Considering that Newsweek recently created our first gay president from whole cloth, Bloomberg might have been trying to score political points with the media. But he scored no points for integrity. If Bloomberg truly believes North Carolina voters dealt civil rights a setback, he would’ve condemned voters in 39 other states for previously passing similar laws and constitutional amendments. That list includes traditionally leftist states like Illinois, Hawaii, and Michigan. Even California voters twice passed laws preventing state recognition of same-sex marriage.

It’s more likely Bloomberg was preaching to the ignorant hayseeds, hillbillies, and assorted bumpkins who call this allegedly backward Southern state their home. Being from New York City, he just couldn’t resist telling the rednecks how things are done “up North.” However, rather than displaying his intellect and tolerance, Bloomberg unveiled his utter contempt for the concepts of a constitutional republic.

In a perfect world, marriage would be the religious community’s exclusive territory, free from government in all forms. But we don’t live in a perfect world. So defining marriage is left to the best available option. Under that premise, marriage law is a state’s rights issues. The U.S. Constitution delegates no authority over marriage to the central government, nor does it prohibit states from assuming that authority. Therefore, the Tenth Amendment reserves any government involvement in marriage to the states and the people.

Each state can unilaterally address homosexual marriage as its voters see fit, either through ballot referendum or their representative bodies. That’s the beauty of a constitutional republic, wherein powers are decentralized and states enjoy wide autonomy in determining their own governance. If someone finds the statutory climate in their current state unbearable they’re free to move to another state where their values are more accurately reflected.

Bloomberg also faces conflict on another front. While the U.S. Constitution is totally silent on marriage, it’s far from silent on the right to bear arms. In fact, the restriction on restricting access to firearms isn’t limited to Congress alone; the Second Amendment is uninfringeable at any level. Yet Bloomberg, a man professing concern for civil rights, is one of the most vehement anti-gun politicians on the North American continent.

Michael Bloomberg is a man fully consumed with his own importance. As such, he fails to realize that North Carolina’s voters really don’t care what he thinks about their state’s business or how he does things “up North.” As the old Southern adage holds, I-95 funs both ways, Mike. Find the on-ramp nearest you, and good riddance.

A federal judge recently issued an injunction against a Texas law that barred public funding of clinics that perform abortions. Planned Parenthood is a chief plaintiff in the case, which only makes sense. According to Planned Parenthood’s figures, the federation performed 329,445 abortions in 2010, an increase of 25,135 over 2007 and an average of 902 per day. In all, 56-percent of the unintended pregnancies the organization claims to have prevented in 2010 ended on the abortion table. Planned Parenthood clinics, it would certainly seem, run afoul of the Texas law’s funding restrictions.

However, abortion isn’t the issue for this column. The eight clinics involved in the lawsuit do not perform abortions, at least not on site. The issue is Planned Parenthood’s legal argument against the Texas law. The organization alleges that its free speech has been abridged, and there can be no more perfect example of modern liberalism. Isn’t it the left that decries corporate free speech and personhood?

You might recall the Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. When the Court ruled that corporations are legally protected under the First Amendment’s free speech provision the left cut flips. It represented a gross violation of justice to define corporations as “people” capable of exercising free political speech, or free speech in general. Where is that anger now? The left isn’t criticizing Planned Parenthood for asserting its corporate citizenship and free speech rights.

What is Planned Parenthood if not a corporation? Search Planned Parenthood’s websites; you’ll find the federation repeatedly identified as “incorporated.” Articles of incorporation for Planned Parenthood regional affiliates are available online. There’s no questioning Planned Parenthood’s incorporated status, just as there’s no questioning its liberal political alignment. Yet we’re to believe liberals can’t abide the thought of corporations exercising free speech. As is common to liberalism, we have a contradiction.

If this were an isolated incident we might let it slide. But Planned Parenthood isn’t alone. Colleges and universities, among the most liberal of all institutions, incorporate for various purposes. Stanford University formed a corporation to manage its on-campus faculty housing. Harvard University operates a financial investment corporation that manages funds to satisfy research and educational necessities. Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, and George Soros are all party to numerous corporations. Not one of those people or institutions can be called conservative.

Apparently, liberals don’t view all corporations as created equal. Some corporations are capable of exercising free speech, determining their own expenditures, and behaving in an approved way. But acceptable corporate personhood is based not on equal protection but ideological alignment. Now we’re left with one lingering question: do liberals suffer from “corporaphobia,” or are they just being two-faced?

Generally, conspiracy theories represent easy explanations for otherwise unexplainable events, or they promote a political agenda. Thus we have “Truthers,” “Birthers,” and tyrannical secret societies propagated by the Illuminati. However, just because most conspiracies are built on fluff rather than substance doesn’t entirely discount the reality of conspiracies. We’re witnessing one in Sanford, Florida.

Trayvon Martin’s life was unquestionably squandered, whether Zimmerman is innocent or guilty. That’s the singular point upon which all sides should agree; after that the facts are muddled. So let’s focus on the conspiracy rather than on rehashing divergent and unsubstantiated opinions. Doesn’t it seem odd for a prosecutor to file a second-degree murder charge after the initial investigation produced no such evidence? Why would an experienced prosecutor take such a stance?

Bear in mind that I’m not raising this question; it’s the question respected legal experts have asked since photographic evidence was revealed that supports Zimmerman’s story. What did the prosecution know concerning those photos prior to filing the murder charge?

According to Harvard Law School Professor Alan Dershowitz, the second-degree murder charge against Zimmerman is “so thin it won’t make it past a judge . . . everything in the affidavit is completely consistent with a defense of self-defense.” Dershowitz also said the prosecution committed a “grave ethical violation” if the photos were known prior to filing the affidavit.

Mr. Dershowitz continued, “The whole country is watching. What do they benefit from having half-truths in an affidavit?”

I won’t pretend to instruct Mr. Dershowitz on the finer points of law. However, I will argue politics to a certain degree. And politics has forged public opinion about George Zimmerman from the outset. Therefore the State benefits greatly from filing a second-degree murder charge against Zimmerman . . . if the evidence confirms he acted in self-defense.

Consider what a powder keg this case has been since day one. Zimmerman and his family have been threatened. Race hustlers accused the Sanford Police Department of a quasi-lynching and subsequent cover-up. Protesters demanded not only Zimmerman’s arrest but his conviction. The New Black Panthers placed a bounty on Zimmerman and the pros and cons of self-defense and gun control laws have been argued. The product of these variables is division and potential civil unrest, which truly benefits no one.

The prosecution found itself in a tight spot. There was a need to placate the mob mentality and avoid potential riots while also protecting the rights of the accused and of self-defense. What could be a better solution than filing a tough-on-crime charge that can’t produce a conviction? The mob’s call for justice is answered without taking a chance on imprisoning an innocent defendant or compromising the right of self-defense.

It’s a tidy conspiracy. Any takers?

Farrakhan, never a stranger to controversy, created quite a stir with his recent ramblings about people killing their leaders, about Jesus, David, and Solomon — all Hebrews — being African, and about Jesus himself being a Muslim despite having preceding Mohammad by six centuries. It’s rhetorical flamboyance extraordinaire, but coming from Farrakhan it’s not surprising. For him to utter an odd word here and there is more the rule than the exception. However, even Farrakhan can exceed his own high standard for balderdash, and this is one of those times.

Sure, Farrakhan’s remarks warranted a certain amount of outrage. However, his greatest offense was his ignorance of, or absolute disregard for, reality. While defending his claim that Jesus was a black man — Jesus was a Jew and neither white nor black — Farrakhan said, “You are not trained to accept wisdom from a black person, no matter how wise that black person is.”

Oh Louis, how can you, a single man, be so wrong?

There are people who readily accept wisdom from black people. We call them conservatives. In fact, I would argue that a conservative’s pursuit of wisdom transcends the racial and ethnic spectrum. However, there’s a catch. Since the goal is to gain understanding, conservatives will ignore fools, henceforth defined as anyone who makes Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton appear levelheaded. Mr. Farrakhan does just that, which is why he’s routinely dismissed as a certified nutcase.

How can Farrakhan lodge such a charge when he himself ignores wise individuals who share his racial heritage but shun his divisive political ideology? For example, does Farrakhan accept wisdom from syndicated columnist and George Mason University economics professor Walter E. Williams? Does he read Thomas Sowell, a black man whose wisdom propels him to write editorials, scholarly essays, and books as easily as most of us tie our shoes? Does Farrakhan seek the wisdom of former Oklahoma Congressman J.C. Watts, or Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, or Shelby Steele, or Kevin Jackson, or Star Parker?

While Farrakhan undeniably harbors delusions of intellectual grandeur and fancies himself a serious contributor to public discourse, his charge is as laughable as it is false. Maybe this tirade resulted from Farrakhan’s jealousy of black men and women who impart genuine wisdom with relative ease. But most likely his rhetoric results from a mind that exists in a vacuum, where the only sound is the steady and annoying wind that blows endlessly in no particular direction.

Rosen has since apologized, but not before receiving her own share of “scorn” for belittling Romney’s family devotion. While liberal talking heads were spinning Rosen’s inanity into a spoof of Republicans, Democrat strategists ran from her like she’d arrived at the Baptist picnic toting a bottle of Jack Daniels. Yet Rosen’s offense wasn’t her assessment of Ann Romney. Her actual faux pas arose when she said of the “Republican War on Women”:

Well, first, can we just get rid of this word, “war on women”? The Obama campaign does not use it, President Obama does not use it—this is something that the Republicans are accusing people of using, but they’re actually the ones spreading it.

Unintentional error is excusable. But Rosen’s false and illogical opinions weren’t unintentional. No rational person believes Republicans would sabotage their standing with female voters by wrongly accusing themselves of waging war on women. To accept Rosen’s accusation as fact, one must also accept that Emily’s List and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) are members of some vast, right-wing cabal.

Emily’s List has issued an endless stream of emails accusing “ultra-conservatives” of “attacking” the organization’s preferred candidates, predominantly females. In a message dated March 23, 2012 Emily’s List supported electing women to “stop the Republican War on Women in its tracks.” On April 12 Emily’s List claimed Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker had “taken the Republican War on Women and made it his personal crusade.” The DCCC’s director, Kathy Ward, issued a short message that mentioned “war on women” four times, concluding with, “Let’s make Republicans regret they ever launched a War on Women.” Even Vice President Biden, certainly a part of the Obama campaign, said, “I think the ‘war on women’ is real.”

Sorry Hilary; Republicans didn’t create the “War on Women” theme and everyone knows it, including you. 

So the real issue in “Hilary Rosen-gate” wasn’t Rosen’s opinion of Ann Romney, as the pontificators have pontificated. It was her blatant lie. Why would she issue a statement so nonsensical, so fabricated, so refutable? There’s a method to her madness. Rosen knows that large numbers of liberal voters will accept her story as the unmitigated gospel, never bothering to recognize or research the truth. Rosen was publicly pandering to a segment of her party’s base.

It only appeared the Democrat Party had tossed Hilary Rosen under the bus. In baseball terminology she took one for the team. When the heat’s off the Democrat hierarchy will reward her loyalty.

Burger King hired Blige to hawk their chicken tenders, and judging from the hostile reception the ad received you’d have thought the script called for Blige to sing Massa’s in de Cold, Cold Ground. The indignation flowed like honey mustard.

Madame Noire, a website dedicated to black women, called the ad “unsettling” and stereotypical buffoonery. One pundit charged Burger King with manipulating a black woman to sell chicken: “Because God knows black folk won’t buy anything unless there’s a song, and preferably a dance, attached to it.” Another wrote, “To see her (Blige) sing for chicken is jarring.”

The second claim is utter nonsense. Only an idiot would believe Mary J. Blige sang for chicken. I’ll bet she sang for money, and lots of it. Good for her. But the “unsettling” affect, the stereotyping, the idea of “black folk” shunning any product not tied to a song or dance, that’s a little trickier.

Granted, the comment about singing and dancing was offered in sarcasm, which I can appreciate to a point. But the days when a blackface minstrel chowing on chicken and watermelon was considered an accurate portrayal of the average black person are long gone. While BK’s ad was silly, silliness isn’t racism. The only thing the BK-Blige combo should insult is our intelligence.

Had Mary uttered a line such as, “Dis’ here chicken sho’ do taste mighty fine,” the outrage among Madame Noire bloggers might be understandable. But for Pete’s sake, take a walk on the real side. Today’s black Americans are multi-millionaire athletes, actors and actresses, and performers of various kinds, like Mary J. Blige. They’re business leaders, executives, entrepreneurs, and — dare I say? — President. Blige simply used her status and stardom to make a buck. Big deal! Why, in 21^st Century America, can’t a black woman advertise chicken, or anything else, without self-serving hacks taking umbrage?

Not all Madam Noire bloggers found offense in the ad. Yet the ad remained racist. Just the anticipation of racism, it would seem, causes fear of racism among blacks. But if merely anticipating the possibility of racism constitutes racism, how then can any person interact with another race? Whatever is said or done becomes racism if an aggrieved party perceives it so. Harmony can’t exist under such circumstances. But resentment can, and it will.

Both Burger King and Blige have since apologized for the ad, which Burger King has pulled. But the people who should apologize are those who created this issue from nothing. Racial divisiveness won’t end as long as publicity hogs profit from stirring up strife.

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?

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.

Maybe it’s just me, but I can’t help but find the image of deceased American presidents dancing in order to sell furniture insulting. What do you think? Should there be regulations or trademarks in place to protect the dignity of our founding fathers and other historical figures, or would steps of that nature taken either by the government or private historical groups end up restricting free speech? Sound off in the comments!

Sefiniah was 9 pounds, 8 ounces, was 21.5 inches long and he has lungs that kept the entire nursery up all night.

Congratulations, Scott!

Not long after anointing Mitt Romney with his endorsement, Trump decided it was time to do some un-endorsing as well. His target: Scotland. Now, I’ve seen Braveheart and Rob Roy, so I know how messing with the Scottish usually ends up. Trump seems to have missed those films, because he has decided to blackmail the Scots, threatening not to build a golf course and resort there if they go through with plans to use offshore turbines for power generation.

But his campaign isn’t about making his coastal golf course more appealing – Trump insists it’s actually about “saving Scotland” and its environment.” You know what? Don’t worry about commenting if you believe that one. Instead, go ahead and email me – I own a certain bridge in London and I’m looking to sell.

PD regulars know that I am not, nor have I ever been a Romney fan. Since 2007, I have said that I feel like he took a list of Conservative values, wrote a couple of speeches about each one and then regurgitated them over and over. The last 2 years at CPAC, he gave content free, red meat rich speeches (i.e. he bashed Obama instead of telling us what he believes in). This year, Romney needed to come to CPAC and lay out what he would do as President and convince us that he would actually follow through. He did just that. For the first time ever, I believed him. Yeah, I know… I’m as shocked as you are, but he seemed to have true conviction about his plans if he were to become President. Had he given more speeches like that over the last 4 years, he would be our nominee right now. Romney had 4 – 5 standing ovations and because he convinced me he believed what he said, I’ll give him an A. Full disclosure, he’d probably get an A+ if I hadn’t spent the last 5 years disliking him.

Gingrich was not true to form today, at least not his entrance. Typically, he enters the room to “Eye of the Tiger”, walks down a staircase, if one is available, and through the crowd shaking hands and kissing babies… Well, he would if any were in the audience. Today, some guy introduced Callista, Callista talked about how bad his singing and golf game are and then he walked on stage. It was quite dissappointing for those who strategically sat along the aisles where they thought he would walk. Professor Newt spoke for the first five minutes and gave us a history lesson about elections. Then super duper Conservative Newt showed up. He made promise after promise about what he would do has President and gave a great speech, most of which was related to what he would do “before Obama lands in Chicago”. The audience ate it up, but it was a little reminiscent of Obama’s State of the Union address in that it was a laundry list of empty promises, most of which probably won’t ever see the light of day. I give Newt a solid B, but only because he received the most standing ovations of the three.

I usually try to leave my bias out of my posts, but I don’t have it in me to do it this time… I don’t like any of them. However, I was glad to see that Romney laid out a clear, measurable plan for the first time and appeared sincere. I recommend that you find their speeches online, watch them for yourself and make your own decision.

I think Andrew Beitbart said it best today (watch his speech – it’s the best of the weekend). I’m slightly paraphrasing here, but he said, “There are two paths in this election: America and Occupy. If you don’t support our nominee whole heatedly, shame on you. You picked the wrong side.”

The ACU (American Conservative Union who puts on CPAC annually) paraded true Conservative after true Conservative in front of us yesterday and this morning. We heard from the likes of Marco Rubio, Jim DeMint, Rand Paul, Bob McDonnell and Paul Ryan. It left us all thinking “What if”.

Most people seem to be somewhat set on their chosen horse, but there is a distinct lack of enthusiasm and dedication. Had any of the guys listed above jumped into the race, I think we would have a nominee at this point. A brokered convention has been the talk of the conference and attendees are debating who they would choose, most of which are non-candidates. It’s sad that we’re spending our time wishing for someone better rather than rallying around our chosen nominee.

Yesterday I had some conversations with a couple of people from Colorado. Personally, I thought Romney was a shoe in for that state so I asked them what the overall feeling was on Tuesday while they were voting. The feedback, in two separate instances, was that they felt slighted by Romney. They worked hard for him in 2008 and then dropped out 2 weeks later. I thought that was an interesting take on Romney’s loss.

One difference from previous years is the distinct lack of Ron Paul supporters. He isn’t speaking this weekend, which partially explains it, but I thought they would at least show up to hand out the dozens of flyers and pamphlets that they usually have. It will be interesting to see the results of the straw poll.

Speaking of supporters, Rick Santorum’s people have been out in force since Wednesday handing out stickers and pamphlets and selling sweater vests. There have been few sightings of Newt supporters and, up until about 10:00 today, Romney supporters.

Here are some of my thoughts from a few of the speeches to date.

DeMint was great. He spent the majority of the time speaking about the importance of electing Conservatives to all offices, not just the White House. He will be spending the next 9 months trying to elect Conservatives to the Senate.

Rubio left everyone in the room feeling the they were sitting before a future President and was the crowd favorite.

Mitch McConnell and John Boehner gave generic speeches about how difficult it is to get anything done in Congress. I was particularly disappointed with Boehner. He gave an unbelievable speech here two years ago about the things he would do as Speaker. I don’t recall the entire list, but I have been quite underwhelmed with his performance over the past year.

I skipped Bachmann… I had enough of her during the debates.

Perry spent quite a bit of time talking about the 10th Ammendment… I know you’re shocked. However, I heard several people say that he would be the nominee if he had spoken like that while he was on the campaign trail. I quietly rolled my eyes and didn’t interject until someone said he was popular in Texas.

Cain was fantastic. I’ve officially placed him in the same bucket as Sarah Palin… He’s a great motivator and good for the movement, but shouldn’t be President. He also endorsed Joe the Plumber, who was in the audience during his speech.

Rand Paul is a true Constitutional Conservative and much less scary than his father. I hope he will be tapped for VPOTUS.

Oliver North gave a passionate speech about the difficulties that our troops face when they come home from war.

Kirk Cameron (aka Michael Seaver from Growing Pains) promoted his new documentary, Monumental, which follows him around Europe and America while he searches for what made America great. The preview looked good so you may want to check it out in theaters only on March 27th.

Have you ever wanted to see a Conservative Comedian? Check out Brad Stine. You may have seen him on Fox and Friends discussing the “wussification” of America.

Paul Ryan spoke at the Presidential Banquet. I don’t remember much of what he was saying… Mostly something about providing a clear choice in the Presidential election, but I was daydreaming about him becoming President.

Mike Huckabee started us off this morning. He focused on several social conservative issues, particularly abortion and received a number of standing ovations.

Bob McDonnell was one of my favorites so far. He spoke about how Conservative principles work in government and gave a number of examples about how he has reined in the budget and deficit in Virginia. He’s another one that has a very bight future.

Stay tuned for my comparison of Santorum, Romney and Gingrich’s speeches.

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.

1. Republicans will keep the U.S. House, albeit with their 25-seat majority slightly reduced. In the 10 presidential re-elections since 1936, the party in control of the White House has added House seats in seven contests and lost them in three. The average gain has been 12 seats. The largest pickup was 24 seats in 1944—but President Barack Obama is no FDR, despite what he said in his recent “60 Minutes” interview.
2. Republicans will take the U.S. Senate. Of the 23 Democratic seats up in 2012, there are at least five vulnerable incumbents (Florida, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Pennsylvania): The GOP takes two or three of these. With the announcement on Tuesday that Nebraska’s Ben Nelson will retire, there are now seven open Democratic seats (Connecticut, Hawaii, North Dakota, New Mexico, Virginia, Wisconsin): The GOP takes three or four. Even if Republicans lose one of the 10 seats they have up, they will have a net pickup of four to six seats, for a majority of 51 to 53.
3. Rep. Nancy Pelosi, Sen. Harry Reid or both will leave the Democratic leadership by the end of 2012. Speaker John Boehner and Senator Mitch McConnell will continue directing the GOP in their respective chambers.
4. This will be the fourth presidential election in a row in which turnout increases. This has happened just once since 1828, from 1928 through 1940.
5. In 2008, voters told the Pew Poll that they got more election information from the Internet than from daily newspapers. Next year, that advantage will grow as the Internet closes in on television as America’s principal source of campaign news.
6. After failing to win the GOP presidential nomination, Ron Paul will not run as a third-party candidate because that would put his son, Rand Paul, in an untenable position: Does the Republican senator from Kentucky support his father and effectively re-elect Mr. Obama, or back his party and defeat him?
7. Mr. Obama’s signature health-care overhaul, already deeply unpopular, will become even more so by Election Day. Women voters are particularly opposed to ObamaCare, feeling it threatens their family’s health.
8. Mr. Obama may propose tax reform, attempting to use it to appeal both to his liberal base (a question of fairness) and independents (a reform to spur economic growth). This will fail, but not before boosting Mr. Obama’s poll numbers.
9. The Obama campaign won’t corral high-profile Republican endorsements—as it did in 2008 with former Secretary of State Colin Powell—with the unimportant possible exception of former Nebraska Sen. Chuck Hagel. It will also make a special effort to diminish the GOP’s advantage among military families, veterans and evangelicals, with the last a special target if Republicans nominate Mitt Romney.
10. Despite an extraordinary amount of presidential time and involvement, Team Obama will fall as much as $200 million short of its $1 billion combined fund-raising target for the campaign and Democratic National Committee. Even so, Mr. Obama and Democrats will outspend the GOP nominee and Republicans. This won’t necessarily translate into victory: John Kerry and Democrats outspent President George W. Bush and Republicans in 2004 by $124 million. Groups like American Crossroads (which I helped found) will narrow the Democratic money advantage.
11. Scandals surrounding the now-bankrupt Solyndra, Fannie and Freddie, MF Global and administration insider deals still to emerge will metastasize, demolishing the president’s image as a political outsider. By the election, the impression will harden that Mr. Obama is a modern Chicago-style patronage politician, using taxpayer dollars to reward political allies (like unions) and contributors (like Obama fund-raiser and Solyndra investor George Kaiser).
12. To intimidate critics and provoke higher black turnout, Democrats will play the race card more than in any election since 1948. Witness Attorney General Eric Holder’s recent charge that criticism of him and the president was “both due to the nature of our relationship and . . . the fact that we’re both African-Americans.”
13. The economic recovery will continue to be anemic, leaving both unemployment and concerns about whether the president is up to the job high on Election Day. Because of this, Mr. Obama will lose as his margins drop among five groups essential to his 2008 victory—independents, women, Latinos, young people and Jews. While he will win a majority from at least three of these groups, he won’t win them by as much as he did last time.

This is the very same Herman Cain that did not know whether he was for or against Obama’s Libya policy and falsely claimed that the Taliban was playing a role in Libya’s new government.  This is also the same guy that insisted that leaders don’t need to know anything about world affairs, they just need to provide clarity and a competent staff.  In an interview with The Daily Caller, Cain had this to say about the expertise needed to be Secretary of Defense:

You don’t need to have defense expertise.  You don’t even need to have military expertise.  You need to have leadership expertise.  That’s what I would bring to that job.

I can buy that for the Presidency.  No one is going to be an expert in fiscal policy and be an expert in military strategy.  However, it’s absurd to think that if your sole job is to manage the Pentagon, you wouldn’t have any experience… at all.

As many PD’ers know, I was a Cain supporter very early on.  However, when it gets to the point where I have no rational explanation for my candidate more often than not, I have to cut my losses.  I was hoping that Cain could repair his image and coherently refute the allegations against him, but, unfortunately, it doesn’t look like time away has served him well.

I could fully support him as Secretary of Treasury.  His 9-9-9 Plan was a solid plan and I would love for him to be in a position where he could influence fiscal policy.  However, he’s giving me more and more reason to put write him off as either a kook or an arrogant wanna-be politician.

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.

Tebow, an underperforming young NFL player who had previously failed to live up to his lofty college reputation, was recently pressed into the starting role as quarterback for the Broncos. He has responded by leading the Broncos on an extended winning streak, with several of the games being won in improbable fashion with last-minute rallies.

After each victory, Tebow gives thanks to G-d with an obvious, unashamed on-field display of reverence.

Such public displays of religiosity and faith have led to unrestricted criticism and mocking by the liberal media. Negative articles have been written. Commentary by announcers has been sarcastic and condescending.

The question, of course, is why? Why do the liberal media feel so offended or threatened or simply put out by Tebow’s actions?

One of the first things a committed liberal says is that religion has no place in the public square and that there must always be that wall between “church and state.” The Constitution mandates that, they say, citing the First Amendment’s famous clause: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion….”

What these selective Constitutional scholars conspicuously fail to quote is the next segment of the very same Amendment, which goes, “….or prohibiting the free exercise thereof….” Reasoned people would argue that Tebow is merely availing himself of that right to free exercise.

And how, exactly, is Tebow’s on-field behavior different than when David ‘Big Papi’ Ortiz hits a home run and looks skyward and points upward with his two forefingers as he crosses home plate? What is he doing—paying homage to the Delta Airlines flight passing overhead? After recording the final out of a winning game, superstar pitcher Randy Johnson would point to the sky from the pitcher’s mound, “…in tribute to my Dad.” Where did he think his Dad was—in the top row of the bleachers? More importantly, where did the media think Johnson was pointing and why? Why are Ortiz’ and Johnson’s (and many other athletes’) overtly religious gestures towards “heaven” somehow less controversial and offensive to the liberal media than Tebow’s actions?

There is an undercurrent of thought among many liberals that this country was not founded on religious principles and any display or even the slightest implication of a public religious gesture should be forbidden, lest someone of a different (or no) faith be “offended.”

From an historical, factual standpoint, that thought is incorrect. The United States was indeed founded on Judeo-Christian values, and specific, unequivocal religious references abound in both our founding documents and in today’s day-to-day society. The famous phrase in the Declaration of Independence, “….that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights….” would have to have a wildly imaginative interpretation for the word “Creator” not to mean G-d.

Our money says, “In G-d we trust. Court proceedings are begun with, “…so help you G-d.” A display of The Ten Commandments resides in the Supreme Court. The public examples are numerous and overwhelming as to the religious underpinning on which our society is founded.

The question is not whether we are a country that was founded on religious principles. We are, quite factually and provably.

The question in the minds of secular-progressives is whether we should continue to be such.

That is an entirely different issue than whether we are a religiously-founded country. Any well-spoken, articulate secular-progressive can logically and clearly speak as to why the religious foundation that shaped the Founding Fathers’ outlook and governing philosophy is no longer relevant, helpful, or valuable in today’s complex, diverse, multi-faceted world. Similarly, today, a thoughtful, intellectual religious person can make a convincing presentation as to why belief in the tenants and guidelines of a faith-based lifestyle strengthen—not hinder or distract from—the ability to lead a productive, ethical, compassionate life. A spirited, intelligent, unemotional discussion between the two sides would be quite illuminating.

Would the liberal media take such enthusiastic, critical note of a public display of, say, Muslim or Buddhist or Hindu or even Jewish religious expression? Likely not. Do the media take note when the display is “toned down” a bit (such as a quick Ortiz heavenward point) vs. Tebow’s overt Christian display?

No, the media do not take note of or mention Ortiz’ quick gesture. It’s easy to figure out why.

Big Business (and their relentless pursuit of profits) is bad, evil, and inherently untrustworthy.

Is that really the lesson we want to take away from this mess? The same old clichés, presented for the same old reasons? How trite. How tired. How wrong.

Let’s take a closer look. There is no question that this whole Occupy situation has the anti-Big-Business crowd in a huff. This has been a veritable field day for the anti-business faction to jump into the public fray with their hand-wringing cries of how, once again, Big Business has stuck it to the everyday little guy: 99% vs. 1%. Forgive our student loans. Income disparity.

But is it true? Are all large businesses automatically bad? Well, hold onto your spotted owl and consider the following:

Big Businesses are the economic engines of any civilized society. They make possible all the things that make our lives enjoyable, safe, and convenient. The car companies make products like the Ford Fusion and Honda Accord—reliable, safe, affordable personal transportation, easily serviced anywhere with readily-available inexpensive parts. How would life be if instead of a few major car companies, there were 87 different, small-scale car companies, each with costly, unique designs and specific parts, not mass-produced in the 100’s of thousands for low-cost economies of scale, but instead, produced at high cost in the low 1000’s, available only in a restricted geographic location? How would you like it if you couldn’t drive from Boston to Ft. Lauderdale, because the parts needed to fix your car would be unavailable once you got past New Jersey? Or how would air travel be affected if we couldn’t fly to Europe or South America or the Far East because each region used an incompatible jet fuel?

Big Business makes life-saving medical technology seem routine today. The pharmaceutical companies deliver one life-saving or life-enhancing product after another, made possible by tremendous research and development expenditures—funded by profits—and armies of scientists spending untold hours in the lab. Take a look inside your grandparents’ medicine cabinet next time you’re there. They have products that keep their blood pressure under control, lower their cholesterol, control their diabetes, relieve their arthritis, keep their heart beating regularly—all unavailable only a short time ago.

Large, multi-national companies heat and air-condition our homes and workplaces at astonishingly low cost without our giving it so much as a second thought. Do you stop and thank Honeywell, GE, and Carrier every time you step into your crisp 68-degree office on a sweltering 95-degree day? No, chances are you complain to your facilities manager that you feel a little draft coming over and could he please re-direct the ceiling vent.

Big Business makes it possible to produce and distribute vast quantities of food all over the world. No Coca-Cola? No Kellogg’s Corn Flakes? No Purdue chicken? No Campbell’s Chunky Soup? Tough to imagine. In reality, America’s food industries are so efficient and produce so much that we actually regard some foods as “unworthy” of consumption.

Do you acknowledge Mitsubishi and Sony when you play the latest Blu-ray disc on your big screen TV? Do you tip your hat in amazement to those computer/tablet/smart phone companies whose millions of apps have made Star Trek’s 1967 science fiction fantasies into today’s take-it-for-granted reality? You probably don’t even notice. Without profits to fund those development efforts—and hire the necessary people—none of that would exist.

Profit enables banks to lend money, so people can buy houses, cars, and finance college educations.

If a bank’s expenses are higher, they have to pass that added cost along to their customers, in this case in the form of higher interest rates on loans, higher fees, and lower interest rates paid out on savings accounts. It does impact people directly. Misguided legislation like the Dodd-Frank act reduces those companies’ profit and increases their costs. All because a few self-appointed Democrats feel they’re G-d and they feel they’re qualified to decide—totally arbitrarily—who is entitled to make how much money.

Profitable companies enrich our lives and raise our standard of living. What if Apple hadn’t been able to get low-cost financing a few years ago–from a bank!—when they were struggling, and they weren’t able to develop the iMac which led to the iPod which led to the iTouch which led to the iPhone which led to the iPad?

A profitable bank lent them the money and Apple made profits and developed great products that make our lives better, while they (Apple) made big profits to develop more great products that we’ll enjoy (and come to regard as essential, like iTV) in the near future.

The conveniences and advancements that we’ve come to expect—indeed, demand—are possible because of the competitive nature of capitalism and the profits that companies put back into research and development in their efforts to win new customers and capture market share. It’s easy for people to focus on highly-publicized executive salaries and bonuses, but those don’t really amount to anything in comparison to the amount spent on market research and R&D for new products, and the risks any company takes when entering a new market.

Big Business (and Small Business, too, for that matter) employs tens of millions of people in this country. Their suppliers employ millions more. Their associated service/support and transportation/warehousing industries employ millions more. The ripple effect of these workers’ personal spending in every imaginable tangent business is incalculable. Big Business is the engine that keeps the world working and moving.

Profit is the fuel. Without it, everything grinds to an instant and permanent halt. It’s not for Barney Frank or Chris Dodd to say how much money you’re entitled to make from your hard work, ingenuity, and creativity. Their responsibility is to stay out of the way (once there are some common-sense—not punitive— regulations in place), and let you decide where and how to spend your money. The good companies will succeed and profit; the bad ones will fall by the wayside. The consumer determines the winners and losers, not the Government.

Change that and our economic system collapses. Have a nice day.

Amidst the slogans and chants emanating from impromptu communes across the country, the only clear message from Squatting is that banks suck and Squatters are entitled. Other than that, Squatting Any Street’s message has been incoherent. Yet no internal chant or external criticism can define Squatting with the clarity of a single photo taken at Squatting Los Angeles.

Plainly, this protester is upset. His sign implies that the greedy banks, the greedy rich, and the responsible people all suck. The wealthy become rich when everyone else gets hosed. End of discussion. 

His view is common among Squatters. The mythical possibility of legislating economic fairness has consumed leftist orthodoxy since hotdogs became synonymous with ballpark concessions. Yet foreclosure, while an undesirable course, is the natural result of an unpaid mortgage. Squatters may believe banks foreclose indiscriminately to pad their bottom line. But with real estate values in decline, what profit is there for banks to possess properties worth less than their liens? 

Notice the Squatter’s contrasting message. If the banks got rich while homeowners were unfairly foreclosed, from what were the banks bailed out? Their profits? One Squatter with one sign exposes a fatal flaw common to Squatters. It’s impossible for banks to simultaneously be both rich and poor. Expressing anger toward both circumstances is putting two and two together and coming up with six. 

Only a failing bank can receive a government bailout. When a solvent institution receives government funds it is a subsidy. Truly, neither subsidies nor bailouts are part of a free market economy. But there’s a distinction between them. Is it too much to ask Squatters to determine their message before they protest? Anyway, TEA Partiers were railing against both personal and corporate entitlement long before the first Squatters pitched their tents.

 A single sign has illustrated the degree to which Squatters have missed the point. They blame free markets and capitalism for bank profiteering on both sides of the housing bubble. But banks can’t simultaneously be rich enough to be greedy corporations and poor enough for bailouts. The concept contradicts itself. Government’s “fair” lending regulations drove banks to issue risky loans. Government then mitigated the risk with subsidy assurances. The housing crash wasn’t the fault of free markets or capitalism. It began, grew, and culminated with government’s usurping of the free market. 

Squatters should realize that without the federal government’s politically-driven manipulation of the housing market the banks wouldn’t have issued so many ill-advised loans, the housing bubble would never have existed as it did, and Squatting Any Street would be as academic as the nearest tent city.

Italian Premier Mario Monti formed a government of bankers, diplomats and business executives Wednesday, saying the absence of politicians in his Cabinet will spare political parties the “embarrassment” of taking the tough decisions needed to steer the country from financial disaster.

I find this fascinating! Could this really work? It makes sense on the surface- a group of people whose careers are not dependent upon public opinion, working for the greater good of the country. However, what are the potential unintended consequences? And, when given the positions of authority, do the business men and women on this panel become politicians, based on the constant scrutiny? And if it does work, will the TEA party take notice and try to copy the experiment here in America?

If it does work, how many countries will follow suit?

As background for those readers not familiar with the state of boxing in America 50 years ago, it was a very major sport, perhaps third in overall popularity and visibility to baseball and football. Major fights received significant television and newspaper coverage. There were “boxing writers” at the big national newspapers. The general public had a solid awareness of who the champions were in the various weight divisions.

This is in stark contrast to the decline of boxing’s popularity today and the meteoric rise in the past decade of Ultimate Fighting/Mixed Martial Arts. Boxing slowly strangled itself to death with the advent of multiple bureaucratic “Governing bodies,” with each different organization recognizing a different boxer as champion in the same division. Sports fans, faced with a bewildering array of indiscernible organizations like the World Boxing Association, the World Boxing Council, the International Boxing Federation, etc., each recognizing different fighters as champions, soon grew weary of the whole thing and today, boxing has been reduced to near-irrelevance in the sporting world.

UFC/MMA—with its faster-paced, less-restrictive rules—has caught on with a new, younger generation of sports fans, the same fans who are accustomed to the immediate impact and explosive results they enjoyed from video games growing up. To this new generation of followers, “traditional” boxing was too slow, too chess-like in its often-deliberate pace and its intense strategic approach.

But boxing enjoyed tremendous popularity a half a century ago. From the early ‘60’s to the early ‘80’s, there were arguably more highly-skilled, truly excellent fighters competing for dominance than at any other time in the sport’s history, before or since. Champions and contenders alike, there were countless names that transcended the boxing world and made it into the general public’s consciousness: Floyd Patterson, Sonny Liston, Emile Griffith, Jimmy Ellis, Jerry Quarry, Ron Lyle, “Sugar Ray” Leonard, Roberto Duran, Marvin Hagler, Tommy “The Hitman” Hearns, Alexis Arguello, Earnie Shavers, George Foreman. And dozens more.

In this Golden Age of boxing, two figures stood out above all the others: Joe Frazier and Muhammad Ali (nee Cassius Clay). Ali (as Clay) won the Olympic Light Heavyweight Gold Medal in Rome in 1960, and turned professional shortly thereafter. His amazing skill brought him to the top of the sport at the tender age of 22, when he won the World Heavyweight Championship in 1964.

Right after winning the title, he did something that set his life on a controversial trajectory from which it would never deviate: Clay announced to the world that he had become a follower of the Nation of Islam religion and had changed his name to Muhammad Ali, rejecting forever, as he put it, “my slave name.”

The great majority of people in America had never even heard of Islam or the Muslim religion. Many were confused by his actions and put off by his angry denouncements of “white” American culture and society. In the coming years, Ali would add to his controversial image by demeaning his opponents and boastfully predicting the exact round of their demise. Much of that braggadocio was intentional on Ali’s part, designed to hype the publicity (and therefore the ticket sales) of his bouts. Yet he remained a lightening rod for conflicting opinions, as people were equally divided as to whether they loved his outgoing, anti-establishment style, or whether they wanted to see his mouth “shut for good.”

Regardless, Ali was a compelling figure. Tall, handsome, and fast and graceful in the ring, he had a remarkably quick wit, an always-ready smile, and just enough of a constant twinkle in his eye that one never knew exactly how seriously he took himself.

He found the perfect foil in ABC sportscaster Howard Cosell, whose own rise to fame came about primarily because of his coverage of Ali.

One exchange in particular seemed to exemplify the repartee the two enjoyed.

Interviewing Ali before a fight in the late 1960’s, Cosell—who thought of himself as quite the intellectual and linguist, said to Ali, “Muhammad, you’re being unusually truculent today.”

To which Ali replied, without skipping a beat, “I don’t know what truculent is, but if it’s good, then I’m it!”

Ali’s controversial image reached its zenith in April 1967, when he refused induction into the U.S. Army after being drafted, uttering his forever-famous line, “I ain’t got no quarrel with them Viet Cong.”

That solidified his positive image and standing among the growing numbers of anti-war young Americans, who never understood or agreed with our involvement in a seemingly meaningless foreign war in Vietnam, half a world away.

But just as many Americans—many older, more ‘conservative’ types, but not exclusively— felt the opposite. Never having been particularly fond of his arrogant, bragging style and his insulting talk about traditional American culture, they saw Ali’s stance as an indication that while Ali was perfectly happy to benefit from and profit from the opportunities afforded him by the American sports profession, many resented him when he wouldn’t give back—even a little— to the country in which he’d become rich and famous. History is full of notable American athletes and performers (like James Stewart, Ted Williams, Andy Rooney and Pat Tillman, to name just a fraction) who stepped up when needed and served their country bravely and honorably.

As a result of his refusing induction, Ali was stripped of recognition as champion by all the athletic commissions around the country and his boxing license was rescinded. He was forced into sports exile, a champion no longer.

By the late 1960’s, a new heavyweight boxer was making a name for himself with his explosive, aggressive style and dramatic victories: a young slugger from Philadelphia named Joe Frazier.

Frazier was a simple, uncomplicated person, totally apolitical, the complete opposite of Ali. He didn’t boast. He wasn’t involved in political controversy. He was down-to-earth, friendly (“I’m Joe Frazier, sharp as a razor! What’s your name?”), and hard working. Early in his career he trained at night in the gym after working in a Philadelphia slaughterhouse all day. (The Sylvester Stallone scene in the original “Rocky” movie of him punching a carcass was inspired directly from Frazier’s early experiences.)

Short, stocky, with an ungainly ring gait, here too, he was the complete opposite of Ali’s graceful, almost melodic movements in the ring. But in his own way, he was just as effective and soon ran up an impressive undefeated string of victories.

Joe and Muhammad became fairly friendly during Ali’s forced exile from boxing. As Frazier’s success grew, he loaned Ali money to assist him and lobbied hard to the various boxing authorities to reinstate Ali’s boxing license. There was undoubtedly a measure of self-interest in such actions for Frazier (a future bout between the two would be a high-paying extravaganza for them both), but compassion played a major role for Frazier as well. That’s who he was.

As circumstances developed, Ali did resume his boxing career within a short time. Ali and Frazier met in three memorable fights. Their trilogy set the standard for sports rivalries, as Yankees-Red Sox, Celtic-Lakers, and Borg-McEnroe contests have always been referred to as “Ali-Frazier confrontations.”

Yet it’s their third fight (held in Manila, in the Philippines, Oct 1st, 1975) that really defined for the ages who they were as boxers—and as people.

Ali had always taunted Frazier in the publicity build-up to their previous fights. As I had written previously, “Frazier, for his part, seemed overwhelmed by the events. A simple man from a poor, humble background in rural South Carolina, Joe never knew exactly how to respond to Ali’s taunting. Play along or ignore him? Am I ‘in’ on the joke or am I the butt of the joke? Is Ali serious when he says these bad things about me or is it all tongue-in-cheek, designed to maximize the publicity?”

But this time, Ali went further—much further. He derided and insulted Frazier to an extent never seen before in sports history. Standing at a podium during a pre-fight press conference, Ali pulled out a small rubber toy gorilla, and announced, “It’s gonna be a thrilla and a chilla and a killa when I get the gorilla in Manila!” while he repeatedly punched the rubber toy, its head wildly bobbing back and forth. “Take that Joe! You so ugly, Joe!”

Frazier was incensed. “Do you know what it’s like to have your young son go to school and have to fend off questions about why his father is being called an ugly gorilla? This was a man I helped when no one else would. I spoke up for him. I gave him money when he was broke and desperate. Now he does this?”

Their third fight (the “Thrilla in Manila” name stuck) was perhaps the most brutal, hard-fought boxing match ever. Frazier—thought to be washed up by most boxing experts and by Ali also—fought with an intensity rarely, if ever, seen before. Ali, his inherent physical advantages over Frazier notwithstanding, was pushed beyond his limit and he dug down deep within himself to produce a superhuman effort of skill, courage and stamina that may never be eclipsed in a ring again. At the end of the 14th round (with just the 15th and final round to go), Ali came back to his corner and said to his trainer Angelo Dundee, “Cut ‘em off,” indicating that he’d had enough, he couldn’t go on, cut off my gloves. But astonishingly across the ring, Eddie Futch, Frazier’s trainer, had already motioned to the referee, Carlos Padilla, that Frazier couldn’t continue. The Thilla was over and Ali had won. Ali later called that fight, “The closest thing to death.”

Some people say that the basic nature of boxing makes it a metaphor for many aspects of life. It could be considered the sports equivalent of capitalism. There are some basic rules and guidelines, a few ethical boundaries the contestants aren’t supposed to cross (“Protect yourself at all times,” and “No hitting behind the head,” etc.), but beyond that, it’s completely up to the individual boxer to devise a winning strategy that will beat their competition, using only their own guile, skills, and cunning. Not unlike starting a private business, taking all the risks, putting yourself on the line after sizing up and evaluating your competition. You either succeed or fail on your own. There’s no one there to catch you if you fall.

This is in marked contrast to, say, baseball or football or basketball, sports that operate like centrally-managed economies: Central management, directing large swaths of resources within very strict guidelines, with very definite rules governing every move, towards a very finite, tangible goal. Baseball goes 9 innings, every time. Football goes 60 minutes, every time. But only boxing can end without warning, via knockout, at any time.

Others have suggested that boxing’s wide-open, unscripted, improvised nature is much like the open, improvised nature of jazz music, whereas the more structured sports are similar to large symphonies with a central conductor directing the group’s moves and guiding it towards a known, predictable conclusion.

Similarly, the individual fighters themselves take on personae of politicians or well-known captains of industry or famous performers. In any group, there are those who take chances, who value hard work and a no-nonsense approach above all else. There are also innovators whose vision and creativity break out of the mold of what was previously thought possible and emblazon new directions.

The world is made up of a continuum of people and approaches to life, from all flash/no substance ‘takers’ who work any given situation strictly for their own personal benefit, to all work/no quit ‘givers’ concerned only with the greater good.

Ali and Frazier certainly represented vastly different personal styles, and perhaps just as vastly different approaches to life, but it’s up to each person individually to decide for themselves where on that continuum Ali and Frazier fall.

The story goes that an old boxing trainer, when asked to predict the winner of a closely-matched fight, came out with this mangled version of something Mark Twain once wrote:

“Ya takes yer pick and ya makes yer choice.”

I made mine a long time ago.

To revere a forgiving victim is one thing. But what would we think of someone who encouraged their assailant? What would we think of a woman who cheered her attacker during a sexual assault? How about someone who applauds while their neighbor is being murdered, or roots for the thief who’s burglarizing their home, or praises the thug who’s vandalizing their property? We’d think them foolish, if not tetched.

“C’mon,” you say, “no one is stupid enough to cheer their attacker.” 

You could lose the farm on that bet. Blindly crediting people for common sense and rationality is a risky proposition. Americans regularly cheer their attackers, especially when the consequences from the attack aren’t immediately perceptible or experienced. 

Washington has been herding America into centralized despotism for generations and the Obama administration is quickening the pace. Eventually, we’ll be left groveling before government for our every need, or begging from the foreign nations to whom our so-called leaders have indebted us. Who would cheer the charlatans who are selling us down the river? Listen to the audience at an Obama rally.

Whenever President Obama proposes increased federal spending or another bankrupting entitlement program his supporters shower him with adulation. He promises a few hundred billion dollars for “shovel ready” jobs, or “green energy,” or to keep teachers, police, and firemen on the job, and his audience glorifies him like a redeemer, as if he were riding a donkey down a road paved with palm branches. Such was the case when the President touted his $447 billion jobs proposal during a speech at North Carolina State University.

The President invariably claims his spending initiatives will be “paid for.” The rhetoric is deceptive, if not a full-blown lie. Washington is overspending by $1.5 trillion annually, has accumulated a debt ten times that amount, and holds long-term benefit obligations that exceed our total national assets. No federal spending is “paid for.” Every dime is borrowed against the future incomes of the people who cheer Obama, like the students at N.C. State. Obama pledged debt to them and their children and they showered him with love and adulation in return. 

Obama is sinking the country even further into unsustainable programs and unimaginable debts. His attack on our fiscal future is a repeated punch in the gut. And the “useful idiots” cheer him wildly, as if he is delivering us from evil.

“Trumpeter John “Dizzy” Gillespie was one of jazz’s all-time great performers. With his colorful on-stage antics and trademark bent-bell horn, Gillespie was widely recognized as a prime architect of the influential be-bop movement of the 1940’s and 50’s and he remained a vital force in jazz right up until his death in 1993. Once, when asked how his playing always sounded so fresh and creative, he answered with his characteristically dry wit, “It ain’t the notes you play that count, man. It’s the ones you leave out.”

Fast-forward to October 2011: Dizzy’s point is especially relevant as it applies to the coverage of today’s major issues. The degree to which certain stories are covered by the media—or ignored completely—has a tremendous influence on the public’s perception of people and events.

Take for example the case of the Occupy Wall Street movement by liberal protesters. The liberal MSM is trying to portray them as a cutting-edge, pulse-of-the-country voice against the excesses of corrupt capitalism. The Occupy group is presented as having clear, laudable ideals for economic equality through a restructuring of how our American economy works, away from unlimited, uninhibited individual potential and achievement and towards a more socialistic-style wealth redistribution model.

In reality, it seems as if a great swath of Occupiers has no real idea of why they’re there at all, other than to party, protest (what, exactly, isn’t clear, besides not having to pay back their student loans), fight with police and talk to each other on their (profit-driven, capitalistic) iPhones. But to listen to the major networks report it, this is a major, significant, important movement in American culture and politics. No other angle is presented.

Attorney General Eric Holder’s apparent contradictory statements with regard to his knowledge of ATF’s “Fast and Furious” program are getting similar kid-glove treatment from the liberal MSM. A brief re-cap: Fast and Furious was an ill-conceived program to sell U.S. guns to Mexican drug kingpins in the hopes that those guns could be traced and the drug lords found and prosecuted. It went horribly wrong, too many guns ended up in the hands of truly bad people, and US personnel were killed in the process. The ATF is overseen by the US Justice Department, of which Holder, as AG, is chief.

At a May 2011 Congressional hearing, Holder disavowed any long-term knowledge of the program, saying, “I probably heard about it [Fast and Furious] for the first time in the last few weeks.”

But CBS reporter Sharyl Attkisson (good for her, and confirming a long-held view that the only thing the MSM like more than negatively portraying conservatives is uncovering scandals that justify their—the MSM’s—existence) discovered e-mail memos from ten months ago that seem to unequivocally prove that Holder was in the loop right from the beginning. Now, CBS is circling the wagons, refusing—without explanation—to allow Attkinson to give any interviews to other news outlets.

Nonetheless, this is big trouble for Holder and a major blow to the Obama Administration’s credibility, especially following so closely on the heels of their Solyndra solar panel loan debacle. This is the same half-billion dollar waste of taxpayer money debacle that has been buried by the MSM to the point where virtually no “average” person has any awareness of it. That song gets no airplay.

Liberal MSM bias is a cumulative effect. It’s not just one arbitrary source and it’s not as obvious as, say, Brian Williams or Jon Stewart saying that he doesn’t like Mitt Romney. It’s more subtle. Like Dizzy said, what they don’t say is just as important and influential as what they do say.

The liberal MSM don’t say anything equal and equivalent to their negative descriptive terms of conservatives such as “Religious Right.” This is a negative term from the MSM, implying that to be both “Religious” and “Right” is bad. The MSM never use the term “Secular Left,” which is the exact reciprocal equivalent to Religious Right. Instead, to the MSM, there is “normal,” and there is the Religious Right.

Another example: The liberal MSM use the adjective “Conservative” or “Right Wing” to imply something negative or bad about a person. Rush Limbaugh is always referred to by the liberal MSM as “Right Winger” Rush Limbaugh or “Ultra-Conservative” Rush Limbaugh.

But…..his equivalent on the liberal Left is never described in such terms. Rosie O’Donnell or Michael Moore or Oprah Winfrey are never described by the MSM as “Ultra Left-Winger Michael Moore” or “Extreme Radical Liberal Rosie O’Donnell.” Never.

It’s insidious and very subtle. It’s like a drip, drip, drip on a rock. After many years, the rock is split and it wasn’t obvious it was even happening.

Conservatives need to recognize this and plan their media strategy accordingly. Because the liberal MSM will always be playing the same old tune.

It was a set up.

I’m in Philadelphia for an industry conference. This morning I was riding high. I had sat forth row in the center for Stuart Varney‘s keynote address, that by the way, was fantastic. I’ve long enjoyed Varney because he is so direct. I even tweeted some of his comments live during his speech (yeah, each word is a separate tweet).

Later, I somehow let David Kaiser talk me into lunch. When we pulled into Tony Luke’s rather than Geno’s or Pat’s, I should have known something was wrong.

I returned to the conference, attended a couple of dud sessions, then returned to my hotel room for the evening only to find this:

Yeah. I have blond hair (even better worse, click the photo to enlarge it!).

So I don’t know how he did it, but Kaiser managed to get into my room with a friend who has black hair, use my razor, leave gobs of hair in the razor, on my toothbrush, mouthwash, deodorant, and contact lens case.

However it is also possible that it might have been Attack Watch drones, as I have enjoyed mocking President Obama’s McCarthy Team incessantly.

Perhaps it was our own Political Derby obsessive Ron Paul contingency because despite leaning toward his views, I just cannot join the irrational crazies.

Maybe it was Edgar. He does have black hair.

But likely it was the “housekeeping” at the Embassy Suites where I am staying.

Seriously, everything written here actually happened today. This was the most disgusting, nasty, repulsive, thing I have ever experienced in a hotel. So thanks Hilton brands for leaving me squeamish in my own hotel room, afraid to leave anything behind. I don’t think I’ll be needing your “cleaning” service the rest of my stay and despite my Diamond status, it will be very difficult to come back.

Though the case against Kaiser is compelling…. I’ll call Attack Watch! now.

But as I watch the deconstruction of this parking lot outside my window I see power drills and wrecking balls, not precision surgeon scissors and scalpels. The job would never get done if we used those instruments. America is not financially stable enough where we need to only make minor adjustments and small cuts.

We don’t need more taxes, class warfare, and vague entitlement cuts. We are not some pristine sculpture that only needs to be sanded. At this point, America is like this broken up parking garage that I currently am staring at. We need to cut out all the government excess before we can invest and rebuild in a new building.

America need serious and meaningful changes to our entitlements programs, defense spending, and tax code. Obama has elected not to touch the tax code and social security. You want to know why? Because he can’t figure out a way to sell it politically. This president will never do anything without thinking about his poll numbers first (not like that has helped him recently).

Everyone knows it has to happen, so we need to equip ourselves with the right tools to get the job done. In the coming weeks we will see if Obama is ready to work with the right tools and work with Republicans to come up with something that isn’t dead on arrival in the House and isn’t a complete waste of time.

But people can see from what he wrote what a little man Krugman really is, so I will leave it at that.

What we should remember today is what happened after the atrocious attacks of 9/11/01.
Americans found God again. Churches and synagogues left previously half-empty were packed again, like they were during our parents’ generation and more so in the generation before theirs. Neighbors helped neighbors in true Godly service. We believed in each other and remembered a higher power again.

It is an interesting dichotomy how a tragedy can bring us closer together, closer to each other and our God. But it does. It is also easy to forget those feelings. Today, I hope we can all remember the spring that rose of the winter that was 9/11, the outpouring of good from the tragedy, the brighter side of a bitter evil brought by those who thought they could bring us to our knees.

Rather, today, we as Americans stand taller, stronger, and resolved to overcome with our genuine goodness.

God bless the USA.

Thank you.