President Bush escalated the entitlement system (Medicare Part D) and stated that he was abandoning capitalism (TARP) in order to save the free-market system he threw open the door to Barack Obama’s presidency. When Obama escalated what Bush began (Stimulus, Healthcare Reform) he set the table for last fall’s Republican gains. Voters are now left to wonder which party will screw-up bad enough to lose in 2012.

Do whitewall tires still exist? And while we’re on the subject of tires, when and why did sporty white-letter tires decline in popularity in favor of the nondescript black wall?

Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson have made nice livings peddling ordure under the mantle of social justice and civil rights. But have no fear; anything you’ve retained from Sharpton’s or Jackson’s rhetoric can be remedied with a dose of Ex-lax.

The bikini is far more than an eye-catching cultural icon; it is an economic anomaly. Bikinis represent one of the few transactions (lingerie being another) where customers willingly pay more to receive less.

Anyone so naïve as to believe buying carbon offsets from Al Gore’s companies will halt climate change would also buy air from the Union Carbide plant in Bhopal, India and top soil from Chernobyl.

Why do people tie their shoes together and toss them across electrical power lines? It’s a waste of time and shoes. Plus, it’s done so frequently it can’t even qualify as an original prank.

Congress has investigated numerous baseball players for lying to Congress about steroid use. Why, then, can’t we charge Congress with lying to us about the sub-prime lending fiasco, bailouts, stimulus, healthcare reform and pretty much everything else Congress does?

A Merry Christmas to all . . . no offense intended.

‘Tis the season for common sense, culture, heritage and tradition to take its annual backseat to politically correct nonsense. Each Christmas the PC police are bolder than ever. Nativity scenes can’t be displayed here and angels can’t be heard on high over there. Phrases and icons that reference the central reason for the “holiday season” are squelched so not to offend the perpetually offended.

A few years ago, the Seattle, WA airport authority displayed the gutlessness of Decembers present. Twenty-five years of displaying Christmas trees at the airport’s entrances came to a halt with one complaint. According to airport spokeswoman Terri-Ann Betancourt the trees were removed “because we didn’t want to be exclusive.” Next were the big retailers, whose zeal for a “non-threatening” shopping experience prompted employees to wish shoppers “happy holidays” or “season’s greetings” in lieu of “Merry Christmas.” Christmas trees became “holiday” trees.

The idea of these faith-neutral terms and phrases is to avoid the seeming preference of Christianity over other religions. But Christmas trees? How does calling a Christmas tree what it is sanctify one belief over another? Thoughts on the origin of Christmas trees are as diverse as the kinds of trees used. In fact, the religious meaning of Christmas trees is debated even within Christianity.

The Christmas tree’s root, if you’ll pardon the pun, could rise from the Ancient Romans, who decorated trees with strips of metal during a festival honoring Saturnus, their god of agriculture. Perhaps modern Christmas trees date to 16th Century Germany, where small fir trees were decorated with apples and nuts. On December 25th the ornamental treats were given to the children. The Feast of Adam and Eve, where the “original sin” was reenacted on December 24th, may be the source for our tree. An evergreen, hung with apples, was used as a prop for the play.

Christmas trees are but one example of how the ever-offended are attempting to transform a season of joy and happiness into one of anxiety and misery. Flaps over “holiday trees,” corporate policies governing the greetings retail cashiers can offer and idiocy like that at Seattle’s airport prove that political correctness and “sensitivity” have run amok.

Do Christmas greetings and traditions truly offend people? Or, are offended people simply seeking reasons for offense? Our world is filled with verified misery: war, famine, pestilence and violent crime. Why would expressions of hope and happiness offend any rational person? Frankly, it's because the offended aren’t rational at all. They’re so consumed with their manic despair that they cannot suffer cheerfulness. The joyous message of Merry Christmas reminds them of their empty, bitter souls.

Let's put this in perspective. If a Jewish man were to greet me with “Happy Hanukkah,” I would accept his wishes in the spirit they were offered. I would not become mortally offended, allowing the good wishes to be overshadowed because the greeting reflected a holiday not of my own faith. The proper response is to thank the Jewish gentleman for his gesture and respond with a cheerful “Merry Christmas.” If his expression to me is sincere he will accept my greeting without reservation.

Ironically, our society condones crass vulgarities in the name of diversity, yet is vulnerable to traditional courtesy, and that vulnerability is magnified at Christmas. The very reason there is a season to greet is sacrificed so as not to offend the most intolerant of people. It’s shameful that the phrase “Merry Christmas” is yielding to a tide of politically correct multiculturalism.

Christmas commemorates Christ’s birth, make no mistake about it. So what? America has a Christian heritage whether the PC police believe it or not. As such we are entirely within the realm of good taste and etiquette to wish “Merry Christmas” to anyone, even if that person is of another faith or of no faith at all.

The nonsense must stop sometime. Let it end today, now, this minute. I sincerely wish peace, safety and a Merry Christmas to you. This greeting is extended without apology to the Christian, the Jew, the Muslim, the Hindu, the Sikh, the Buddhist, the Wiccan, the Scientologist, the Taoist, the agnostic, the atheist, the environmentalist, the Jehovah’s Witness, the Mormon, the Branch Davidian and whoever else happens to be out there. If you are a rational person you will accept these good wishes in the spirit they are offered.

However, if you are offended, please feel free to have a Miserable Christmas. I’m confident your New Year will be just as dismal as your outlook on life.

Elena Kagan’s first vote was both baffling and predictable

Once Elena Kagan was confirmed to the Supreme Court it was certain that she would, at some point, cast a vote or render an opinion. It sort of goes with the territory. Of near equal certainty was that her initial ruling would embody everything objectionable and inexplicable about the Supreme Court, judges, lawyers and the legal system in general. Well, Justice Kagan has cast that first vote, to little fanfare I might add. In so doing she proved that my confidence in her ability to baffle was justified.

Granted, Kagan’s first decision wasn’t a thorough legal dissertation. It was simply a recorded vote in support of a losing opinion. However, she did confirm what conservatives expected from Elena Kagan. She voted to stay the execution of a convicted murderer, uphold a Ninth Circuit Court decision and support a lower judge’s ruling that questioned the safety of a lethal injection drug.

For a known Regressive jurist to coddle convicted murderers and side with the Ninth “Circus” is completely predictable. Understandable no, but completely predictable. But to question the safety of a lethal drug? Maybe I’m unclear on the concept. It just seems logical that a drug administered to fulfill a condemned prisoner’s death sentence would be, by necessity, unsafe. If the drug were safe, it would have difficulty achieving its stated purpose, now wouldn’t it? God help us, what has happened to our brains! Educated jurists speculating on whether or not lethal drugs are safe for their intended use is a sure sign our system has abandoned all sanity and common sense.

What’s next? Warning labels on sodium thiopental? We have labels on other drugs, most of which cause remedies to sound worse that the diseases they treat. I can almost hear the disclaimer now.

Are you suffering from violent anti-social outbursts that culminate in shooting, stabbing, strangling, or dismembering? One drug, Executus, has been proven to alleviate recurrences of these behavioral abnormalities. Executus is suitable only for patients professionally diagnosed with Chronic Criminalitis, especially Premeditated Murderosis. Diminished breathing and pulse rate accompanied by low or non-existent blood pressure are common among users of Executus. Some users may experience undesirable side affects, including partial paralysis, anxiety, depression and signs of panic. These symptoms are always temporary. If signs of life persist, stop taking Executus at once and contact your nearest ACLU chapter.

Give me a break! How many times must capital punishment be dissected before people like Elena Kagan are no longer trusted with judicial authority?

The Eighth Amendment prohibits government from dispensing “cruel and unusual punishments.” Not only is that proper, it’s wholly compatible with our cultural values. No one wants to brutally torture convicted murderers to achieve vengeance, satisfy bloodlust, or simply for hoots, regardless of how heinous the condemned treated their victims. There’s no burgeoning movement--not even among the most ardent death penalty supporters--to reintroduce crucifixion, iron maidens, burning at the stake, or drawing and quartering as practicable forms of capital punishment. But death sentences aren’t the antithesis of our Eighth Amendment protections, as evidenced by the fact that capital punishment was routinely used when the Constitution was debated and ratified.

Speculating on the safety of sodium thiopental may sound nuanced, reasoned and deeply thoughtful in circles where common sense is considered an archaic relic of our ignorant heritage. Such reasoning may gain its advocate a favored seat among the intelligentsia, for whom dismissing traditionally proven solutions is a sign of superior knowledge. But it smacks of short-sighted foolishness to me, a thorough waste of time, effort and discourse.

Elena Kagan carried a warning label that foretold her voting tendency. However, like the warning labels on prescription drugs, we tend to ignore a prospective jurist’s precedents, positions and opinions. Thus we make perplexing and painful mistakes like Kagan, mistakes that last a lifetime.

This column first appeared on the American Thinker.

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.

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.

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.

The First Amendment takes a hit

The Richter scale measures the magnitude of subterranean movements. But any recent seismic activity is more attributable to our Founding Fathers rolling in their graves than to tectonic shifts. Free speech has been sacrificed and it’s doubtful the Founders would be pleased.

Molly Norris is a former cartoonist for the Seattle Weekly newspaper. I say “former” because Molly no longer exists, at least not in her original form. At the FBI’s encouragement she has become something of a non-person.

No, Molly didn’t witness a mob hit nor will she provide key evidence against a drug lord. Molly Norris merely expressed an opinion, offended the “religion of peace” and became the target of an Islamic assassination order. What on earth could she have done to earn such ire? Nothing, really.

Norris satirically declared an “Everybody Draw Muhammad Day” in response to the censoring of the Muslim overseer’s depiction on Comedy Central’s South Park. She never declared an actual event. She wasn’t trying to spark a “Draw Muhammad Day” movement and she apologized for any offense. Too late. Cleric Anwar al-Awlaki declared her a “prime target” fit only for hell’s fire.

Actually, it’s al-Awlaki who should be pricing asbestos underwear. But that’s a topic for another time.

What this episode says about our society, our courage and our dedication to our founding principles is deafening. An American citizen is worse than exiled--at the behest of our government--because some Muslims don’t like her views. The federal government has thus admitted that it can’t, or won’t, protect our Constitution or our people against militant Islamic threats. The politically correct atmosphere in Washington is more inclined to appease radical nutcases than to defend our culture and liberty. It is disgraceful!

Can Americans truly be as spineless and weak as this situation indicates? If so, we should admit defeat for we’re doomed where we stand. But it’s doubtful the public knows about this egregious assault on the First Amendment, from both Islam and Washington. Except for Fox News, Molly Norris’ demise has received scant attention at best. Frankly, it’s being ignored. She and the First Amendment have been sacrificed to Islamic radicalism.

Benjamin Franklin once said, “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” We have less liberty and safety whenever we, and our government, surrender to animals like al-Awlaki and his cutthroat followers. Molly Norris certainly has no liberty or safety. She’s not even allowed to exist.

Our Founder Fathers would hold us in utter contempt. The depth of their repudiation echoes across two centuries. In fact, I can almost feel the ground trembling from their restlessness.

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.

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.