Iran Marching boldly into the 10th Century: Nuclear technology isn't the only area where Iran is leaving tradition behind. (433)

The Bad the worse and the foolish -- A frustrated look at recent events: Maxine Waters, Gulf oil spill, beauty pageants, the Supreme Court, Sen. Reid, Michelle in Spain. (1332)

Atlanta's mob scene results from Democrat policy: Entitlement programs spurred a demand to live at your neighbor's expense. (580)

The façade of elitist empathy: Elitists' condemnation of wealth while enjoying same illustrates their hollow empathy. (720)

Home of the free? Or land of the slavish?: Either we choose liberty oriented attitudes or become serfs in our own land. (668)

Arizona fulfills the federal government's abandoned duty: States aren't obligated to suffer when Washington shuns its responsibilities. (926)

Next stop: The Robert C. Byrd pearly gates: An imaginary funeral procession reflects on Sen. Byrd's contributions to good government. (679)

Life isn't fair, not even for the perfect: Baseball's "imperfect" game proves that people can deal effectively with injustice. (669)

Bartering for healthcare isn't as crazy as it sounds: Voluntary exchange and open markets are key to controlling healthcare costs. (619)

It's time to put your pants back on: Wearing your pants around your thighs looks ridiculous, especially to the pretty young ladies. (646)

Statehouses are the key to restoring constitutional government: State legislatures can nullify unconstitutional federal laws. (676)

Deconstructing the health-auto insurance comparison: Examining the difference between state auto insurance and federal health insurance mandates. (614)

Obama's supporters and alliances tell us who he is: Does the President have too many communist allies for coincidence? (476)

Don't let anti-gun silence breed complacency: Lack of new laws doesn't mean the right to bear arms is safe from assault. (623)

The incontestable tenets of the “green” church: Science is religion in the First Assembled Reformation Church of Environmentalism. (663)

Want to make the BCS worse? Add government!: Government isn't the answer to college football's flawed championship system. (635)

Spend $400 in 15 minutes? Child's play: The gravity of a petty theft calls attention to Washington's fiscal irresponsibility. (633)

Iran is modernizing, having recently joined the nuclear age. And if you're concerned that their atomic agenda could prove less than peaceful, take solace. Russia is on the scene, monitoring the program to ensure the Iranians play by the rules.

Of course, Russia's presence may not quell the angst within the prudent Westerner's soul. Cold warriors will remember Russia as the black heart of the defunct Evil Empire. The Soviet Union won no prizes for transparency and square dealing when it came to nuclear arms. So trust the “Russkies” if you like. But believing Russia will prevent Iran from going nuclear is akin to trusting Bill Clinton to safeguard both your girlfriend and your finest cigars.

Nuclear technology isn't the only area where Iran is advancing. The ruling ayatollahs, mullahs and imams are instituting social reforms, too. Thanks to their foresight and open-mindedness, Iran will soon be only a millennium behind the civilized world, give or take a century.

Take the case of Sakineh Ashtiani. Like the woman the Pharisees brought before Jesus, Sakineh is charged with adultery. Also similar to the biblical story, her accusers presented no co-conspirator. Even so, Sakineh has been flogged, imprisoned, denied access to family and counsel, convicted and sentenced to death by stoning; all in a manner that makes the biblical Pharisees seem like America's Founding Fathers.

Ironically, this is where Iran's Islamic courts prove their nation's cultural development and social advancement. In response to international pressure Iran has rescinded Sakineh's stoning sentence. You heard right, no state sanctioned stoning for Sakineh. They'll hang her instead.

I've nothing against a good hanging, mind you. The gallows served our own country well in dealing with murderers, rapists and other assorted ne'er-do-wells. But adulterers? We'd have to hang half of Congress. Okay, so that's another point in favor of the noose. But in Iran, exchanging the stone for the rope is decided progress.

If Iran continues down this road they may achieve Genghis Kahn's level of genteel sensitivity, Medieval Europe's social harmony and King George the Third's regard for the rights of man. Who knows? With a little coaxing Iran's ayatollahs might even become as enlightened as the 20th Century's greatest humanitarians, men like Pol Pot, Chairman Mao, and “Uncle Joe” Stalin.

Who could've foreseen, just a few years ago, Iran becoming so contemporary that they would forego stoning for hanging. At this rate, Tehran is destined to become a tourist haven. Can't you envision the sign in the travel agent's window? Visit Iran: Gateway to the Dark Ages.

When it comes to pontificating on the contemporary political scene Chris Varano might make a pretty fair sports broadcaster. Sports broadcasting is, after all, the Dallas native and Texas Christian University sophomore's major. As such, his next editorial for TCU's online newspaper should touch on Brett Favre's myriad retirements, leaving politics alone, lest he become another (God forbid) Keith Olbermann.

Varano believes opposition to the “ground zero mosque” is Islamophobia in the first-degree. And he quotes Al Franken--Minnesota's dubiously elected, self-proclaimed expert on everything--to validate his claim. That Mr. Varano, is strike one. Citing Sen. Franken on serious matters is akin to heeding Terrell Owens' advice on improving team chemistry.

Varano states, unequivocally, that the proposed--and already financially troubled--Islamic center in lower Manhattan is peaceful. “It is not going to (be) a training ground for terrorists or a symbol of victory on 9/11,” writes Varano.

So, Chris, is that a Namath-like guarantee? Can we sue you if you're wrong? Remember, the flight school where Mohamed Atta and his box cutter chorus trained wasn't known as a hotbed of Islamic extremism either. As for being a symbol of victory, how can America consider it otherwise? A mosque at the WTC is as much a sign of victory as the U.S. flag atop Mt. Suribachi. I doubt you'll find the famed Iwo Jima photograph hanging in many Japanese living rooms.

The fact is that Chris, like most Regressive leftists, is a walking contradiction. He's critical of “the American people” for “holding entire groups responsible for the actions . . . of a few.” Yet the phrase “the American people” is itself all-inclusive. The author has engaged in the stereotyping he claims to despise, blanketing all opposition to the “ground zero mosque” with the Islamophobia quilt.

Chris, think for a moment. Your head won't explode, I promise. Can Americans be the Islamophobes you claim when there 100 mosques in New York City, and approximately 2000 nationwide, operating freely? Plus, if memory serves (it does, thank you) Islamic radicals orchestrated 9/11. They bombed the USS Cole, the Khobar Towers, a Beirut barracks, a German nightclub and a jetliner in Lockerbie, Scotland. And that's just for starters.

If the mosque in question is to be Islam's olive branch to America, as its proponents claim, shouldn't a less controversial sight be chosen? Conversely, a mosque near ground zero is perfect for poking America's eye.

That's strike three, sports broadcaster. You're out! Yet I hope I've clarified why so many Americans oppose the “ground zero mosque.” It's not that we're murderous cannibals, desiring to kill, cook and eat every Muslim in the contiguous forty-eight states. We just never again want to wear the “paper tiger” badge.

Now, grant us a boon and concentrate on your sports broadcasting degree. Then, when you return to “Big D”, you can rail on Tony Romo's latest interception and why the Texas Rangers won't win in October. America can use good sports broadcasters. We need more Keith Olbermanns like we need relief pitchers with double-digit ERAs.

You might consider Rep. Maxine Waters' funneling of TARP money to her husband's friends and business associates at OneUnited Bank an abuse of both her office and the public's trust. Not so for her California constituents.

Arturo Yrbarra, a director at the Watts Century Latino Organization, praised Waters' for persuading banks to increase lending, thus increasing home ownership. Translated that means she helped pressure banks into approving mortgages they otherwise wouldn't have touched with ten-foot poles. Excuse me, but wasn`t that the cause of the economic downturn, which led to high unemployment and the exponential growth of our already enormous national debt? For this she receives praise from her constituents?

Waters is far from alone. Her actions are part and parcel to the Democrat Party platform, a platform congressional Republicans have lacked the courage to identify, much less oppose. Small wonder our fiscal house is out of order.

Since the Deep Water Horizon oil spill we've been treated to one doomsday scenario after the other. The Louisiana bayous would be flooded with oil, with the advancing crude ruining the delicate wetlands. The Gulf Stream would pick up the oil, spread it across every inch of Florida's beaches and deposit tar balls and sludge from Georgia to Maine. Fisheries would die and the entire Gulf of Mexico would become a giant dead zone. Communist organizers and their empty-headed zealots called for the federal government to seize British Petroleum.

The marshes are healing and the gulf is cleaning up the crude, essentially eating the oil. Marsh grass is growing through the dead plants and new growth is evident in the mangrove trees. Only a month ago both were given up for lost.

This isn't the word of Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck, Sean Hannity or some other “anti-environment” conservative pundit; it's the word of scientists. And it's bad news for environmentalists who'd hoped the BP spill would spark the public outrage necessary for them to forcibly implement their “green” agenda.

So, the earth is addressing a perfectly natural substance that has escaped its proper place, much like our bodies deal with infection. Is it just barely possible that God, the Creator of both crude oil and the Gulf of Mexico, knows a little bit more about how the two interact than does the Sierra Club and Greenpeace?

A New Zealand teenager was stripped of her beauty pageant title for conduct the pageant director considered unruly. There appears no evidence the young lady posed nude or sent compromising photographs to her boyfriend via her smart phone. She doesn't appear to be a budding Lindsay Lohan. Her transgression is far more severe; she dyed her hair. Director Barbara Osbourne confronted the girl, Olivia O'Neil, on Facebook.

O'Neil merely returned to her natural hair color. It's not like she dyed her hair the colors of the rainbow and joined the gay and lesbian liberation front (bet you wouldn't have heard a peep from Osbourne if she had). And shouldn't beauty pageants have more important worries, like their winners engaging in the aforementioned unbecoming activities?

Yes, rules are rules. But petty tyrants are petty tyrants, too. They are every bit as evil as other tyrants, save on a smaller scale. Barbara Osbourne is the one with the problem. For her to lash out at a teenage girl over such a trivial matter indicates a person with one foot outside the plane of reality and the other seated firmly in Adolf Hitler's boot.

Despite attempts to rally opposition, no one realistically expected Elena Kagan's judicial nomination to fail. She was presented by a Democrat president, reviewed by a Democrat Senate and had public support from four Republicans, meaning a filibuster was out of the question. With the confirmation secure, President Obama was free to speak candidly concerning his desire for Kagan to be a judicial activist.

A White House press release expressed Obama's pride in how Kagan would make the SCOTUS “a little more inclusive, a little more representative, more reflective of us as a people than ever before.”

May I remind Obama and Kagan that the Supreme Court's job isn't to be inclusive, or to be “reflective of us.” And we have the House to represent us, in theory at least. Those qualities aren't prerequisite to sit on the Supreme Court. Justices are to apply the U.S. Constitution to the cases brought before them; no more and no less. But, admittedly, that notion's a little quaint these days.

Does anyone remember when Harry Reid complained about visitors to Congress smelling of body odor? He's at it again. Reid said, “I don't know how anyone of Hispanic heritage could be a Republican, OK? Do I need to say more?”

Frankly, I don't see how anyone with the requisite mental capacity to tie their own shoes could be a Democrat. I don't know how anyone could vote for a man who rammed a mammoth, unread healthcare bill down our throats and then bitched about its contents. That would be you, Senator Reid.

I don't know how any poor person could be a Democrat when the party's policies have ensured a perpetual underclass the sole purpose of which is to ensure Democrat electoral victories. I don't know how any poor person can be a Democrat, Sen. Reid, when you and your ilk have robbed the poor of their independence and their self-esteem.

I don't know how any urban black person can be a Democrat when the problems urban black people face--drugs, blight, illegitimacy and family decline--are as bad, or worse, as when your party first promised to fix them.

Everyone knows about the brutal execution of ten Christian medical missionaries in Afghanistan (peace by upon it). Essentially, these people were treated with less respect than the cattle at your local abattoir. Not only were they executed, their bodies were unceremoniously dumped in a wooded area.

The Taliban (peace be upon it) claimed responsibility for the killings. Taliban spokesman Zabiullah Mujahid (peace be upon him) said the Christians were killed for “preaching Christianity.”

Well, at least there was good reason to systematically shoot these dangerous, although unarmed, subversives. And if that's not enough reason to kill the infidels, they were found in possession of Bibles translated into the local language. Hmmm? Perhaps shooting was too good for them after all.

This is done in Afghanistan (peace be upon it still) in the name of Islam (peace be upon it) while the American Left (no peace be upon them) gives itself a collective pat on the back for its tolerance and open-mindedness in approving construction of a mosque within spitting distance of Ground Zero. We wouldn't want Muslims (peace be upon them) to soil their prayer rugs (on them, too), hijabs (once more) and burkas (ditto) during a long trip to spit on our 3000 incinerated countrymen, would we?

It's a good thing Islam (peace be upon it once more), is a religion of peace. Otherwise, Muslims might get ugly about this infidel thing.

Regressives claim that conservatives never say anything positive about the Obamas. Well, when you can't think of something nice to say it's better to remain silent. Therefore I'll say nothing about Her Royal Highness Michele Obama's trip to Spain, the taxpayer funded entourage that accompanied her, or the Spaniards who were shooed from their beaches so Her Highness could frolic in the surf. Consider my silence an act of tolerance.

One sure way to draw a crowd is to offer a benefit paid for with someone else's money. That's why 30-thousand people congregated in Atlanta to apply for taxpayer funded federal housing subsidies. You needn't be an Old Testament prophet to foresee how such a gathering would unfold. There was shoving, pushing, cursing and a mob scene or two. Big surprise, huh?

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution attributed the lack of public decency to impatience, frustration and confusion brought on by the high summer temperatures. The mercury hit the low 90s before the crowd dispersed around 2 PM.

You know what? Summer temperatures are hot in most cities at two in the afternoon. In fact, on the day Atlanta's Section 8 housing chaos unfolded the temperature reached the mid to upper 90s for quite a few people whose day didn't end at 2 PM. They were at a place they visit each and every day. It's a place that helps them provide for their families and meet their financial obligations; a place called work.

Work serves another purpose, too. It's allows productive people to earn the money their government will confiscate to construct the dependent mentality that prompts 30-thousand people to gather in search of a slice from their countrymen's pie.

Yes, the economy is tough and I'm quite thankful for gainful employment during these down economic times. But the incivility and near-riots on display in Atlanta aren't the result of the recession or of industrious people who've caught some bad breaks. They are the result of a long-standing problem that was created, apparently with malicious intent, when the welfare state was initiated.

Government has excused and rewarded a lack of productivity for so long that indolence has become a celebrated lifestyle. Subsidies, paid for with tax money, are now considered rights. The entitlement mentality these attitudes have fostered is a contributing factor to our nation's fiscal abyss. It is a death knell for personal and economic liberty regardless of how Democrats spin it.

Don't bother telling me about how your Uncle Joe spent his entire life working his fingers to the bone and is now dependent on government programs to make ends meet. The claim hasn't been made that everyone seeking government assistance--even among the 30-thousand in Atlanta--is a worthless bum. But the mentality that produces the Atlanta episode isn't compatible with people like your Uncle Joe. It is, however, compatible with your Uncle Joe if he votes based on which politician will best help him live at his neighbor's expense.

There is no question that social welfare programs have created a dependency attitude wherein government is seen as lord and savior. There are indeed women who consider pregnancy an opportunity for a pay raise and men who bequeath to government their family responsibilities. There are people who have no qualm with having government provide for them from cradle to grave.

What happened in Atlanta, similar to the scenes in New Orleans following Katrina, is the predictable result of regressive social policy. Democrats have long preached dependence under the guise of civil rights. The lack of decorum at this gathering identifies people who have lost their moral compass, disregarded their talents, ignored their purpose for living and become comfortable with entitlements funded by their neighbor. No amount of federal subsidy or government program will change their social status.

Politics and legalism have rendered matters that were once lucid complicated beyond coherence. We're no longer allowed to see situations for what they are. Instead we must analyze them through a maze of incomprehensible legal technicalities and obscure judicial rulings. Common sense is irrelevant and what was once the people's law has become the barrister's playground and the politician's hiding place.

Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is a perfect example. He was once a point man for granting amnesty to illegal aliens. Now he champions amending the 14th Amendment's birthright citizenship clause to prevent future “anchor baby” births. That's quite a reversal for Graham, who doesn't face reelection until 2014.

Graham considers birthright citizenship “a mistake.” His point is that illegal alien parents can't bear a citizen child. In that regard Sen. Graham is absolutely correct. However, his tough talk is more about whitewashing his history than preventing anchor babies. The 14th Amendment needn't be altered to clarify the citizenship language. An amendment is overkill where common sense is sufficient.

Amending the Constitution isn't trivial. The U.S. Constitution, Article Five, demands a two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress to launch a constitutional amendment. If a proposal survives Congress it must then gain acceptance in three-fourths of the states to become valid. Six proposed amendments have failed that test and the last successful amendment languished for 202 years before ratification in 1992.

Even if Sen. Graham successfully amends the 14th Amendment he will have provided, at best, a future remedy for a contemporary problem. According to ABC News sources, 10-percent of annual US births are to illegal aliens and the number of children born to illegal parents who live in the United States increased 25-percent during the five year period ending in 2008. By the time Graham's amendment clears Congress and the needed 38 statehouses millions of “anchor babies” (approx. 430,000 per annum) will be born American citizens.

A constitutional amendment requires great effort while presenting minimal chances for success. Furthermore, the promised benefit will not address a problem that needs a solution now.

The arduous amendment process is avoidable, and the birth citizenship problem remediable, if we'll apply common skills in reason and logic. The 14th Amendment declares, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens.” The “subject to its jurisdiction” phrase is the loophole that allows illegal aliens to birth anchor babies. Illegal aliens are subject to our laws whether or not they obey them. Yet if parents who've immigrated to the United States illegally can bear legal citizen offspring, how far does birthright citizenship extend?

Suppose a foreign army successfully occupied a portion of the United States. Subsequently, the foreign occupiers begin to bear children on U.S. soil. Would those children, born to parents whose presence is illegitimate in the eyes of the United States, be considered citizens under the 14th Amendment?

The invading force might regard the occupied soil as their sovereign territory. However, few Americans would view the invasion as a lawful entry, rendering the claim to land unlawful. Even if we accept the occupier's argument the 14th Amendment is a moot point since the children would then be born on foreign soil. Logically, if the occupying force is illegal then the product of their unions can't be legally recognized.

It's quite practical to apply this reasoning to children of illegal aliens. When a foreign national possesses no visa, passport, or sign of legal entry they can claim no legal status. Their presence in the United States is thus invalid and their children--born here as a direct result of the parent's illegal entry--are ineligible for birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment's provision. They are no different from the hypothetical invading army.

The primary reason for the 14th Amendment was to guarantee citizenship to freed slaves. There's no expressed or implied intent to grant citizen status to the offspring of anyone who can slip across the border on their due date. To claim otherwise obfuscates and complicates a situation that's otherwise clear and simple, just as legalism and politics are prone to do.

Few expressions are more vacant than the political elite's public displays of empathy. Empathy is a vicarious emotion, allowing empathizers to feign compassion for other people's hardships without the actual experience. It is a handy device, and one the elite class routinely utilizes.

Elitists relish the opportunity to parade their empathy before their underlings. Who better to provide an example than Vice President Biden?

Biden credits the administration with saving our financial system and preventing an economic disaster that would've sent Western Civilization spiraling toward a quasi-Stone Age existence. Everyone now has health care and the sewer called Wall Street--whose alleged abuses the federal government initiated, exacerbated and subsidized--has been thoroughly sanitized. These steps were necessary because Biden's opponents (meaning Republicans) “are wildly out of touch” with America.

Mr. Biden has suffered yet another recurrence of foot-in-mouth disease, a chronic malady among elitist empathizers. Biden championed the administration's achievements during a speech he delivered to $500-per-person Democrat donors in Chapel Hill, NC. How many truck drivers, welders, nurses and retail sales clerks attend $500 political fundraisers? Tell us again, Mr. Biden, who is out of touch?

The elitist's empathic expressions are a façade intended to conceal their love for the private luxuries they publicly condemn. If only Biden were alone in is condescending attitudes. Sadly, he has ample company on Empathy Hill.

President Obama stands on that hill too, sided by the wealthy real estate potentate Neil Bluhm. Don't let Bluhm's apparent capitalist successes fool you. He is a Regressive to the core, having contributed more than $60,000 to various Democrat political causes over the last two years.

Mr. Bluhm also hosted a birthday party for our 44th President. But the downtrodden, toward whom Regressives extend their boundless empathy, didn't attend. They couldn't afford the prerequisite $30,000 donation to the Democrat National Committee that Bluhm assigned to his extravaganza. If the attendees were truly concerned about the unfortunate, why not make $30,000 contributions to the nearest children's home? After all, to paraphrase ex-President Clinton, no donation to the DNC ever fed a hungry child.

The Clintons are also elitists in good standing. Chelsea's recent nuptials are estimated to have cost between $3 and $6 million dollars. Chelsea herself was reportedly adorned with a quarter of a million dollars worth of jewelry. The driveways at the wedding's plush mansion locale were widened, not to accommodate an influx of public transportation buses but swanky limousines.

The portable toilet facilities cost $15,000. Minimum wage employees--routine targets for elitist empathy--will barely earn that amount for a year's labor. Even the electricians were instructed to wear tuxedos, perhaps with a combination cummerbund and tool belt. There was no word on the dress code for stand-by plumbers.

In all honesty, the Clintons, Obama and Bluhm can spend any sum they desire on their parties; it is their business. Their extravagances would be wholly inconsequential save for one small detail: their duplicity. Elitists, illuminated in the Clinton-Obama-Bluhm triumvirate, wallow in the wealth and luxury they condemn for anyone outside their clique. Small wonder Rasmussen polling finds an extensive disconnect between “regular” Americans and the ruling political elites.

Wealth is acceptable only when the elite class controls its use. A person must adhere to the elite political ideology; otherwise their attainments are attributed to avaricious philosophies. Achievers are deemed winners in life's lottery, born to the silver spoon. The elites' strategy is to divide and conquer, leaving the elites themselves to determine for whom wealth and luxury are acceptable.

The elites who lead the Regressive Movement are experts in smugness and sophistry. They think nothing of flaunting their wealth and status while claiming empathy with the poor and obscure. Elitists then ease their consciences with “charitable” government entitlement programs funded through legislative theft.

We of the great unwashed are to stoke the elitists' egos, marvel at their wisdom, praise their compassion, beg their generosity and grovel for their acknowledgment. We are to unquestionably adhere to the diktats of our superiors, forsaking our individual goals for their vision of the collective good.

The elitists' empathy extends only to the point that their agenda is served. Actually, elitist is a misnomer. They are the contemporary royalty, bidding us live as they decree while they indulge as they wish.

Americans take pride in being the world's freest people. We celebrate freedom on Independence Day. We sing of it before our sporting events. But haven't history's most brutal regimes concealed tyranny behind veils of patriotism and rhetorical allusions to liberty? After all, dictators don't gain power while pledging chains and slavery. They gain power with glowing promises to free the masses.

Any 20th Century communist regime you'd care to name has followed this model. Hitler did, too. Islamic republics boast of the liberation wrought via their revolutions. And Hugo Chavez is utilizing this game plan to solidify his hold on Venezuela, much as did his Cuban hero, Fidel Castro.

To argue that the United States now mirrors Venezuela or the defunct Soviet Union is premature. However, it's seems clear that Americans have less regard for liberty--and less liberty for that disregard--than did our forebears. Certainly our political leadership holds individual liberty in low esteem. We have ignored Benjamin Franklin's wisdom and surrendered large chunks of liberty in return for temporary security. Just as Franklin warned, we have less liberty and security to show for our submission. To confirm the point let's look at traits common to the free and slavish mind.

Free people revere the rule of law and its role in preserving civility. Yet it's also understood that law enforcement's prime purpose is to investigate crime scenes after the fact. Seldom are police able to foil crimes in progress.

Liberty requires it's possessors to shoulder the burden of self-defense. Toward that end free people rely on some combination of mental preparedness, physical strength and weapons proficiency. These qualities, especially regarding arms, are paramount to that defense.

The slavish mentality accepts nothing related to self-preservation. Personal protection means petitioning governments to restrict or abolish the legal possession of arms. Ignored is the reality that criminals, by definition, disregard such laws. In absence of self-preservation the slavish person will demand surveillance cameras on every street corner. The just and the unjust are then treated as equals, which is the greatest of inequalities.

Freedom asks nothing more than an opportunity; a free person seeks only a chance. Liberty's desire is to utilize individual talent, ingenuity, initiative and intellect to their greatest capacity and profitability. There are no guarantees and success is unpredictable. Whatever the results may be, that which was gained was earned, not granted.

The slavish mentality wants government to alter the starting line. It isn't opportunity that slavish minds demand; it is advantage based on known or arbitrary criteria. What's more, there must be an artificial outcome. Predictability, even when producing poor returns, is preferable to the risks of an unknown future. The product is invariably the equal distribution of mediocrity, which is considered preferable to the “inequalities” of the bourgeois meritocracy.

Personal responsibility is tantamount to the free individual. Meeting obligations is as natural as drawing breath. That may mean working one job, two jobs, or launching a primary or secondary business. Conversely, one spouse may drop from the work force to raise children, accepting the corresponding loss of income and necessary reduction in expenditures.

No so for the slavish. Only so much responsibility is acceptable. They will generally tolerate the burden of providing for their leisure and entertainment. But beyond that the onus rests on government. Nearly everything under the sun has become a collective concern. It is the state's responsibility to keep human needs adequately supplied.

The fact that government can provide nothing to the slavish and indolent without first confiscating it from the free and productive is immaterial. Tragically, the demands of the willingly dependent eventually enslave the free as well, despite their best efforts to maintain independence.

Whether America remains the land of the free or becomes the home of the slavish rests on which mentality prevails. The free must love, protect and incessantly preach liberty. We haven't yet descended into irreconcilable servitude. But we stand at the precipice.

Now that the federal government has formally filed suit to block Arizona's efforts to identify illegal aliens the emotional rhetoric that has controlled the debate should take a back seat to reality. The Justice Department claims that Arizona has usurped the federal government's authority over immigration and naturalization (U.S. Const., Art. I, Sect. 8) and the Constitution's supremacy clause (Art. VI).

Odd how Washington becomes concerned with the constitutional delegation of authority only when federal power is challenged. There was little interest in the Constitution's assigned powers when Congress passed the healthcare bill. Constitutional authority isn't mentioned when card check is debated, or when Social Security and Medicare are discussed. However, despite its disdain for the document by which it is supposed to abide, the federal government seems to be on solid constitutional footing this time.

Congress has the authority to “establish an uniform rule of naturalization.” The reason the Founders granted this power to Congress was to avoid conflicts and wars with neighboring nations. John Jay argued in Federalist No. 3 that border states, the ones most likely to be affected by immigration and border disputes, were inclined to act “under the impulse of sudden irritation.” Therefore national control of the international borders provided a greater opportunity for sustained peace.

Alexander Hamilton affirms Jay's testimony in Federalist No. 32. Hamilton contends, quite logically, that if each state enacts individual naturalization laws then the “uniform rule” demanded in Article I, Section 8 would be impossible. Thus legislative authority over the borders, immigration and naturalization belongs to the United States government. This power being granted to the national government is naturally denied to the states.

The United States is apparently correct in claiming authority over immigration law. Yet there are a few flies in the ointment that lend credence to Arizona's position. Foremost, Arizona hasn't enacted a law that regulates immigration or the naturalization process. What Arizona's legislature has done is authorize state and local agents to address federal crimes. This isn't unprecedented.

Sixty-three state and local jurisdictions, seven in Arizona alone, currently deal with illegal immigrants via Immigration and Customs Enforcement's 287g program. State and local authorities are instrumental in identifying illegal aliens for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is proximity. Local police are likely to be the first officers at the scene of any violation. However, 287g is based upon ICE, a federal agency, authorizing local departments to enforce federal law. If 287g were the sole example of local authorities addressing federal crimes the case might be closed. It's not.

Rhode Island state police have been enforcing immigration law on the weight of Gov. Donald Carcieri's executive order since 2008. The Kentucky State Patrol and a local fire chief were first to investigate a possible arson at a Williamsburg, KY apartment building. Police in Amherst, NY are investigating a rape that occurred early on the morning of July 5, 2010. The New Castle County (DE) police are actively seeking leads in the June 9, 2010 abduction and rape of a young girl. Also in Delaware, the state police are investing two unrelated kidnappings and rapes.

According to Sumpter and Gonzalez website-a law firm in Austin, Texas-federal crimes include arson, rape and child abduction. This being the case, it's apparent that local police units are investigating federal crimes and have a strong interest in apprehending the offenders. Why not immigration violators, too?

For a national government to refuse to exercise an authority--in this case, enforcing the borders--amounts to abandonment. Nature abhors such a vacuum, so the United States' abdication of naturalization enforcement must be filled. Enter Arizona's immigration enforcement law. In fact, Arizona's action is in keeping with our nation's founding principles.

Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence that when a government no longer meets the needs of the governed it is open to alteration. Arizona's reaction is therefore mild. Instead of abolishing federal authority, or supplanting federal statutes, the state has upheld both in enforcing the existing national law.

States aren't obligated to tie their hands or turn their heads when Washington ignores its assignments. If that were the case, what would happen if Washington ignored its duties in other areas? Reconsider Article I, Section 8, which not only establishes the federal government's naturalization powers but also compels Congress to “provide for the common defense . . . of the United States.”

If a foreign power were to invade one of the several states the national government would be constitutionally responsible for repelling the invaders. Suppose Washington simply refused to deploy the armed forces to the sieged state? Would that state be constitutionally bound to accept the occupying force, since its defense is an established federal duty? Only the most naïve pacifist would accept such a proposition.

A state so occupied would be well within its right, and obligated to its citizens, to act against the occupiers. The same holds true when the invading force is comprised not of military personal, but of illegal aliens.

Washington's wink-and-a-nod approach to immigration is a losing position whether or not Arizona successfully defends its immigration enforcement statute. A federal victory will create a tsunami of resentment towards the national government. Congress will then be compelled--this being an election year--to reluctantly consider the best interests of the people and the states in regard to action on illegal aliens. An Arizona victory affirms a state's right to act in its own interest in areas not delegated to Congress, or in areas where Congress has neglected its constitutional charge.

The left changes monikers whenever their chosen title becomes too easily identified with their collectivist political intentions. They seized the title “Progressives” in the early 20th Century and adopted “Liberal” when the progressive image became tarnished. Today, with liberalism inextricably linked to collectivism, the left has returned to the progressive label. But one problem remains. Words have meanings that defy distortion, and neither progressive nor liberal accurately reflects the left's governing philosophy.

The case has been made, on the pages of American Thinker itself, that identifying the leftist as a Progressive or Liberal is erroneous. It has been stated that policies declared to be progressive or liberal are actually backward and authoritarian. Thus the leftist has been aptly identified, based on policy and result, as regressive.

To state the case further, not even the definition of “progressive” or “liberal” identifies with the leftist ideology. It's just that the left has manipulated those words until the distortion has become accepted. It is a common practice, for they routinely ignore reality and wear their title du jour like camouflage.

Progressive is defined as advocating, attaining, or being characterized by improvement and forward thinking. It dates to the early 17th Century, becoming politicized in the late 1800s. The modern left isn't progressive in the practical or classical sense of the word. In fact, much of what constituted progressivism during the early 20th Century is the antithesis of contemporary leftist beliefs.

Early Progressives certainly desired social change, but they regularly utilized private organizations--such as churches and charities--for effecting their transformations. Not even the Progressive Era's trust-busting government regulators were kin to today's leftists. Those reformers sought to protect the future of market competition from monopolistic mergers and thwart the fledgling communist movements. Creating a labyrinth of bureaucratic red tape wasn't their primary objective.

Nothing in the word “progressive” and little in early progressivism describes today's leftist. The left has no desire to defend capitalism, foster competition, or accomplish their vision of social justice via private channels. They have only an insatiable lust for control.

Leftists promote nothing new; their goals are those of an archaic doctrine. Forward thinking isn't featured in their agenda, the purpose of which is to repackage policies that are proven failures. Bolshevik is more descriptive than progressive, for the left shares the Bolshevik's socialistic dreams. They are mired in the past, rendering progressive an inappropriate description.

Socialist ideals quickly co-opted the early Progressive movement, giving the title a black eye. Leftists then adopted Liberal, a more inviting identifier but one that also defies their agenda.

Liberal spawns from the Latin “liberalis” and “liber” meaning noble, generous and free. A genuine liberal bristles at authoritarian attitudes and fulfills the nature of the word liberal. America's leftists, conversely, are adamant in their support for a domineering central government and generous only when distributing their neighbor's property.

Leftist liberalism defines not freedom but the welfare state. Their concept of liberalism frees one segment of society to live at another segment's expense. Leftists then pat each other on the back for their thoughtfulness and generosity. It is indeed a warped vision.

Leftists have moved from Progressives to Liberals and back to Progressives, but in name only, never in definition. Their quasi-metamorphosis results from their ever-present collectivist mentality. Once the public realizes the agenda behind the name, the name is changed to obfuscate the agenda.

The left is an immutable lie; let's call it that. Their social desires reflect a statism worthy of Marx, Lenin, or Mao. They're trapped in the past, antiquated testaments to a flawed and failed philosophy where liberty is defined as the ability to avoid responsibility. Ignored is the unassailable truth that liberty without responsibility is nonexistent. Leftists demand allegiance to a backward dependency. To call them progressives or liberals is patently false.

The left cannot be allowed the privilege of defining their nature. Today's “Progressive Liberal” desires to rob us of our autonomy and render us wards of a collectivist state. Their label should reflect their innate desire to move society backward. Leftists are regressive in every sense of the word. The Regressive label has been proposed for them before. Let it become their perpetual identifier.

Wisdom is measured in the depth of one's questions and knowledge in one's consciousness of facts. This collection of questions and thoughts is my latest attempt to improve in both areas and shine a little light into some dark corners.

Environmentalists demand that we pursue renewable energy sources and use recyclable materials. Why, then, are environmentalists so opposed to the timber industry? It utilizes and replenishes forests, one of nature's most available, renewable and recyclable assets.

Can a person claim to be free while refusing to be accountable for their actions or responsible for their livelihood? Sadly, this view of liberty has become the rule rather than the exception.

What happens if every pet owner follows the animal rights crusader's demand and has their pet spayed or neutered? Where will the next generation of pets come from?

When conservatives criticize a political opponent's positions they are accused of partisanship, mean-spiritedness, or reckless attacks. But when a liberal does the same thing--or worse--to conservatives they are praised for “speaking truth to power.” Talk about your double standards.

I find it inexplicable that government can trace salmonella to a single jalapeño pepper and mad cow disease to a barn stall on a remote ranch, but can't find millions of illegal aliens living right under our noses.

At the height of his messianic popularity Barack Obama visited the Middle East. I wondered at the time if he traversed the Atlantic by air or simply walked across on the water. If he takes a similar trip now he may have to fly coach and pay for his checked baggage.

If prostitution is illegal why are pornographic movies legal? The actors and actresses in those movies are selling sex, too. The only difference is their forum and their price.

The academics and pointy-headed intellectuals who influence public policy routinely praise the communist and socialist leaders who have starved millions of people in the name of social equality. They will also condemn capitalist farmers and grocery store owners, who have fed millions for a profit. Is there any wonder the economic world has capsized?

Driving 101: The Interstate Axiom. The driver in front of you will slow to a crawl a half-mile before reaching their exit ramp. The driver behind you will pass you like it's the white flag lap of the Daytona 500, and then suddenly swerve across three lanes of traffic to exit at the same ramp.

I doubt the people who've continually praised the historic nature of Obama's presidency would have similar feelings if J.C. Watts--the former Oklahoma congressman--had become the nation's first black president.

What became of Monica Lewinsky? Which item should she donate to the Smithsonian Institution: her blue dress, or her lipstick?

Here is a prime example of hypocrisy. The same people who decry the influence of money in politics totally ignored the $600 million Obama raised during the 2008 campaign.

We will trust our health, retirement and livelihood to people who spend $100 million to win an elected office that pays between $200,000 and $400,000 annually. However, we're skeptical of someone who spends $100,000 on an education to land a position that pays several million dollars per year. Will someone explain why this makes sense?

South Carolina Democrats are correct in claiming that Alvin M. Greene shouldn't be their party's candidate for U.S. Senate. Greene washed out of the army under unusual circumstances. He has no job, lives with his parents and is charged with a sexual offence. Actually, Greene should be either the Democrat's presidential nominee or their climate change expert.

Robert C. Byrd has received a much friendlier valediction than conservative Senators of like stature. When Sen. Jesse Helms died he was treated like Satan's baby brother. Likewise for Sen. Strom Thurmond. Sen. Byrd, conversely, has received praise for his work and absolution for his faults.

Friend and foe alike have hailed Byrd as the conscience of the Senate. Quasi-worshippers glorified his knowledge and use of Senate rules and his staunch defense of the chamber. His understanding of historical literature has garnered admiration, as has his perceived devotion to the U.S. Constitution.

Robert Byrd the family man should receive the kindness and sympathy due to the dead, if only for his family's sake. But frankly, even in death, Robert C. Byrd the Senator is open to satire. He was, after all, a public figure. Never shanghaied, he doggedly defended his Senate seat for half a century.

Byrd made quite a name for himself in the U.S. Senate. But he made an even greater name for himself in West Virginia. Bluntly, he should be remembered not for the qualities previously mentioned but for the notorious manner in which he manipulated the federal budget to fortify a voting base in the nation's poorest state. To accentuate the point let's examine what the Senator's funeral procession might've resembled.

Sen. Byrd's remains arrive at the Robert C. Byrd Aerodrome in West Virginia. The plane lands on runway 32-RCB, approaches Senator Byrd Terminal on the R. Byrd taxiway and stops at the Byrd Passenger Access Gate. Sen. Byrd will be then be transferred to the R. C. B. Public Railway, which will carry him to Grand C. Byrd Station in his hometown of Sophia, crossing the Robert Byrd Trestle along the way. There the motorcade waits in the Senator Robert Byrd Public Parking Lot.

The motorcade exits the parking area via the R. Byrd Ticket Booth and creeps onto Robert C. Byrd Drive to begin the journey to the burial site, Robert C. Byrd Memorial Gardens, in Charleston (he'll be buried in Virginia, but please play along). The hearse passes the Robert C. Byrd Elementary School, the Robert C. Byrd Middle School, the Robert C. Byrd High School, and BIT (the Byrd Institute of Technology). At the Robert C. Byrd State-Federal Liaison Building (a.k.a. the Robert C. Byrd Pork Processing Center) the motorcade turns onto Byrd Boulevard.

Byrd Boulevard guides the procession past the Robert Byrd Wastewater Treatment Plant, the Robert C. Byrd Water Works and the main offices of the Byrd Public Utility, predictably located in the Robert C. Byrd Business Complex. The caravan turns between the Robert C. Byrd Courthouse and the Robert C. Byrd Hospital and Blood Pressure Research Center and continues toward Interstate 64. After passing the Robert C. Byrd Honorary City Limit Sign the Senator leaves Sophia behind.

Byrd Boulevard now becomes Byrd Parkway, which carries the cavalcade to Interstate 64. The procession accesses the interstate via the Robert C. Byrd On-ramp and gains speed across the Sen. R.C. Byrd Overpass. The trip through West Virginia's mountains is scenic. There's Byrd Mountain, Robert's Hollow, Byrd's Valley, Robert Byrd Creek and the Byrd Rainwater Deluge Conduit (know locally as Byrd's Ditch). To the right is the Robert C. Byrd Dam, which houses the R. C. Byrd Hydroelectric Station and retains the Robert's Lake Reservoir.

Recent improvements to the Senator Robert C. Byrd Intermountain Expressway (I-64 until shovel-ready stimulus came to them there hills) hastens arrival at Byrd Memorial Gardens. The Byrd Off-ramp guides the procession from the expressway to the Senior Senator Scenic Highway, which the hearse follows to Byrd Gardens. Entrance is via the R.C. Byrd Access Gate.

Pallbearers escort the late Senator's remains up the Byrd Pathway to his final resting place at the crest of Robert C. Byrd Knoll, which overlooks the Byrd Bike and Fitness Trail as it winds through a majestic corner of the Robert Byrd State Forest and Habitat Preserve. Senator Robert C. Byrd is there eulogized and remanded to the custody of his Creator, interned in a pork barrel.

Utopia! It's the holy grail of egalitarian busybodies far and wide. If only outcomes were equal, as defined by the egalitarians themselves, the world would become a place of balanced chi and seamless harmony. These societal engineers have long believed in their unique intellects and superlative abilities, which qualify them to distribute wealth and contentment to a longing world. Sadly, there's no shortage of these do-gooders.

A New York State Assemblyman envisions an increased millionaire tax. If passed, high income earners--who already bear a disproportionate share of New York's tax burden--will pitch in an additional 11-percent. The broken record known as Hillary Clinton still laments how “the rich” don't pay their “fair share” of taxes. Oregon, too, has joined the chorus.

Earlier this year Oregon voters passed Measures 66 and 67, raising taxes on individuals and businesses that wealth redistributors, in their profundity, have deemed excessive winners in life's lottery. Typical class envy tactics preceded that electoral outcome. Proponents argued that education, public safety and health would suffer if the initiatives failed. The poor, naturally, would take it on the chin.

The entire premise of a perceived “fair share” is ambiguous at best. Would the egalitarian consider taxation equitable if the “rich” surrender, say, 75-percent of their income to government? Hillary Clinton, Oregon voters and New York assemblymen might think so. But anyone with a toehold on reality understands that productive people shoulder the tax burden now. The top one-percent of earners pays 28-percent of federal income taxes. Additionally, over the last 30 years the taxation on incomes above $75,000 has steadily increased while declining on incomes below that threshold.

Arguing that wealthier Americans pay little or no taxes is misleading. No, make that an outright lie. And that's not the only mischaracterization offered by the “soak the rich” crowd.

In promoting Measures 66 and 67 the Oregon Center for Public Policy claimed that “asking” Oregonians to “contribute” more in taxes would improve the state's fiscal structure. Certainly some taxation is necessary for governments to execute legitimate functions. But referring to tax increases as “asking” people to “contribute” is unadulterated spin, sufficient to strain even the strongest gastronomical constitution. And it's so typical of the egalitarian social engineer.

Charitable organizations solicit contributions, and contributors alone determine their level of participation. No such choice exists with taxation. Tax levies aren't a request on government's part, and taxes aren't contributed sans duress. Taxes are compulsory and their collection is ultimately a matter of force.

Sadly, there's little to be achieved in arguing taxation with egalitarians. Redistributionists are so devoted to equalizing all incomes and imposing their Marxist vision on society that debate has become futile. Equally futile are the protests of the productive, whose incomes are sacrificed upon the perverse altar of egalitarianism. The producer's right to their production will never match the needs of the oppressed when it comes to conjuring empathy. Therefore the “rich” are safely marginalized, demonized and dismissed.

What would happen if busybodies like Hillary Clinton, New York legislators and Oregon voters fulfill their collectivist dreams? If there were no private wealth the economy would become void of capital investment. Innovation and production would decelerate, with a corresponding decline in employment and living standards. The resulting misery would create greater demand on government, which puts the do-gooders in position to distribute the remaining wealth as they so determine. They will achieve their socialist dreams, but only for a season.

Such idealism has no foundation upon which to build. Since government produces little, and that which is produced is a case study in inefficiency, the egalitarian society is doomed to failure. Only the most influential busybodies will benefit from their societal and economic transformation. The rank and file do-gooder will be destined to impoverished servitude alongside their once-wealthy neighbors, whose property they helped confiscate.

One of the prime arguments employed to promote amnesty for illegal aliens is the alien's own fear of police. Amnesty supporters, such as the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), claim that illegal aliens fail to report crimes for fear they will be deported. A case in Charlotte, NC seemingly bolsters that argument.

A Charlotte-Mecklenburg police officer stopped a young woman for an alleged traffic violation. Her boyfriend, Abel Moreno, was a passenger and an illegal alien. During the stop the officer groped the young lady. Moreno intervened, exactly as he or anyone else should've done. Now he's in jail awaiting possible deportation.

Does this prove the pro-amnesty argument, that illegal aliens are expelled for reporting crimes committed against them? Not at all. In fact, that premise is based on a faulty assumption. If Moreno is deported it won't be for blowing the whistle on the bad cop, who's in jail with his own legal troubles. Moreno will be deported because he violated US immigration laws. The fact that he reported the officer's misconduct does not make his own actions legal.

No doubt the SPLC is correct in one aspect, illegal aliens aren't likely to report all of the crimes committed against them. That is the nature of lawbreakers; they tend to avoid contact with law enforcement with the same urgency that Christians once avoided Nero's garden parties. And this quality isn't confined only to people who violate immigration laws; it's common to perpetrators of all unlawful behavior.

Suppose a drug dealer returned home to find the house burglarized. It might be better to deal with the situation alone than to have investigators nosing around in the closets. The victimized dealer's stash could be uncovered. If the dealer chooses to call the police and the cache is discovered the ensuing arrest won't result from having reported the crime; it will arise from the dealer's own violation of the law.

Prostitutes, likewise, endure crimes rather than invite inquiry. “Working girls” conceal robberies, assaults and even rapes. Suppose a client paid his escort with a punch in the nose rather than cash. If the prostitute reports the crime she knows her own illegal activities will be exposed, if you'll pardon the pun. Her prostitution, not having reported the assault, has put her at odds with law enforcement.

The same principle applies to immigrants. Illegal aliens aren't prosecuted or deported for filing crime reports. But the justifiable decision to report crimes committed against them doesn't validate the alien's earlier decision to ignore immigration laws. The knowledge of their own illegality motivates aliens to avoid contact that could expose their status. The fault doesn't lie in an unjust society, cultural or racial bias, nativism, or any other sensationalistic charge routinely trotted out by pro-amnesty advocates. It is simply a characteristic of the outlaw.

Must illegal aliens then suffer silently so to avoid deportation? Not necessarily. Prosecutors routinely cut deals with suspects to provide state's evidence in more serious cases. Plea bargains are a viable option for aliens like Abel Moreno, if their only crime is illegal immigration and their foremost desire is to become American citizens. For aliens who would game the system and bolster their legal status with false crime reports and perjury, immediate deportation is the perfect remedy.

More than sufficient reason exists to hold illegal aliens accountable for violating our borders. No reason exists to allow organizations like the Southern Poverty Law Center to substitute mindless, racial dogma for border enforcement policies.

Aliens aren't deported because they report crimes committed against them. Aliens are deported because their own immigration choice placed them at odds with the law. Let the responsibility rest where it belongs.

What a shame for Detroit's Armando Galarraga. Veteran umpire Jim Joyce missed a call and the 21st perfect game in major league history vanished into the mystical land of what might have been. Even worse, the errant call occurred on the game's 27th out.

This could've been one of the worst moments in baseball's storied history. Instead, it's one of the finest. Joyce publicly accepted responsibility for his error and Galarraga was gracious to a fault. Both men dealt with the situation like, well, men. Joyce and Galarraga treated us to an epiphanous event that transcended sports to reflect positively upon the human soul. Predictably, there are calls to obliterate the moment by “fixing” the injustice.

On the Oakland Press website a respondent wrote, “I think that MLB should give Galarraga a 28-out perfect game.” That writer's isn't alone. However, there's no such thing as a 28-out perfect game. Therefore, awarding a perfect game where one doesn't exist is wholly unworkable.

Baseball Commissioner Bud Selig was absolutely correct not to reverse Jim Joyce's call. What would become of the 28th batter? Would he be what George Orwell referred to as an “unperson?” That batter must go somewhere. And that isn't the only reason to leave matters alone.

Suppose the bad call were made with one out in the fifth instead of two out in the ninth? Should the league office reverse that call? What if the 28th batter, Trevor Crowe, had homered and the Cleveland Indians had rallied to victory? Should that hypothetical outcome be reversed since the Tigers would've won without the blown call? There are many worms here that should be left in the can.

The way Armando Galarraga, Jim Joyce and the Detroit fans dealt with this matter is more historic than even a perfect game. Galarraga's name is forever etched in baseball lore. Not only will he be remembered for the perfect game that wasn't, but for the grace and dignity he displayed. Galarraga did everything right and yet something went wrong, leaving him without the due result of his effort. Let the play stand anyway. Players make errors, managers miscalculate and umpires blow calls. That's baseball. In fact, that's life and it's time people faced it. Life is never fair in the Utopian sense of the word.

Yet there's an insatiable human desire to correct injustice and grant everyone they allegedly deserve. This concept was evident at an NAIA golf championship. Grant Whybark and Seth Doran were locked in a playoff for their conference's individual title. Whybark had qualified for the national tournament on the strength of his team's performance. So, on the first playoff hole he intentionally drove his ball out of bounds. Why? Whybark decided Doran deserved a spot in the national tournament.

However, if Doran deserved the title he would've won without Whybark's charity. Whybark actually demeaned his opponent. He assumed that Doran's abilities were inadequate to the task. That attitude, even when well-meaning, is indicative of our cultural inclination toward an elusive sense of deservedness.

Society must escape the notion that reward is based on the perception of what's deserved. Someone can do everything right and still not receive the desired result. Behold exhibit A, Armando Galarraga. Eliminating life's basic unfairness is impossible, and such social engineering would be inadvisable even if attainable.

Doran's trip to the NAIA National Golf Championship can't be fully satisfying due to the circumstances. The same is true for Galarraga. Were he awarded a perfect game after the fact it wouldn't carry equal significance to baseball's other perfect games.

Grant Whybark manipulated the concept of due recompense. Achievement and success are cheapened when busybodies try to right all wrongs and cure all injustices. Character is built, refined and revealed in overcoming obstacles and adversity. Armando Galarraga and Jim Joyce have personified that character with dignity, class and sportsmanship. Leave it at that, and know that life is seldom, if ever, fair.

Political opportunism reigns during election years. A candidate need make only one misstep, one errant statement, for an opponent to move in for the kill. Sometimes the blunder is real. Other times it's a matter of spin and perception. Nevada's ex-Senate candidate Sue Lowden, a Republican, learned this lesson firsthand.

Lowden became a target when she suggested that patients should barter for medical treatment. The fur really flew when she spoke of how our grandparents bartered chickens for their doctor's services. Democrats seized on Lowden's apparent silliness. They launched a “chickens for checkups” website and attended Lowden's campaign events dressed in chicken suits.

Lowden's detractors never considered her accuracy. Bartering was routine in bygone days. People traded their goods and services for needed goods and services, including medical attention. However, at face value it's hard to imagine a barter system working in the contemporary healthcare market. Today's physician couldn't pay for student loans and malpractice insurance with roasting hens and bushels of corn. But what if we look beyond the surface of Lowden's statement?

Thoroughly examining the situation--a rarity in contemporary political discourse--reveals that Sue Lowden's bartering proposal wasn't as foolish as grandstanding Democrat's claimed. In fact, Lowden has touched upon a workable solution to soaring medical expenses.

Bartering is based on the principles of the free market. It is the voluntary exchange of a good or service that ultimately satisfies all involved parties. This is a common occurrence in all walks of life. For example, suppose a baseball team needs a left-handed pitcher in their bullpen. The team will trade unneeded players to a willing team for the needed pitcher. Both teams have actively participated in the voluntary exchange of held value in one area for needed value in another.

Trading a chicken for a dose of penicillin may not lower healthcare costs per se. But the free market principles that bartering represents will reduce healthcare costs significantly. Sadly, these standards have disappeared from the medical profession.

Few people know the cost of the medical treatment they consume; it has become an afterthought. We are conditioned to surrender our co-pay or file our claim and go about our business. With the consumer removed from the equation, there is no downward pressure on price.

What would happen if patients considered themselves as healthcare customers and doctors as distributors? Such a customer/provider relationship works to control prices in a host of other industries where transactions are subject to comparison shopping. Consumers naturally seek the greatest value, defined as the most return obtainable at the lowest practical cost. This process will establish median prices for various medical procedures, too.

Currently, there is no direct consumer pressure on healthcare prices. To assume a government run system will improve that situation is to believe in the tooth fairy. In fact, ample evidence has long existed to think that government involvement will only worsen the condition.

Medicare, Medicaid, the Veteran's Administration and SCHIP are expansive, expensive, and unresponsive bureaucracies, rife with fraud and inefficiency. Another bureaucracy that further removes the patient from the direct cost of basic medical care won't control costs. It will only mean less return for each expended healthcare dollar.

The quaint notion of swapping chickens for medical attention rings of nostalgia if not reality. But the basics behind old-fashioned bartering are real. Bartering represents direct involvement between market participants, in this case patients and healthcare providers. The subsequent competition between medical professionals for the patient's business will reduce healthcare costs while ensuring that treatment remains readily available.

Twenty-one states have issued “Choose Life” license plates. Four states have approved the plates and legislation is pending in sixteen others. Where does North Carolina fit in, and why do the plates draw opposition in some circles?

Legislation to issue a pro-life license plate was introduced in both the North Carolina Senate (S210) and House (H168) in February, 2009. The bills are identical. Profits from the “Choose Life” plate go to non-governmental agencies that provide counseling and assistance to pregnant women. Most important, Section 4 of both bills stipulates that funds generated by the sale of the plates cannot be given to any entity that “provides, promotes, counsels, or refers for abortion.”

The House version has gathered dust in the Rules, Calendar and Operations of the House Committee since the day after its filing. Rep. Bill Owens (D), the committee chair, has refused to move the bill. S210 has fared no better in the Senate Finance Committee, chaired by Sen. Dan Clodfelter (D) from Mecklenburg County. While Owens' opinion on abortion is obscure, Clodfelter's is crystal clear. He received NARAL Pro-Choice North Carolina's endorsement during the 2008 election cycle.

Owens and Clodfelter may have unprejudiced reasons for their inaction on “Choose Life” plates. The same can't be said for Planned Parenthood (PPFA), a vehement opponent of pro-life tags. Their disapproval is spelled out in dollars and cents. Planned Parenthood loathes the idea of proceeds from a government issued license plate supporting organizations that oppose indiscriminate abortion.

What gall! When we follow the money trail we find that Planned Parenthood has no standing to criticize “Choose Life” license plates or the money they supply to pro-life organizations.

Florida began offering the pro-life tags in August of 2000, with each tag delivering $20 to qualified recipients. By April 2010 the Sunshine State had issued or renewed nearly 360,000 “Choose Life” plates, generating over $7 million for Florida's pro-life community. That's why Planned Parenthood opposes these tags. Ironically, it's also why their protests ring hollow.

According to Planned Parenthood's 2008 Annual Report (p.9), its offices performed 305,310 abortions in 2007. At the median price of $625 per procedure, PPFA grossed more than $190 million from abortion alone. Add to that the $350 million in government grants and funding that PPFA draws annually and the monies generated by the “Choose Life” tags are but a pittance.

Each of the 50 states would have to yield annually what Florida's “Choose Life” tag produced over a 10-year period just to match PPFA's yearly government receipts. In fact, Planned Parenthood receives half of its annual revenue from the combination of abortion and government ($540 million). PPFA's opposition to “Choose Life” tags based on public funding of the pro-life message is therefore dismissible.

Furthermore, “Choose Life” plates force no one to promote a pro-life message. People who don't want to fund pro-life causes can choose another plate design. Taxpayer's don't foot the bill for the “Choose Life” tag, either. Only the profit goes to pro-life causes, meaning the issue price covers the cost of producing the special plate.

Planned Parenthood can't make that claim. Since PPFA receives funding directly from government, pro-life taxpayers are forced to finance a cause they consider utterly reprehensible.

“Choose Life” license plates are a legitimate outlet for a worthy, peaceful position. S210 and H168 shouldn't stagnate in committee. They shouldn't wither due to the inaction of biased or disinterested committee chairs. And the “Choose Life” tag surely shouldn't succumb to pressure from the duplicitous Planned Parenthood.

With respect to the wisdom of old adages, repeating a lie doesn't make it the truth. A lie is a lie. The uninformed may accept the lie as truth, but it's still a lie. And the lie is the preferred tactic for opponents of Arizona's immigration law.

Arizona's law neither encourages nor condones racial profiling. Claims to that affect are fabrications. Section 2(B) of SB 1070 states that police must make “lawful contact” with an alien before “reasonable suspicion” of legal status can be established. According to Section 2(E) officers can arrest suspects only when there's probable cause to believe that a deportable offense has been committed. Police are granted no authority to demand “papers” from Hispanics simply because of their race.

Verifying identity is standard procedure when police interact officially with civilians. Anyone who has been stopped for a simple traffic violation has provided “papers” (identification) to an officer. This is where probable cause and reasonable suspicion come into play; it's nothing more than common sense. Under Arizona's law, if a detainee behaves in a manner common to an illegal alien their immigration status is investigated. That's not racial profiling. That's behavioral profiling.

Facts and reason are inconsequential to opponents of Arizona's law, who dutifully repeat the talking points until the lie is considered truth. Even Mexico's President Felipe Calderon joined the chorus, echoing the sanctimonious twaddle that passes for a defense of illegal aliens.

Calderon stood in our nation's capital, before our congressional representatives, and belittled any attempt to control the US-Mexico border. Basically, he said that anyone opposed to an open southern border is a knuckle-dragging bigot. Worst of all, our Congress gave him a thunderous ovation for his criticism of Arizona and border control, especially when he addressed them in Spanish.

President Obama also embraced Calderon. Obama will shun the Dali Lama, ditch the Israeli Prime Minister and offend the British without a second thought. But when a foreign dignitary criticizes our country Obama welcomes him like a long-lost brother.

Yet for all this distortion, the lie still hasn't become truth. What it has become is an effective tool for constructing a political coalition of the ignorant. Democrats are betting that supporting amnesty, open borders and Felipe Calderon while denouncing immigration enforcement measures will enhance the party's standing with Hispanics.

So, can immigration law please everyone? Only if it doesn't promote America first, promote cultural superiority, or offend aliens. Reform must also be acceptable to Mexico and Calderon. That's a tall order, but not impossible. We simply treat aliens and immigrants with the same warmth and courtesy found in Mexico.

Mexico's immigration law is a constitutional matter. Chapter 1, Article 11 recognizes a right to enter, leave and travel freely inside Mexico. However, that right doesn't apply to immigrants and “undesirable aliens.” Chapter 2, Article 32 reserves preferred occupations for natural born Mexicans. Chapter 3, Article 33 authorizes the Mexican President to deport foreigners without regard to due process or legal status. That same article bars foreigners from participating in Mexico's political affairs.

Suppose America amended its immigration laws to mirror those in Mexico's Constitution? Would Calderon then declare his reverence for our laws? Would Congress reward his support with fervent applause? Don't hold your breath on either count. Hypocrisy would swell and America would be reviled as even more racist, xenophobic and intolerant than now.

Neither our Constitution nor our Congress exists to alter society for the benefit of illegal invaders, or to cater to smug windbags like Felipe Calderon. Arizona's immigration law is just what the doctor ordered. It should become the model for every state in the union, opponent's lies and prevarications notwithstanding.

Most fashion trends fade as quickly as they appear. The 1960s produced Nehru jackets and bell-bottom pants. Multi-colored toe socks and leisure suits permeated the 70s. Members Only jackets and parachute pants marked the Reagan era and black rain coats and unlaced boots ruled the 90s.

Fortunately, these trendy fashions came and went in relative short order. That is the rule for fads; they flame out like cheap jet engines. However, one fad has refused to follow the axiom. It's one that never should've begun and, sadly, shows no sign of decline. When will the youthful obsession with the saggy pants end?

Several municipalities have enacted ordinances to halt the downward migration of trousers. In 2008 the Chicago suburb of Lynwood imposed a $25 fine for exposing three inches or more of underwear. Lynwood isn't alone. Cities of diverse population and culture have enacted bans on saggy pants, with penalties ranging from fines to jail time.

Outlawing the practice, especially with incarceration, seems a bit exaggerated. Saggy pants are decidedly tasteless, but reveal no flesh. Laws already exist to deal with indecent exposure and no law can eliminate stupidity. Furthermore, if the wearer is too dense to comprehend the ridiculousness of their condition they're likely too dense to understand explanations of that fact.

Unlike politicians who pretend all societal ills are remedied with a fresh set of laws, I understand that such laws only fuel the rebellious attitude that placed saggy pants in vogue. I also understand that the opinion of a middle-aged man won't convince the saggy pants wearer that they look foolish. Therefore I enlisted the aid of some genuine experts.

Young guys have long adopted actions that older men know is ridiculous. But another constant are young men's desires to attract young women. So I asked a few such women for their opinions on saggy pants. These ladies are 18, 19, and 20-years-old, respectively. All are friendly, humorous and thoroughly attractive. They are everything a young man would like to take to a Saturday night movie. Get this, guys, your underwear doesn't impress them.

Amanda is a senior at East Lincoln High School (Denver, NC). She finds nothing cool about your saggy pants or the “bad boy” image they convey; you only appear trashy and disrespectful. If you show up at her house with your pants slung low you'll be leaving alone. “The look isn't attractive at all,” she says with a look of near disgust.

Michelle, a senior at East Gaston High School (Mt. Holly, NC) echoes Amanda's sentiments, only more pointedly. She just doesn't want to see your underwear regardless of the name on the waste band. “Saggy pants show that you have no future and don't care about your appearance,” says Michelle. The failure to wear pants where they belong also causes her to question the wearer's personal hygiene.

“It's improper and rude,” adds Haley, a recent college graduate. Haley thinks saggy pants makes a guy look thuggish, immature and lazy, especially since the pants are purposefully worn that way. Low-slung trousers win no compliments from her, making even the cutest guy “completely unattractive.”

Low ridding pants differ from previous youthful fashions only in appearance. The intent is the same, to prove independence and individuality by contradicting established cultural norms. But that is flawed thinking. How does someone express their individuality by mimicking what the group does? How does one prove independence by following the crowd?

If clothing's only purpose were to conceal nakedness we would all wear sackcloth. Clothing does convey the wearer's attitudes. Guys, wearing your pants below your buttocks informs these three ladies that you're trashy, unkempt, unmotivated and disrespectful. Do yourself a favor and pull up your pants. If not for the sake of decency and decorum, for the young ladies you try to attract.

When the Dow suffered a 1000-point nosedive some experts pointed a quick finger at Greece's financial insolvency and social disorder. I'm no international financier, but it seemed odd that such a small Mediterranean nation could so affect the U.S. markets. Are we so fragile?

Greece's population (10.7 million) is roughly equal to Ohio's, and only 3-percent that of the United States. Geographically, Greece is about the size of Alabama. Their 50,948 square miles is miniscule compared to the United States' 9.28 million. Alaska is 13 times larger than Greece and seven U.S. states exceed its population.

Greece's GDP is about 2-percent of U.S output, a drop in the proverbial bucket. Thirteen U.S. states produce greater economic activity than Greece generates. Their exports are a fraction of our own and only 5-percent of the total Greek exports find their way to American shores ($106.8 million annually). Our exports to Greece are statistically insignificant.

Given the small role Greece plays in our economy, why did our stock market react so violently to their financial and civil problems? Well, it didn't. It turned out that a trader erroneously entered a $16 million trade as $16 billion, sparking a massive sell off and the associated panic. Greek finances didn't trigger our slide at all. However, their unrest can disturb U.S. markets if America's future is seen inside this Greek crystal ball.

Greek rioters have torched buildings and lobbed Molotov cocktails at police. An Athens bank was burned, killing three bank employees. Why has incivility gripped this cradle of ancient culture and civilization? According to a union leader the Greeks are loosing their rights and their future. However, what actually fueled their rage is the imminent death of the free ride.

I hesitantly paraphrase Jeremiah Wright: Greece's financial chickens are coming home to roost. Greece has long overspent its income and juggled its books. Thus public employees enjoyed escalating salaries, extravagant pensions and numerous unsustainable perks. That gravy train has now reached the edge of the cliff and the beneficiaries refuse to let go of the caboose. The riots are the result of Greece's dependent class, people with no intention of providing for their own needs.

This should sound familiar; America is riding the same train. Just as Greece's fiscal insanity has created a dependent class of government workers, America has also. In fact, we have created an even greater entitlement mentality.

The United States has a burgeoning public sector while private sector hiring is stagnant. Life's necessities have become quasi-constitutional rights in the eyes of a gullible public and a pandering, manipulative government bureaucracy. Our government, just like the Greek government, has issued promises it can't fulfill.

Our national debt is approaching 100-percent of GDP. Social Security and Medicare are going broke, their “trust funds” depleted and their long-term obligations beyond impossible. Medicare Part D will unquestionably follow both into insolvency and now we have a national healthcare system to boot. At least Greece's politicians are attempting government austerity. Our politicians are doubling down on a pair of deuces.

The streets of Greece could be a harbinger of things to come. What happens when our government can no longer print its way into a fraudulent form of financial solvency? What happens when those who've long lived on the public dole discover that the cash cow is dry? If you think they'll sigh and say, “Oh well. Better get a job,” you're fooling yourself. They won't graciously accept the end of the free ride, meaning Greece's rioting might resemble a frat party in comparison.

Greece is a prime example of rewarding demand rather than production. Political exploitation and personal selfishness have reduced the once-proud Greeks to begging at the world's feet. Their present may be a glimpse of our future.

Americans once loved nothing more than a good fight. But times have changed and our scrappiness has surrendered to a love of conspiracy.

Examples are myriad. Reagan cut a deal with Iran's revolutionary government to detain American hostages until after the 1980 election. Neill Armstrong walked on a movie set and the Illuminati stores space aliens in cryogenic chambers at Area 51. Michael Jackson, Elvis Pressley, Timothy McVeigh and Adolf Hitler are alive and members of the bowling league in Dubuque, Iowa. There are “truthers” and “birthers” and neo-green earth-firsters, with the Kennedy assassination trumping them all. There's little that spurs America's imagination like a good conspiracy. So why not stoke the fire?

Isn't it odd for a state-of-the-art oil platform to explode at this particular time? Less than a month after President Obama pandered to the country and alienated his base with promises of offshore oil exploration there's an oil disaster of epic proportions. Just what the doctor ordered.

In fact, Phil Radford of Greenpeace forecasted “devastating oil spills” that would “threaten our coastal communities” if expanded offshore drilling became reality. Right on cue a rig explodes and the resulting slick threatens to transform every inch of coastline from Galveston to Virginia Beach into an oil-soaked wasteland.

Odd, too, how this disaster occurred when skepticism over climate change increased, global warming research began to unravel and Phil Jones, whose research drove the global warming argument, admitted that the globe hasn't warmed in 15 years. What better way to “re-green” public opinion than with ecological catastrophe?

The platform's owner said the explosion was due to a blowout, a condition where oil and gas is forced up through the well. But oil rigs are designed to limit blowout potential and prevent spills. Furthermore, hurricanes have set oil platforms adrift with nary a drop of oil spilled into the Gulf. So why this leak? Coincidence? Bad luck? Ha!

I say radical neo-greens rigged the oil platform explosion to turn the public against offshore oil exploration. Yes, the earth-firsters caused some collateral environmental damage. But that's a common military strategy. Make small, initial sacrifices to obtain greater victories later. The icing on the cake is the tanker explosion at a San Antonio refinery. Strike another neo-green blow against the hated “Big Oil”.

What about the coal mine explosion? Coal is an abundant energy source. But not the cleanest stuff on Earth. Clean coal technology, while progressing, is prohibitively expensive. However, the mere possibility of clean coal disturbs the neo-greens. Therefore coal must remain evil in the public's sight.

Right on time there's an explosion inside a coal mine that has a history of safety violations. Miners were trapped and killed, and America grieved with the miner's families. National attention focused on coal mining's inherent risks. And the media, fairly or not, treated the mine owner like the second coming of Ebenezer Scrooge. What better way to sour public opinion toward coal?

Conspiracy theories, by nature, are seldom to be taken seriously. That's the case here. There is no evidence to suggest that the explosions at the Upper Big Branch mine, the Deepwater Horizon oil rig, or the San Antonio refinery were the work of neo-green saboteurs. But if conspiracy is far-fetched, opportunism is the rule. These horrific accidents will not go to waste.

Oil and coal are equally hated among leftists. Oil contaminates oceans and soils beaches while coal poisons air and levels mountains. Oil destroys everything that coal doesn't, and vice-versa. Environmentalists may not have instigated the disasters, but they'll surely use them for political gain.

We are living the perfect storm. “Big Oil” and “Big Coal” are demonized for environmental recklessness. Neo-greens will profit from all three disasters, using them to condemn the energy industry and promote their favored projects. And that, my friends, is no conspiracy.

Journalists can uncover just about any fact they want. They can also downplay, obfuscate, or totally ignore information that doesn't fit their templates. Joseph Sean McVey proves this point, especially in contrast to the media's treatment of Barack Obama. Since McVey's arrest at the Asheville (NC) airport we've learned more about this obscure Ohioan than we ever learned about the President.

Media investigators wasted no time uncovering McVey's “birther” opinions about President Obama's residency status and qualifications for office. In the media's eyes McVey is a bona fide right-wing crank with the IQ of a turnip, just like every other opponent of the President's agenda. McVey also uses Obama's middle name--Hussein--confirming his place among single-cell organisms.

Through the media's investigative prowess we've learned exactly what items McVey's car contained when he was arrested, from ballistics charts to police sirens. Oh, and speaking of arrest, only a few days were required to reveal McVey's 2006 arrest in West Virginia for displaying an illegal blue light.

McVey's home and hobbies have been exposed, too. Media outlets informed us that he lives in Coshocton, Ohio, about an hour's drive east of Columbus. In fact, we know that McVey lives in a simple white house on a country road that twists through the forested hillsides just south of Coshocton. He's a ham-radio operator, a religious weather observer and has more than a passing interest in police work. McVey also volunteers with police and fire crews during emergencies.

No time was wasted uncovering McVey's potential reward for packing heat at the Asheville airport, where Air Force One was whisking the President out of town. The misdemeanor charge could net him 120 days in the jug. We learned that his Ohio driver's license was invalid and now his concealed weapons permit is, too, having been revoked by the Coshocton County Sheriff.

No doubt the dutiful media will unearth even more startling details of McVey's life, such as his favorite breakfast cereal, his shoe size, the prescription for his eyeglasses, or his high school biology grades. Yes, sir. The media can track a piss ant across the Mojave Desert when it serves their purpose. At other times these selective detectives couldn't find Charles Manson at the Corcoran Prison, or they would conveniently conceal what they discovered.

During the presidential campaign the media deftly ignored Barack Obama's issues. They hushed his association with Bill Ayers, a self-proclaimed radical and small “c” communist, and quickly dismissed the Rev. Wright saga. Obama's status as the most liberal legislator in the U.S. Senate earned a pass and the Communist Party USA's euphoric reaction to Obama's election wasn't mentioned at all.

Media outlets praised Obama's speaking prowess. But they uttered nary a peep when he called a reporter “sweetie”, bungled off-prompter speeches, or claimed to have campaigned in 57 states. Silence was the rule when Obama said his healthcare reforms would lower employer premiums by a mathematically impossible 3000-percent.

Had a disfavored politician made similar statements, or kept like company, reporters would've pounced like hungry lions. Don't believe it? Have you seen Dan Quayle lately? And why was a five-percent unemployment rate wholly unacceptable during a Republican administration but a ten-percent unemployment rate is considered an economic recovery under Obama?

It's not that media pundits don't know the history of our 44th President. They've just chosen to let it pass quickly or to suppress it altogether. As for Joseph Sean McVey, he is just a means to an end. Not even the Secret Service considers him a threat to the President. But the “mainstream media” churns up all the mud McVey's 23 years can offer, all to paint Obama's detractors as loose screws and nutcases.

If there is to be a National Day of Prayer it shouldn't become an exercise in politically correct nonsense. But when the Pentagon bowed to pressure from pro-Islamic groups and rescinded Rev. Franklin Graham's invitation to speak, nonsense is exactly what the event became.

The opposition to the Graham invitation was vehement. A spokesman from the Military Religious Freedom Foundation called Graham “hideously Islamophobic.” The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) said a Graham appearance was “completely inappropriate.”

Why the hostility toward Franklin Graham? Well, because the truth hurts. Graham had the gall to proclaim what many people think but are afraid to mention. He called Islam an evil practice, condemning Islam's treatment of women and the indiscriminate use of violence to advance the Islamic agenda.

Graham offered this assessment after September 11, 2001. That was the day when 18 Muslim missionaries leveled the World Trade Center, damaged the Pentagon and killed nearly 3,000 of our neighbors.

What's overlooked is that Graham didn't belittle individual Muslims and has extended charitable assistance to Muslim areas. He simply claimed that a significant faction within Islam condones violence as a proselytizing tool. Islam has an extensive record to support Graham's opinion.

You may recall the Iranian Hostage Crisis. Spurred by the Islamic Revolution that deposed the Shah, Iranian radicals seized the American embassy in Tehran. They took 66 hostages and held them for 444 days. Not to be outdone Hezbollah kidnapped 30 Americans in 1982. Several of those captives were killed and one survivor, Terry Anderson, remained a prisoner for more than six years.

The bloodshed and violence continued in 1983. Shiite fanatics exploded a truck bomb outside a barracks at the Beirut airport, killing 241 U.S. Marines. A Navy diver was executed in 1985 after Hezbollah hijacked TWA flight 847. The Palestinian Liberation Front commandeered the cruise ship Achille Lauro, executing the wheelchair-bound Jewish-American Leon Klinghoffer. Klinghoffer's body, wheelchair and all, was pushed into the Mediterranean Sea.

Libyan radicals joined the jihad, too. Libyans were involved in bombing the Rome and Vienna airports. Libyans bombed a West German nightclub where U.S. military personal often gathered. It was a Libyan bomb that ripped apart a Pan-Am 747 in midair, reigning debris on Lockerbie, Scotland. Muammar Gaddafi himself admitted Libya's participation in Lockerbie, although fifteen years after the fact.

Al-Qaeda reared its head in 1993, detonating a bomb in the basement of the World Trade Center. Hezbollah, in 1996, used a truck bomb to bring down the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia. Al-Qaeda again in Kenya and Tanzania, where 224 died and 4,500 were injured in attacks on the U.S. embassies. A small explosive-laden boat blew a gaping hole in the USS Cole, killing 17 sailors. Suicide bombers targeted American hotels in Jordan and car bombs killed 60 in Algeria. All were the work of Al-Qaeda.

A Muslim convert killed one soldier and wounded another outside a recruiting station in Arkansas. With shouts of “Allahu Akbar” an Army doctor killed 13 American soldiers at Ft. Hood. The doctor had boasted to a neighbor that he would “do good work for God” on the day of his rampage.

Dozens of attacks and thousands dead at the hands of Muslims whose support comes from Islamic organizations and/or Islamic governments. Consider also the scores of brainwashed bombers who've targeted restaurants, bus stations and open-air markets throughout the Middle East. The common thread is the Islamic jihad against the infidels (that's us) for the glory of Allah. Yet the Pentagon dismissed Franklin Graham so as not to offend Islam.

Something's amiss here, and I think it's our grasp on reality. If there's to be a National Day of Prayer, maybe we should petition our Creator to open our eyes and restore our common sense.

It's true that a change in federal administration will prompt a disgruntled few to dream of revolutionary immortality. Equally true, opponents will use any questionable statement or action to paint the “revolutionaries” as violent, half-witted zealots. Welcome to America.

There's no shortage of such right-wing resentment toward government, most of it justified. Also in large supply are opinionated leftists armed with word processors, a penchant for misinformation and a desire to mischaracterize any opinion with which they disagree.

Last year the decidedly left-wing blog Crooks and Liars reported a “million man militia” march on Washington. Typically, the writer belittled the event as a gathering of paranoid right-wing lunatics determined to shoot something.

If this march occurred it must have went off without a hitch. In fact, reality has spoken and the pro-freedom rallies that have taken place have been entirely peaceful, contrary to the leftist's dire warnings. No one has invaded the Capital or tarred and feathered a congressman, as much as they may deserve it.

So the question isn't whether America's revolutionary spark should be revived but in what manner. We are a people born of rebellion and nurtured on revolution. In the Declaration of Independence Thomas Jefferson wrote that the people have the right to abolish any government that's hostile to basic liberty. Several states are taking Jefferson's words to heart, including a group of Oklahoma legislators who are mulling the creation of a state militia to resist federal encroachments on their sovereignty.

The usefulness of such militias is debatable, and will surely draw howls of protest from the left. But the idea of using state legislatures to counter the federal government's fiscal irresponsibility and blatant disregard for constitutional limitations is workable.

The Founders themselves would be pleased, as evidenced in the language of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. The Ninth recognizes federal authority but explicitly denies overt power to the central government in all areas not specifically delegated. The Tenth declares that all powers not expressly granted to the United States, or prohibited to the states, remain with the states and the people.

Our forefathers obviously intended a federal government that served the states and the people, not one that ruled over both. For the states to “delegate” any powers to the central government, via the constitution, they must retain all powers not granted to the United States.

States have previously exercised this option. Jefferson's Kentucky Resolutions (1798) decried what was viewed as the central government's unconstitutional assumption of power. Jefferson noted that any federal adventure into areas not authorized was an assault on state sovereignty. Therefore, the states had every right to declare those extensions “void and of no force.”

Where powers are assumed which have not been delegated, a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy . . . every State has a natural right . . . to nullify of their own authority all assumptions of power by others within their limits.

This is the outlet for our revolutionary fervor. No less than our third president endorsed state nullification of federal excursions into unauthorized areas. The left's portrayal of limited government activists as lunatics is nullified as well and talk of armed revolt is at best premature.

Flippant references to armed resistance momentarily soothe the soul. However, it also fuels the left-wing cranks and propagandists--like Crooks and Liars--who love to paint limited government proponents as violent nutcases. We owe it to the Founders and their experiment in self government to exhaust all prudent options before considering drastic and uncertain steps.

The return of constitutional government begins in the Statehouses. State legislatures can draft resolutions rendering unconstitutional federal intrusions upon personal liberty and state sovereignty “void, and of no force.” States can refuse to enforce unconstitutional measures within their borders.

Nullification is a worthwhile, peaceful alternative to revolutionary rhetoric. Let's see what it produces before storming Congress with torches and pitchforks.

A frequent argument for nationalized healthcare is the comparison to auto insurance. Obamacare advocates reason that since government requires people to purchase auto insurance government can also require people to purchase health insurance. The flaws in that argument are numerous.

Compulsory auto insurance coverage is a state issue. Each state establishes minimum bodily injury and property damage liability coverage requirements as it deems appropriate. However, liability insurance provides no benefits to the policyholder beyond the transfer of risk. The auto insurance requirement serves to protect the public from catastrophic losses the insured may cause.

While auto liability is compulsory, drivers aren't required to purchase coverage that protects personal interests. The state isn't concerned with how someone replaces their vehicle or pays personal medical expenses that result from their actions.

Antagonists may counter that banks require collision coverage. But the banks aren't government. Banks are lien holders with vested interests in the collateral. Thus borrowers are required to protect their vehicles. Once loans are repaid banks have no interest in the vehicles and the insurance requirement disappears.

Whether liability or collision, the government healthcare advocate still argues that auto insurance is government mandated. This is a half truth. States require drivers to carry liability insurance as a condition of using the public roads. However, there is no actual demand on anyone to buy auto insurance. If a person chooses not to drive a motorized vehicle on the public roadways the auto insurance requirement is inapplicable.

Federally imposed health insurance isn't comparable to a state's auto liability insurance mandate. First, the federal government is forcing us--under threat of fine or possible imprisonment--to buy personal insurance from a private company. Second, you have no viable option to avoid the federal government's imposition. Everyone will be required to carry personal health insurance. Third, congress has no legitimate authority to force free people to purchase products or services no matter the perceived good or value they may bring to the individual.

The Constitution's interstate commerce and general welfare clauses (Art. 1, Sect. 8) don't provide cover for nationalized healthcare either. In Federalist #41 James Madison declares that applying those clauses to areas beyond Congress' enumerated powers is, at best, a total misconstruction. Those powers are applicable only within the authority specifically granted to the central government.

Providing individual medical care or requiring individuals to buy insurance aren't enumerated powers. Therefore, according to the Tenth Amendment, those powers are retained by the states and the people. Via their auto insurance requirements, states have indicated that their interest lies in protecting the general public against loss incurred from an individual's negligence, not in protecting a person against their own actions. Thus health insurance and medical decisions are rights retained by the people.

No government has a vested interest in your health or health habits. Personal health is an individual responsibility with the rewards and consequences of each persons decisions borne accordingly.

What about catastrophic medical expenses? Doesn't society bear that cost for the uninsured? Yes, but only in a collectivist society. In a free society people bear their own burdens whenever possible and seek charitable assistance when necessary. Involving government inhibits individual responsibility and encourages risky behavior.

Suppose government required drivers to carry collision insurance at a government-mandated cost. The financial incentive for safe driving is reduced. While personal expense motivates responsible behavior the opposite is true when consequences are shifted to third parties.

To argue for federal healthcare mandates based on the existence of state auto liability insurance requirements is political sleight of hand. Anyone making that case is banking on public ignorance for their success.

No one should be surprised with President Obama's rush toward bigger, more powerful government. Politicians win support from people with like minds and the President is no exception. His supporters and associates tell us much about his political ideology.

Joe Sims is impressed with the Obama presidency. Mr. Sims wrote of Obama's swearing in as the “people's inaugural”, the dawn of a new American era. Sam Webb shared that exuberance. In January, 2009 Mr. Webb praised Obama's victory as the end of “30 years of right-wing extremist rule.” He wasn't so bold as to declare the election a national referendum for socialism. But he did claim it signaled America's willingness to experiment with socialist ideas. Thus Webb wrote of the Obama administration, “Yes, this is a socialist moment.”

Both Sam Webb and Joe Sims write for the People's Weekly World, a Communist Party (CPUSA) publication. Webb himself serves as the national chair of the CPUSA, which publicly declared Obama's election a triumph for their agenda.

The President has drawn international communist allies as well. Fidel Castro compared Obamacare to his own communist nation's medical system. Unfortunately, that's not all. The old guard communist dictator admires Obama's position on global warming and his charismatic personality. China has also joined the act. The Chinese commemorated Obama's visit with “Oba Mao” t-shirts depicting the President wearing a Red Guard uniform. Artist Liu Bolin honored the occasion with a statue similar to one previously created for Chairman Mao himself.

Obama's inner circle is filled with questionable liaisons and appointees. The administration's communications director, Anita Dunn, counts Mao Tse-tung among her greatest political influences. Ron Bloom is Obama's car and manufacturing czar. Yet he has contempt for free markets, pals around with the SEIU and has worked with the leaders of the Democratic Socialists of America. Van Jones resigned an environmental post appointment because of his declared commitment to communism. And Obama's idea of a fair-minded judge, Goodwin Liu, considers free enterprise, property rights and limited government to be radical ideas.

None of these associations flatter Obama. But the worst alliance may be his “safe school's czar” Kevin Jennings. Jennings supports indoctrinating teenagers with a radical sexual agenda, having gone so far as to conceal and condone child molestation. Jennings also defended the late Harry Hay, who dedicated his life to mainstreaming intimate relations between men and boys. And yes, Hay also had a little communism in his closet.

Is Barack Obama America's first Bolshevik-in-Chief? He has certainly drawn support from staunch communists, apparent sympathizers and assorted oddballs. His policies thus far have done nothing to betray their faith and support.

For an analogy to be worthwhile it must achieve the desired result. For example, one might illustrate a poor decision by comparing it to benching Payton Manning in favor of a rookie quarterback. Conversely, no one wanting to praise a military campaign will say it was as successful as Hitler's siege of Stalingrad.

Such a short lesson in analogies. Yet for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi it is a lesson unlearned. During the pro-healthcare speech she delivered just prior to the House vote she made a terrible analogy. Madame Speaker said, “We will be joining those who established Social Security, Medicare and now, tonight, healthcare for all Americans.”

Pelosi's comparison was wholly illogical. Why would a supporter of the healthcare legislation compare the bill to two bankrupt behemoths? That's like bragging on your team's chances to win the 2010 World Series by comparing them to the Chicago Cubs. To promote the healthcare bill Pelosi should've compared it to something, anything, besides Social Security and Medicare.

Social Security isn't exactly the model for sound financial management. The New York Times reported in 2004 that Social Security would be in the red by 2018 and the trust fund depleted by 2044. That's not a healthy financial outlook, and even the Times' dour forecast is overly optimistic.

Last year, Heritage Foundation analyst David John painted a far gloomier portrait of Social Security. According to Mr. John, Social Security is running a deficit right now with little to no chance of reversal. He predicts that the trust fund will go broke in 2037, seven years earlier than the 2004 report projected. Furthermore, the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) says Social Security's unfunded liability exceeds $17.5 trillion.

Medicare is no more secure than Social Security. In fact, Medicare's future is far bleaker. The NCPA places Medicare's unfunded liability at more than $89 trillion. That's a big number. Let's put it in its proper perspective. There are roughly 31.5 million seconds in one calendar year. If you earn one dollar for each of those seconds ($3,600 per hour) it would take 2.82 million years to satisfy Medicare's future benefit obligations. In astral terms, 89 trillion is 15 light years away, or about three times the distance from Earth to Alpha Centauri.

By 2054 the combined Social Security/Medicare payroll tax burden will rise from today's 15.3-percent to 37-percent. Half of all general revenues collected will be transferred to those programs in 2030, rising to nearly 75-percent in 2060. And these expenditures will be required of a government that consistently outspends its annual receipts.

One has to wonder if Speaker Pelosi realized what she was saying when she beamed about joining the creators of Social Security and Medicare. According to her own analogy Congress and the Obama administration have imposed upon America a program destined for high taxation, inadequate service, saucy bureaucrats, fraud, waste and future insolvency. If she was trying to boost public confidence in the healthcare bill she should've exercised greater care in picking her comparisons.

Pelosi's words did nothing to confirm the legitimacy of her argument. However, through sheer chance, she couldn't have been more on target. We're a nation of enormous debt, a bloated budget and a growing sense of entitlement. Now we have a healthcare program that a third-grader wouldn't believe will reduce any of the three.

Pelosi is correct; she and her party joined those who established Social Security and Medicare, and all the red ink that goes with them. That's no accomplishment of which a reasonable person would boast. No wonder her favorable rating is 11-percent.

So the District of Columbia is the latest U.S. enclave to recognize homosexual marriages. This will draw ire from social conservatives and evangelical Christians just as surely as a lightning rod attracts static electricity. However, those criticisms may be ignoring the larger problems.

Marriage is more a religious than legal institution. Religion, expressed in true faith, answers to a higher authority than government since legality isn't necessarily synonymous with spirituality. Therefore, unless homosexual couples admit to worshipping government as their “higher authority” they can make no claim to marriage. And if they worship government they have adopted a false god, which renders their religion and their unions invalid.

Irony being what it is the first couple to plunge into D.C.'s gay marriage pond was two female reverends. Darlene Garner and Candy Holmes are leaders in the Metropolitan Community Church (MCC), a church dedicated to canonizing the gay and lesbian community. What's more, their ceremony was conducted at the offices of the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), an influential lobby for the gay rights movement.

To say that MCC and HRC are biased is an understatement. In any other situation their partiality would result in their legitimacy being questioned. However, political correctness has deemed all things homosexual beyond reproach. Therefore all questions must come from a different angle, the religious angle.

How can Garner, Holmes and the MCC reconcile their ceremonies with the Bible they claim to believe? Biblical text, from beginning to end, contains vivid denouncements of homosexual activity. The Apostle Paul explicitly addressed homosexuality in his letter to the Romans, calling it “unseemly” and “vile affections.” Furthermore, Paul declared that people who commit homosexual acts realize their error but take pleasure in it anyway. The Mosaic book of Leviticus refers to same-sex relations as abominable. Moses taught that anyone engaging in such acts will face consequences.

The Metropolitan Community Church isn't deterred. The MCC has rationalized these passages until the text fits both their sexual preference and civil agenda. An MCC ad campaign considers Christ's healing of the centurion's servant in Matthew's eighth chapter as the divine endorsement of a gay couple. Another ad claims that Ruth entered into a lesbian relationship with her mother-in-law, Naomi.

I have no doubt that Christ will forgive sinners; that is the basis for Christianity. In John, chapter eight, Jesus forgave a woman caught in the act of adultery, which could've resulted in the woman being stoned. He will likewise forgive the homosexual. But Christ's forgiveness isn't unconditional; repentance is required. Jesus also told the adulterous woman, “go, and sin no more.”

The MCC not only shuns repentance, ignores sin and promotes unsound doctrines but also twists the Scriptures to condone their positions.

Jesus himself spoke of such false prophets. The New Testament repeatedly warns of apostates, people with knowledge of the truth who have turned from it and taught others to do likewise. It's difficult to view “Rev.” Garner, “Rev.” Holmes, and the Metropolitan Community Churches as anything but wolves in sheep's clothing.

This is where many Christians make a mistake. We assume that government can rescue us from our moral descent. That change must begin in the hearts of men, which means in the church itself. Is that likely when churches publicly reject biblical teachings and cling to unsound doctrines?

We have all sinned. Yet there's quite a distinction between repeating a sin and explaining it away. Christians cannot influence the world when the Christian witness is compromised and basic morals are ignored.

The answer to our cultural abyss doesn't lie in governmental legislation or decree. It lies in the individual Christian's witness and that of the church overall. I fear we're failing that obligation.

In December, 2009 the Los Angeles Times editorialized in favor of Sen. Lindsay Graham's and Sen. Charles Schumer's promise to resurrect comprehensive immigration reform. But where is their bill? Internet searches are fruitless and a review of THOMAS--the Library of Congress' database of pending legislation--reveals nothing. Yet the bill must exist for it's been discussed in reputable media outlets.

At the heart of immigration reform is a biometric national identification card. This card, according to a Wall Street Journal article, will carry imbedded personal information used to identify legal workers. The key word is “legal”. Sen. Schumer believes the best way to stop illegal immigration is to require legal citizens to register with the state (as if we aren't already). What an insult, not only to our liberty but also to our intelligence.

Page 214, Section 274A(a)(7), of the House's immigration reform bill (H.R. 4321) forbids creating a national ID card. Apparently no such protection exists in the clandestine Graham-Schumer proposal. Perhaps, like the healthcare reform bill, it must be passed before anyone can know how it reads. Anyway, it seems that every American worker will be required to obtain the biometric ID card. Doesn't that sound a bit Soviet? Present your papers, comrade!

A biometric ID will, like all infringements on our liberty, be sold as a necessity. Frankly, legitimate government has no authority to sacrifice liberty on the altar of some ill-defined greater good. As William Pitt said of necessity, “It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.”

Why should American citizens be forced to prove our innocence in order to work while illegal aliens are granted amnesty? There must be a better alternative to controlling illegal immigration than an invasive ID card. Halting welfare payments, food stamps, free education and non-emergency healthcare for illegal aliens comes to mind. But these ideas only make sense if stopping illegal immigration is the Graham-Schumer purpose, which is doubtful.

Immigration isn't the only area in which Americans are told to relinquish liberty because the government lacks the will and courage to perform its duties.

Look at air travel since 9/11. Six imams sue an airline, and their fellow passengers, because the imams themselves behaved suspiciously. A suicidal bomber conceals explosives in his underwear and our government won't even identify him as a Muslim. Thus we must remove our shoes in airports, face strip searches and submit to full body scans so Islam isn't offended. Shampoo, nail clippers and knitting needles become weapons of mass destruction. It's a necessity.

Another example lies in the right to bear arms. Innocence must be proven before government allows Americans to buy guns. We must prove our innocence to carry concealed weapons. Yet the thugs who are arrested for violent gun crimes sport rap sheets longer than War and Peace.

Criminals are criminals because they could care less about legality. They aren't concerned with government approval. Criminals just act. Yet the lawful must allow their assailant sufficient opportunity to retreat or face possible prosecution from the same government that paroled the violent convict.

The entire outlook is backwards. Government confronts lawlessness and violence with greater restrictions on the blameless. If we follow this logic to its natural conclusion the prisons will someday be filled with the virtuous while the malevolent roam free. It's a necessity.

Government's failure to address crime results in the erosion of self-defense and Second Amendment rights. Government's failure to identify enemies results in massive inconvenience and loss of privacy for American citizens. Now government's failed border security means innocence must be proven in order to work and we should consider it a necessity? No thanks!

Will the truth set you free, or is that notion outdated? In a business, personal, or spiritual sense the truth unquestionably sets you free. However, in politics the truth will earn you scorn and a stint in the doghouse.

Senator James Forrester (NC-41) has experienced this phenomenon first hand. During a recent speech Sen. Forrester said “slick city lawyers and homosexual lobbies and African-American lobbies are running Raleigh.” The Senator apologized to anyone who may have taken offense. However, he also noted that cause for offense didn't exist in his statement, which Democrats called “the lowest and worst type of politics.”

Who's wrong and who's right? Was Sen. Forrester engaging in hateful speech? Or did he merely declare what democrat politics are all about? Before you answer remember that truthful political dialogue invites attack. Now let's look at it.

Slick city lawyers do play a major role in Democrat politics. Since 1990 the American Association for Justice (AJJ), formerly the Association of Trial Lawyers of America, has donated $31.5 million to politicians. Democrats received $28.5 million, or 91-percent, of that amount. In no election cycle have Democrats received less that 85-percent of AAJ's contributions and since 2006 the Democrat share has topped 95-percent.

AAJ opposes tort reform, reasonable malpractice awards and most anything that interferes with the bonanza known as tort litigation. The Democrat Party supports that agenda. However, few people care if trial lawyers are offended. Let's look a little deeper.

Homosexuals. Now there's an aggrieved segment of society. Did Sen. Forrester insult homosexuals when he included gay lobbies among Raleigh's power brokers? It's difficult to see how, unless homosexuals admit to seeking cause for offense.

The Human Rights Campaign (HRC) is the top homosexual political lobby in America. Would you believe that Democrats get 90-percent of HRC's campaign donations? That percentage has increased in recent years. And why not? Democrats support harsher sentences for crimes committed against homosexuals even though crime is crime and should be punished equally.

This is no surprise. In the Democrat ideology it's not enough for homosexuals to do what they do in private. No sir. Their activities must be accepted--if not openly embraced--by everyone. It's an idea that permeates the party from the state level right through the presidency.

Is it possible that black lobbies and voters also favor Democrats? African-American lobbies promote race-based preferences in both employment and college admission. They demand wealth redistribution and a collectivist, centralized government. These ideas are harmonious with Democrat objectives.

Thus 95-percent of black voters favored Democrat Beverly Perdue for North Carolina's Governor, 96-percent chose Democrat Kay Hagan over Republican Elizabeth Dole and 93-percent favored Democrats in congressional elections nationwide. Black voters favor Democrats even though the party's policies have done more harm to black families and black economic progress than the Ku Klux Klan could ever dream of accomplishing.

Sen. Forrester should have included labor unions in the Democrat's corner. Of the top 100 campaign contributors over the last 20 years, 23 are unions. Those unions contributed $499 million to political campaigns, nearly all to Democrats.

Connect the dots for yourself. Democrats control North Carolina's government and receive great support from trial lawyers, homosexuals and blacks. Sen. Forrester spoke the truth and he's been roasted over an open fire for his trouble.

It is the North Carolina Democrat Party, not Sen. Forrester, that's engaging in the lowest form of politics. Democrats are ignoring facts and assassinating the messenger for the sole purpose of pandering to preferred constituencies. Truth may have made Sen. Forrester a target. But the Democrat's reaction proves that truth hurts them far worse. Remember, the hit dog barks loudest.

What should we make of a recent editorial arguing that the Obama White House has made no attempt to infringe upon the Second Amendment and that Obama openly declared his respect for the right to bear arms during his presidential campaign?

It's true that President Obama hasn't advanced the gun control agenda. He hasn't even sought a renewed ban on “assault” weapons. However, the idea that President Obama has more in common with Wayne LaPierre than with Sarah Brady is misleading. Remember the “bitter clingers” comment? Therefore, if eternal vigilance is freedom's price complacency must be its worst enemy. The Second Amendment is under assault even as the Supreme Court seems poised to recognize the individual right it protects.

Rep. Bobby Rush's Firearms Licensing and Record of Sale Act (H.R. 45) would require a license to possess a firearm. That license would also be required to transfer a firearm and a tracking number would be assigned to each sale. Most ominous is H.R. 45's prohibition on storing firearms and ammunition in any manner that a child could access.

Rep. Rush's bill assaults the basic notion of a right. Free people need no government license to exercise a right. This bill would also create de facto gun registration and render firearms inadequate for self-defense. Unloaded guns are rather poor clubs.

Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee produced the Gun Safety and Gun Access Prevention Act (H.R. 257). Section Three in Rep. Lee's proposal would impose 10 year prison sentences upon firearm sellers if they have “reasonable cause to know” their customers intend criminality. Section Four criminalizes the sale of a firearm without an approved security device. Section Five effectively forbids keeping a loaded firearm for self defense whenever a child is present, much like H.R. 45. Section Six requires adult chaperones for minors at gun shows. Under Section Six (b)(8) the offending parent can be charged with child abandonment.

Since a defensive firearm must be kept loaded and most homes contain children at least periodically it's clear that Rep. Rush and Rep. Lee intend to abolish the use of firearms for personal defense. They also require dealers to be clairvoyant. To deny sales opens dealers to civil rights violations while approving sales opens them to prosecution. It's a catch-22 for gun sellers.

Sen. Frank Lautenberg's Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act (S.1317) denies firearms to “dangerous” terrorists (is there another kind?). What Sen. Lautenberg has authored is a clever ruse. No one can argue that denying guns and bombs to terrorists violates the Second Amendment, right? Let's see.

Section 922A(1) of S. 1317 grants the Attorney General discretionary authority to deny access to firearms. The AG, under Section 922B(g)(1) can also withhold information used in the denial from the aggrieved party. Should gun owners feel secure if Eric Holder wields such authority?

What about Pres. Obama's stated respect for gun rights? Well, politicians will say just about anything to get elected. Obama is on record as supporting a ban on “assault” weapons. Furthermore, his administration is backing a U.N. treaty that would regulate the small arms trade worldwide. Don't scoff. The President can constitutionally enter such treaties under Article 2, Section 2. Said treaty would become law under Article 6, at least temporarily.

Inaction on gun control doesn't make President Obama a Second Amendment loyalist. Inaction doesn't mean that politicians and bureaucrats hostile to private firearms aren't at work. Gun owners will benefit from a dose of extra vigilance now, even while the gun control waters appear still.

Driving is dangerous. That's easy to forget because we do it daily. It's common and completely comfortable for most of us. But comfort breeds distraction, even under ideal conditions. Insert text messaging and distracted driving increases exponentially.

To lessen that distraction Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) introduced the Avoiding Life-Endangering and Reckless Texting by Drivers Act (ALERT). The proposal will coerce states to adopt laws banning drivers from texting while behind the wheel.

It's hard to argue that texting doesn't distract drivers from more pressing matters. Most of us have seen it happen. On the surface, ALERT sounds like a fine idea. However, to determine if Sen. Schumer's proposal is legitimate we must dig below the surface.

Do we need the central government enacting anti-texting laws? Does Congress even have that authority? The answer is no to both questions.

Twenty-five states already have some form of ban on texting while driving. Those laws passed without federal prodding. Additionally, Schumer cites the regulation of interstate commerce as authority for his bill. He reasons that texting devices are produced, conveyed and used in interstate commerce; therefore Congress can take action under Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. However, Article 1, Section 8 allows Congress to regulate commerce only, not personal acts or the private use of products.

Under Schumer's reasoning Congress could ban anything. Ready for a federal ban on applying make-up while driving? How about federal bans on tuning radios or changing CDs? Should Congress prohibit conversation with passengers, or traveling with children? All can be distracting and all can be considered interstate commerce under Schumer's misapplication of Article 1, Section 8. In fact, Congress can claim authority over anything with such an interpretation.

Let's also consider Washington's bully tactics. If Congress has constitutional authority to enact ALERT it should do so outright. But no! Congress prefers to force state compliance by withholding highway funds, which is how ALERT accomplishes the texting ban. It is an authoritarian act and the antithesis of Congress' enumerated powers.

Even worse is how Sen. Schumer is selling his bill. The Senator said people admit that they text while driving and have begged him to pass laws to stop them. The quote aired recently on the Keith Larson Show on 1110-AM WBT (Charlotte, NC).

Frankly, Schumer's hyperbole is the biggest load of manure to ever touch a spade. It indicates the contempt he has for us and the depths to which he'll stoop to pass legislation.

It's inconceivable that someone would ask their senator to pass a law to prevent them from doing what they can quit on their own. Anyone who knows they shouldn't be texting is smart enough to stop without Schumer's assistance. Additionally, passing a law to prevent drivers from texting misses the point of law altogether.

Laws don't stop bad behavior, they identify it. There are laws against theft, rape and murder. Yet theft, rape and murder occur daily. The existence of laws does not prevent lawlessness, nor does law prevent people not inclined toward lawlessness from committing crime. Honorable people won't steal, rape, or murder even if those acts aren't criminalized.

Punishment after the fact, not prevention, is all we can reasonably expect from the law. Sen. Schumer isn't so stupid as to believe his bill will prevent texting while driving, but he thinks we are that stupid.

Laws simply determine acceptable social behavior. To legislate for the punishment of texting while driving is one thing. To pretend laws will prevent acts that are easily self-regulated is slavish and immature.

A ban on texting while driving makes sense. Leave it to Charles Schumer to expand, corrupt and spin the idea until it makes no sense at all.

Tiger Woods has come clean, publicly confessing the worst kept secrets since John Edwards' love child. Tiger earned his humiliation and there's no reason to feel sorry for him. He made his bed--pardon the pun--and he can do whatever he does in it.

However, the Woods saga isn't Pearl Harbor or the moon landing. So why has Tiger received such in-depth coverage? What purpose is there beyond the sense of fulfillment that some people receive from a celebrity's disintegration?

I reviewed Tiger's press conference and found it totally predictable. There was the compulsory attempt to separate his family from media scrutiny, which is impossible. Public infidelity affects a family, kids included, even if you're the world's best golfer. That's reality. If Tiger cared about his family's well-being he should've kept his ball out of the rough.

The typical platitudes were presented. “I have let down my fans.” “I am the only person to blame.” Tiger's speech was the prototypical I-got-caught-with-my-pants-down celebrity apology.

Tiger has been reviewed, prodded and analyzed more than a man undergoing a complete proctologic examination (which he might enjoy, who knows?). Let's not waste any more time or energy in that area. Instead let's focus on what Tiger is, what he was made to be and what can be expected from him in the future.

Tiger Woods is a golf pro, nothing more. He's rich because he can hit a ball into a cup better than anyone else on the planet and people will pay to watch him do it. Tiger didn't force anyone's admiration. He didn't make the public grant him the hero status he once enjoyed. What's more, his loose morals have no affect on you and me beyond what we'll allow.

What about Tiger's role model status? Off the golf course that status existed only in the public's imagination. He is by no means the husband of the year. But being a personal role model isn't a professional golfer's purpose. Tiger's larger than life status is mainly the fault of a culture consumed with celebrity.

The fact that the public made Woods a mythical pillar of virtue is more their fault that his. Sure, Tiger helped cultivate that false image, but he never made a single person watch him play. He never made us buy his sponsor's products and he never forced a single person to like him. Mr. and Mrs. Public, you did all of that on your own.

If you're angry at Tiger's moral failings it's likely because you allowed yourself to believe he was something he wasn't. Now you feel foolish. We don't like playing the fool, do we?

Despite his turpitude Tiger can be a role model if he's kept in perspective. There are few athletes in any sport with Tiger's drive and will to win. His competitiveness is unquenchable and his coolness rivals that of Michael Jordan, Joe Montana and--dare I say?--Jack Nicklaus.

Woods can be a role model for winning attitudes and excellence in a chosen profession. Don't make him more than he is or can ever hope to be.

Aside from the initial reports of Wood's affairs this whole story was much ado about nothing. Tiger Woods doesn't owe apologies to you and me. He owes apologies to his wife and children, the PGA Tour, his sponsors and, most of all, to God. But Tiger Woods has no tangible affect on you and me unless we grant him that power.

In the future let's be more careful how we elevate people to mythical levels of ethics and virtue simply because they're rich and famous.

In politics, spin is life. Politicians and their handlers will state their case even when it's apparent they haven't a leg to stand on. Too often, accepting the spin as fact or dismissing it as fiction depends on whether or not the hearer agrees with the political party that created the swirl.

Sarah Palin's palm notes are a prime example of such a political vortex. Conservatives and Republicans--they aren't necessarily one and the same--rushed to her defense. This is a natural reaction. People will defend politicians who appear ideologically similar.

The problem conservatives face with the Palin palm notes story arises from repeated criticisms heaped upon President Obama's use of the teleprompter. For Obama, the teleprompter is a techno palm note that keeps him focused during speeches. For conservatives, Obama's prompter is the butt of jokes and a sign of fraud. Therefore, a hint of hypocrisy exists when conservatives defend Palin for essentially the same act.

The fact is that many, perhaps most, effective public speakers use reminders when behind the lectern. It can be the Barack Obama teleprompter or the Sarah Palin palm note. Or, it can be the small index card preferred by the great communicator, Ronald Reagan.

Reagan would conceal the cards when he walked onto the stage. Once he began his address he would glance at the cards to maintain focus and cadence. Yet the 39th President was neither ignorant nor uninformed, and using notes certainly didn't render him an ineffective speaker.

However, the palm notes do exacerbate an existing problem for Sarah Palin. Writing notes on one's palm is considered a grade school trick, which lends to the idea that Palin isn't prepared for the national stage. Too, Palin's delivery is more than a little irritating, not unlike fingernails on a chalkboard. Her folksiness and accent are fine, but she sounds whiny. A Palin speech doesn't inspire great confidence unless the political spin sways you toward that end.

Left-wing pundits and the White House spin machine wasted no time seizing on Palin's perceived gaffe. If only they were so quick to identify and denounce Muslim fanatics who try to blow up jetliners on Christmas Eve. The “mainstream” media also ridiculed the Palin palm pilot. Yet when Robert Gibbs lampooned Palin before the media what do you think he did? He used notes. And would you believe he wrote them on his palm?

Granted, Palin's crib notes conjure images of adolescence. Yet Gibb's palm note episode is much worse than Palin's. Whether Gibbs' intent was to ensure his accuracy or to take a pot shot at Palin is immaterial. Either way, his actions were far more immature than were hers. Gibbs' behavior was downright childish.

For all the ideological spin surrounding Teleprompters and palm notes, conservatives are less hypocritical with their condemnations than are liberals. Why, you ask? No one claims that Palin's speaking ability spurred her popularity. For Obama, his entire persona centers on his speechmaking prowess.

To hear supporters gush over Pres. Obama you'd think he is the greatest orator since Cicero. Obama's image was created around his speaking skills. He is intelligent, clean and articulate, or so we've been told. His speeches are an intellectual breath of fresh air. And he is all of that, while on the teleprompter. However, off prompter he stammers, stalls and searches for words just like the rest of us.

Critics of Obama's teleprompter are on slightly more solid footing than critics of Palin's palm notes only because Obama is marketed as a solid speaker. Palin is not. But the criticisms and defenses offered from both sides of the matter prove that spin trumps substance in the political theatre.

If discussing politics and religion should be avoided at all costs, then science must join the list. Much of today's “settled science” or “scientific consensus” is actually religion in its purest sense. The scientific faithful are proselytizing, pronouncing woe to anyone who questions their doctrine.

Too many scientists are High Priests in the First Assembled Reformation Church of Environmentalism, or FARCE for short. They and their followers defend their god--the environment--with the same zeal that fanatical Muslims defend Mohammad.

Actually, to grant FARCE church status is a bit kind; it is a cult. Non-believers can have rational discussions with Christians, Jews, Mormons, etc. The same holds for most Muslims, too. Avoid the Al-Qaeda/Hezbollah sect and you'll be fine. But you can't have a sensible debate with a cult follower. Fact, history, precedent, logic, common sense; none of it matters to the cultist. Therefore, it doesn't matter to the FARCE member.

If you question a FARCE tenet, even to the slightest degree, you're a heretic. Publicly denounce FARCE's core belief--that mankind drives cataclysmic climate change--and you're a global warming denier. Blind obedience, without the slightest hint of individual thought or reason, is required.

For example, the FARCE has declared that flat screen televisions are an environmental hazard. If you have one you're destroying the planet. Use a light bulb that hasn't been blessed by a FARCE priest and you're chief among sinners. And you don't want to contemplate your eternal destination if you drive an automobile that's not on the FARCE list of doctrinally acceptable vehicles.

A quality common to cults is the demand for absolute compliance. Within faiths and religions you'll find divergent opinions. These become denominations. Denominations will hold to basic principles even while disagreeing about specific doctrines. Not so with cults.

Environmentalists allow no disagreement. The “green” activist will ignore any evidence or argument that contradicts their belief system. Dissent is intolerable, even sacrilege, and ignored as if it never existed. And no, I'm not exaggerating. Let's look at the evidence.

At the 2008 UN global warming conference in Poland over 650 scientists questioned the accuracy of man-made global warming science. The Petition Project--instituted by Frederick Seitz, past president of the National Academy of Sciences--has collected over 30,000 signatures from qualified professionals questioning man's impact on climate.

The FARCE will not tolerate such heretics. Apostate scientists have their character assassinated, their voice silenced and their scientific credentials dismissed out of hand. In short, they're excommunicated from the FARCE, which is the climate change community.

In California, regulators have proposed banning wood burning stoves and fireplaces. Wood smoke and soot, apparently, are health hazards and environmental contaminants. But unless I'm mistaken, wildfires burn California to the ground every other year and man has burned wood for about 1.5 million years. Let's take the matter of fire a little farther. The Indians-whom the FARCE considers to have been at one with the earth-burned wood.

You'll waste your time confronting a FARCE disciple with this argument. You'd have a better chance getting a Jehovah's Witness into a Baptist church. The “green” apostle will simply charge you with wanting to destroy the earth. End of discussion. They'll never explain where you will live if you succeed in destroying the earth. Doesn't matter. Their doctrine is unquestionable.

Other topics are verboten within the FARCE, too. Scientists have skewed global warming data and conspired to conceal the process. The IPCC's report on the disappearing Himalayan glaciers is decidedly flawed. Temperature monitoring data is manipulated to indicate warming trends. So what? Facts are lies within the FARCE.

Nothing is valid that doesn't fit the environmental creed. Only the canon is real. Global warming exists, earth is doomed and heretics will be sacrificed on the nearest FARCE altar. Sound like a witch hunt? Cotton Mather couldn't do it so well.

I've found very little common ground with President Obama. His policies are statist, his attitude is condescending and his tone is arrogant. Yet I've managed to find one area of agreement with the President; I'm no fan of the Bowl Championship Series, either.

Arguments favoring the BCS ring hollow. Will student athletes miss too much class time under a playoff system? Not really. Student/athletes involved in BCS games practice throughout December until their January games anyway. Players wouldn't miss significant class time even when traveling for Saturday playoff games.

The Football Championship Subdivision has a four-week playoff. If missed classes are the issue, why doesn't it matter at those schools? What about March Madness and the College World Series? Are academics less important for those athletes than for BCS football players?

Another pro-BCS argument is the bowl system tradition. That's a laugher if ever there was one. If college football is so dedicated to preserving the tradition and integrity of the bowl games, why isn't the Cotton Bowl played at the Cotton Bowl? Why aren't the Orange, Sugar, Cotton and Rose Bowl games played on New Year's Day? Why isn't the BCS Championship Game a part of the bowl system, like it was when the BCS began? Why have traditional bowl names been sacrificed to corporate sponsorships?

I'm not against businesses sponsoring bowl games--revenue is revenue--or using the games to promote their brands. Just don't sell me the Champs Sports Bowl, the Outback Bowl, the Capital One Bowl and the PapaJohns.com Bowl and then crow about preserving tradition.

Oh, that's right. Those aren't BCS games, are they? Then how about the Allstate Sugar Bowl, the Tostitos Fiesta Bowl, or the FedEx Orange Bowl? Then there's my favorite “tradition”, the Rose Bowl Game presented by Citi, sponsored in part with bailout dollars no doubt. There's nothing like “tradition” is there?

There's much to dislike about the BCS and college football's attitude toward a playoff system. Even so, there's more to dislike about government involvement in the matter, especially when it comes to mandating change. Here's where the President and I part company. Obama favors a government solution to the BCS. And why not? He favors a government solution to everything.

Obama wanted college football to adopt a playoff system even before he took office. He even promised to “throw my weight around” toward that end. Thus the Justice Department is now considering investigating the BCS for antitrust violations. Perhaps antitrust charges have merit. The BCS does seem more interested in preserving the status quo and protecting major conferences than in promoting competition.

However, politicians and bureaucrats are less interested in enforcing antitrust laws than in spewing rhetoric. There are calls for legislation to prompt a championship playoff. Justice Department officials have bandied the idea of a governmental commission to analyze the costs and benefits of a playoff system. This is populist pandering, nothing more.

If there's any entity that should be held to antitrust laws it's government. But that's another topic. To be blunt, I'm aware of no constitutional basis for Congress to force college football to adopt a worthwhile championship system. Furthermore, why trust government to conduct a cost/benefit analysis?

In a 2005 edition of the Economist's Voice, Edward Glaeser estimated that the federal government would spend enough money on Katrina relief efforts to provide each New Orleans resident with a $200,000 check. The 2010 federal budget will spend $31,000 per US household. Leaving government to conduct cost/benefit analysis is like allowing a fox to determine the value of chickens.

President Obama is right; college football needs a playoff. But he is dead wrong in thinking it's government's job to make it happen. Frankly, it doesn't appear government is up to the challenge anyway.

I'm thankful to be alive. For a moment I thought I had breathed my last. Snow has fallen, and if it weren't for the local news I'm sure I'd have assumed room temperature by now. From their expert, on-the-spot reporters I have learned that snowstorms produce icy conditions, slick roads and cold temperatures.

Maybe I shouldn't joke about death. I could meet my end at a moment's notice. None of us are promised our next breath. So, for that next breath I am truly grateful. However, is there really a need for talking head reporters to tell us how to deal with every natural weather condition? To be brutally honest I don't need it. In fact, I consider news coverage of most storms as an insult to my intelligence. Let me give some examples.

One reporter was “live on the street” in Salisbury, NC. He told me that I shouldn't venture out in the two to four inches of snow. First, two to four inches isn't exactly the storm of the century. Second, if roads were so impassable, how did the reporter get to Salisbury? Did he go by dogsled? Maybe a helicopter dropped him in on a cable, kind of like when Lucy Ricardo was lowered onto the cruise ship.

After telling me the gravity of my situation, the newsroom staff joked with the reporter about the coffee shop patrons across the street, who came out to wave at the news cameras. How did those people get to the coffee shop? I've heard that some people live at Starbucks. But I always considered that a metaphorical statement. My guess is that these people drove their cars, which rendered as ludicrous the entire report about impassable roads.

Another reporter positioned himself near the intersection of NC Highway 273 and I-85 in Belmont, NC. This guy came complete with props. He and his snow shovel proved that ice could actually be present in snow. Well how about that? Join him for his next jaw-dropping report, when he verifies the presence of water vapor in clouds. Please! The reporter shoveled the snow aside so viewers could see the ice patch he'd discovered. He scraped and scraped. He kept talking, but who could hear him? His shoveling obscured his every word. Good thing he had nothing worthwhile to report.

Just when I thought it couldn't get worse out came the driving instructions. The shoveling reporter admonished a passing motorist for driving too fast for conditions, and then informed me that the offending driver was the type who'd be in the ditch thirty minutes later.

That's a bit presumptuous. Who is this reporter is to determine the intentions or abilities of the car's driver? The car looked to be traveling no more than 20 MPH. It wasn't slipping, sliding or spinning in the least. And why say that the car would be in the ditch in thirty minutes? The reporter barely knew what was happening in the present, much less the future. That car could have slid into the grass at any moment. Or, its driver could've completed the journey without incident, just like untold numbers of drivers do every time snow falls.

That reporter ventured into the cold and snow, violating the very safety instructions he conveyed to me, just so I'd know that snow can be icy and roads can be slick. Stay at home next time, pal. Sit in front of the fire. Drink some hot chocolate. You served no useful purpose whatsoever.

If there's anything worse than a Nostradamus wannabe reporter who states the obvious it's a reporter who has no idea what's going on. The final reporter I saw, before turning the channel in disgust, combined those two characteristics into one mindless, wholly unwatchable segment.

No remote report is complete without the perky blonde, and “Winter Blizzard Icy Blast 2010” (or whatever mindless moniker the media hung on this storm) is no exception. Let's call the perky blonde “Bunny.” It just seems to fit.

Bunny was strategically perched on a highway overpass--bridges will freeze before the main roads, in case you didn't know--and kicked off her report by telling me that it's cold outside. Uh, Bunny, there's snow and ice everywhere. I think I can figure out I don't need my swim trunks today. Thanks anyway. Maybe you can return in August and tell me all about the summer's heat.

If Bunny's report were a prize fight it would've been stopped right there. Unfortunately, there was no referee and Bunny wouldn't throw in the towel. At least she's persistent. Bunny next told me that sleet was falling and could be plainly seen hitting her face. “It feels like hail,” Bunny exclaimed.

Bunny my dear, sleet can be difficult to see when you're looking through the living room window. It's nearly impossible to see on television. You'd have a better chance identifying stegosaurus DNA with a magnifying glass. However, I did learn one thing; Bunny has never been outside during a hailstorm.

Believe it or not, that wasn't the worst of Bunny's report. Remember that part about not knowing what you're looking at? Well, Bunny's obliviousness to her surroundings became evident just before she signed off. She told me that the roads were slick (thanks for the tip . . . again!) but that there were many cars traveling the interstate.

Bunny, switch to radio. On radio you can paint any picture you want and the listener will never know the difference. Television cameras have this tendency to show the situation as it exists. One car passed while Bunny talked about the high volume of traffic.

I'll give the weather forecasters their kudos; they got this one right. The snow fell just as they predicted. But snow has fallen before, in much greater volumes, and will fall again no matter what Al Gore says. This isn't the storm to end all storms. It's not the end of the world. I'm confident in my knowledge that snow is cold and ice is slick; that roads can be slippery and that frigid air accompanies winter storms. I really don't need reporters to share that information. I can walk out the front door and see it for myself. Unless I slip and bump my head, chances are good that I won't die. Neither will you.

A few days before Christmas I read a newspaper report about a stolen debit card. Apparently the victim's wallet was taken from her purse, which hung from her shoulder, while she shopped. Such a theft is a shameful indictment on human nature, especially at Christmastime. But it's not at all surprising.

The thief wasted no time in using the ill-gotten windfall. While the victim was submitting the police report a female suspect was making purchases at the same store where the theft occurred. According to the newspaper's account the thief spent $400 in 15 minutes.

That's a fair amount of money. It may not be a leap-from-the-window loss, but more than most people care to lose. An employee would have to earn $50 per hour just to cover the 15 minute spending spree, based on the eight-hour day. That's an annual salary of $104,000. Not too shabby in these economic times.

But this pickpocket went through $400 in 15 minutes. A worker must make $1600 per hour, $64,000 per week, over $3.3 million per year to earn the equivalent of what this thief stole. The CEOs of Home Depot, Motorola, eBay, and UPS don't earn that much, according to the Forbes 2008 list of executive salaries.

The 500 CEOs on the Forbes list received a cumulative salary of $6.4 billion in 2007, making the $400 debit card theft seem like child's play. However, I'm not condemning CEO salaries. Although CEOs are routinely demonized, their earnings are child's play compared to the federal government's expenditures. Do you realize that those CEOs will have to earn that $6.4 billion each and every year until 2565 to offset 2010's federal budget of $3,550,000,000,000? That's $3.55 trillion. I think I smell pirates, and they aren't cruising the Somali coastline or the corporate boardroom.

CEOs would fare a little better if they pooled their $6.4 billion to combat Congress' recently passed $290 billion increase in the debt ceiling, which will float Washington for about six weeks. CEOs need only to chip in their next 45 years worth of collective earnings to satisfy government's increased borrowing. The entire Forbes list can be funded for their entire working lives on what the federal government can spend in a month and a half.

Let's see how these corporate “robber barons” stack up against other significant numbers. We'll begin with the national debt, which increases faster than the human eye can follow. According to USDebtClock.org the national debt grows by $1 million every 25 seconds, standing at $12.3 trillion. Now let that figure roll around in your head for a minute or two. How long would our CEOs have to work to fund the current debt? Only 1,926 years. And that's assuming the debt remains static, which it doesn't.

In reality, the debt's growth rate will consume the collective salaries of the Forbes top 500 CEOs in just two days. As for the middle class, the debt's growth rate will erase a $40,000 annual salary every second.

2007's CEO salaries could pay off our Social Security obligations in 2,207 years, Medicare Part D in 2,921 years and Medicare in 11,616 years. Our unfunded liabilities exceed $107 trillion. That's 16,744 years in CEO pay. Worse yet, these unfunded liabilities could be satisfied only if you had 80 cents for every hour that has passed since scientists say the universe was born some 15 billion years ago. Sadly, those liabilities would increase by about $3 million before you finished writing your check.

Somehow losing $400 in 15 minutes doesn't sound so bad now. The federal government can lose $36 million in that amount of time. Keep that in mind the next time a politician says the federal budget has been cut to the bone.

Who would've thought that someone with an “R” beside their name could win federal office in Massachusetts? If you had bet a C-note on Scott Brown's chances before Christmas the taxman would be knocking on your door. And now a Republican fills the seat where the ever-errant Ted Kennedy parked his fat caboose for nigh on to half a century. Amazing!

Republicans are understandably euphoric. There is a joy and optimism not seen in the Grand Old Party since 1994. Early in the Obama administration I wrote that Democrats were repeating Clinton's mistakes, which led to that Republican Revolution. It is beginning anew.

However, there is a problem with emotional highs; they wane. I hate to rain on the Republican parade, but a word of caution is in order. This game is far from over and the cause of limited government and individual liberty has a long way to go. With the Super Bowl around the corner a football analogy may be in order.

Your team trails 24-20 with time running out. They have the ball on their own one-yard line. On the first play from scrimmage they gain eight yards. That's a good start. But cause for celebration? Not quite. They're still ninety-one yards from victory. If your team thinks that their eight-yard gain is the ballgame they'll go home losers just as surely as the sun rises in the East.

That's about where we stand in restoring “a Republican form of government” (U.S. Constitution, Article IV, Section 4). If the Republican Party is the vehicle for attaining that goal--and that's quite an if--then we have been pinned on our own one-yard line, our backs against the wall with no room for error, since the 2006 and 2008 elections. We got there because Republicans forgot the reason they were elected.

Republicans fumbled. They drank deep from the well of government excess, becoming intoxicated with the power that comes with spending other people's money. They forgot, or chose to ignore, the party's core beliefs. The Republican Party put itself, and the republic, on the one-yard line.

Electing a Republican in Massachusetts exposes vulnerability in the opponent, a window of opportunity that can be exploited. Scott Brown's victory is a good start, an eight-yard gain. But not only do we remain ninety-one yards from pay dirt, we haven't a first down yet.

Like I said, I don't mean to sound pessimistic or belittle the significance of Brown's win. Republican Senators from Massachusetts have become as rare as tripping over 20 pound gold nuggets. It's just that there are far too many experts treating this gain as victory. It's not.

Yes, it will derail the healthcare power grab for a season. But we remain a long way from restoring constitutionally limited government, from reasserting state's rights, and from recognizing the value of the individual over the “collective good”. Complacency is a valid concern.

Voters have short memories and experts are less than, well, expert. George H.W. Bush's victory in 1988, following eight years of Ronald Reagan, prompted “experts” to declare that Democrats would never again win the White House. Four years later we had Bill Clinton. In 2004 the “experts” declared the Democrat Party all but extinct. Two years later the Democrats took control of Congress.

In 2008 the Democrats gained the White House and extended their congressional majorities to quasi-authoritarian levels. Some “experts” pondered the end of the Republican Party. Other pundits said it would take fifty years for the party to regain its feet. But Republicans have fared well in recent special elections.

It appears that electoral winds are shifting toward Republicans. Is that a positive step? Or, does it merely mean that we may lose our liberty at a slower pace. Republicans had ample opportunity to scale back government and restore fiscal sanity between 1994 and 2006. How did that turn out again?

Certainly Scott Brown's victory in the deep blue Bay State is a repudiation of the Obama/Reid/Pelosi agenda. But it is, at best, the opening play of what promises to be a long, hard drive. We're still 91 yards from the winning score.

Was the Massachusetts Senate race a bellwether on government healthcare? Maybe so. Scott Brown made opposition to the Reid/Pelosi agenda paramount in his campaign. He won. And it's significant for a Republican to have won the seat Ted Kennedy occupied for 47 years.

Does Brown's election mean that healthcare reform is dead? Not necessarily. Maine Republicans Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe remain Senate wildcards. If just one of them defects-and both have been known to “reach across the aisle”-some form of healthcare bill could proceed. Thus far both have held the line.

This Republican solidarity is no surprise to Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY), who doesn't think a GOP defection is likely. Prior to the election, Rep. Weiner said a Scott Brown victory would signal the death of healthcare.

Mr. Weiner likely means healthcare reform will die. In that case I hope he is correct. But considering the leftist's mindset, Weiner may mean that healthcare will disappear altogether, as if it can't exist without government.

Such flawed thinking about government is why we have a $12 trillion debt and more than $60 trillion in unfunded government promises. It is why the dollar is becoming play money and American businesses have difficulty competing. It is why we have a mortgage crisis and a housing bubble, and why we depend on a communist country half a world away to float our debt. In short, the idea that government can provide all things to all people is why we are on the cusp of national bankruptcy.

No one needs the government's permission to receive healthcare. Each of us can do that on our own. Go to the doctor if you're sick; you'll be treated. If you lack insurance you can always pay the bill directly. Clinics also offer payment plans for patients who can't afford to pay their bills in full.

What's more, you don't have to visit the family doctor every time you get a headache or experience post-nasal drip. Finally, hospitals and emergency rooms are required to provide essential medical care regardless of a patient's ability to pay. All of this could change in the name of “reform”, leaving everyone dependent on the federal bureaucracy.

Dependence on the central government for daily and personal needs is the politician's vehicle to reelection. Dependency is an enslaving cycle that robs people of their initiative, motivation, dignity, self-respect and, finally, their liberty. Need food? Call on government. Need housing? Call on government. Need medicine? Call on government. Need healthcare? Well, you get the idea.

Politicians like Anthony Weiner believe that all good blessings flow from government. In return, all power and authority returns to those who wield government's reigns. It's a tidy little circle, and the antithesis of liberty.

Rep. Weiner, not all Americans are the pitiful, selfish, pathetic, whining beggars you need to maintain your House seat. Perhaps your district is comprised of such people. But that cannot be the case for the nation overall. If so, we are doomed as a nation and a people, for freedom cannot survive on dependency. Furthermore, centralized systems eventually collapse under their own weight.

No Mr. Weiner, America isn't a nation of whiners, although we have our share. America wasn't established, secured, or built by people who waited on government programs. Ours is a nation founded upon the independent spirit of each individual.

We can make our own decisions. We can reap our rewards and suffer our consequences--in healthcare and other matters--just fine without you, Mr. Weiner. Finally, healthcare will not die without your magic finger. In fact, minus government's manipulative hand, it will be much better and more readily available.

Here's hoping that Mr. Weiner is correct about healthcare reform being dead. Here's hoping, too, that America will tell congressmen like Weiner that we're sick and tired of government meddling. We are not the whiners he believes us to be.

You'd be hard pressed to find anyone passing the hat for “Big Finance” these days. But why do people assume that financial institutions are inherently evil while government is inherently good?

The mortgage bubble and resulting financial problems weren't a free market problem. They resulted from government manipulation. Yet in many minds government is seen as the savior while banks are the drunks at the Baptist picnic. For that reason alone Rep. Peter Welch's Wall Street Bonus Tax Act will garner some degree of support.

Welch's bill (H.R. 4426) promises a 50-percent tax on excessive bonuses paid at banking institutions that received bailout money. It's a classic leftwing tactic. Welch plays the class envy card, reminding financiers that they owe their reemergence to “hardworking Americans.” However, I would remind Mr. Welch that most “hardworking Americans” opposed TARP--the plan that provided the funding--from the outset. Yet Congress passed it anyway.

Hundreds of institutions became beneficiaries. Some have repaid the money; some haven't. But banks had to practically beg the Treasury Department for permission to repay their TARP debt. And political connections played a role in the distribution of TARP funds from the start.

A University of Michigan study claims that banks in congressional districts where the representative sits on the finance committee were 26-percent more likely to get bailout funds. That figure is even higher if a bank's executive is on a Federal Reserve Bank board.

Such backdoor shenanigans in Congress are nothing new. Representatives exchange favors with the well-connected every day. Therefore, how can anyone believe that in taxing bonuses Rep. Welch has any interest at heart other than his own?

I'll win no popularity contest if I'm perceived as defending banks and their bonus packages. However, my goal isn't to exonerate or condemn banks. I'm here to defend the free market process. There is a better method than congressional meddling for determining which financial executives deserve bonuses. There's also much to fear when Congress uses the tax code to control compensation.

First, Rep. Welch only wants to tax “excessive” bonuses. Who is he, or the federal government as a whole, to decide what is and isn't excessive? Basically, “excessive” means beyond a necessary or proper limit, which is an arbitrary concept at best.

What may seem excessive in one circumstance can be quite routine in another. Once Congress seizes the right to determine appropriate compensation for bank executives it has established precedent to set “proper limits” on salaries for anyone. Who will be next? Barbers? Truck drivers? Play-by-play announcers? Should healthcare reform include wage controls in the medical field? Don't bet the farm that it won't.

Does that mean I favor bonuses for bank execs? That depends. As stated, there is a better way to set wages. I prefer to see the free market, not pandering politicians who are seeking reelection, determine compensation.

If you're unhappy with the bonuses paid at your bank you can do business elsewhere. If you stay, then bonuses must not bother you that much. In addition, government bean-counters shouldn't force, cajole, or lure banks into nonsensical lending practices. Banks should operate on sound financial principles, not politically correct notions about social justice.

Good practice and due diligence are rewarded in the free market. Wise and prudent banks will prosper while depositors and investors will flee foolish institutions in droves. Government manipulation serves only to protect the irresponsible, defer risk and send the entire system tumbling like a house of cards.

Government's market interventions have proven destructive. Allowing government an inroad to wage controls promises a similar, or worse, result. If Congress can punish banking executives for their compensation the door is wide open to do likewise to everyone.