This morning on the Dennis Prager show, he played a clip of his appearance on the Larry King show last night. The other guest was Perez Hilton. They were debating same sex marriage and whet her it should be legalized. Perez Hilton went straight for the fairness issue. Dennis set forward the reasons why fairness is not an issue. The important issue is that marriage is because a man and a woman both bring something different to the table.

Dennis asked Perez if he believed that men and women were the same. Perez said that they were the same except for external body parts. Obviously Perez has not been around children. Anyone who has raised a boy and a girl knows that boys and girls are different almost from day one. It is not cultural training that makes them different. It is inherent in each sex certain traits that give rise to what they are as adults. Of course, cultural training modifies this to some extent. But the inherent differences are there nonetheless.

For one thing, men and women have their brains wired differently. Women have more connections between the left and right brain than men do. There is nothing any cultural training can do to make that different. It is just a fact. That difference gives women some advantages in certain parts of life. It also gives men certain advantages in other parts of life. There is nothing right or wrong about this. It is just a fact and each of us has to live with the advantages we were given because we were a man or a woman.

Dennis Prager also brought up another great point. If you think that men and women are the same with different body parts, are the boy scouts and girl scouts discriminatory? Perez never answered that question, because the only answer is that boy and girl scouts are not discriminatory. Boys and girls are different and need different organizations to meet their needs.

Perez Hilton brought up that it used to be illegal for blacks and whites to marry. We changed the law to allow that, why not change the law to allow gays to marry? Dennis answered that there is nothing in all religious doctrine or historical secular doctrine that justified the law keeping blacks and whites from marrying. There is no religious or secular doctrine that supports same sex marriage. Dennis also pointed out that there is no difference between a black person and a white person. There is a profound difference between a man and a woman. That is why marriage is there. A man and a woman both bring something to the marriage that two men or two women cannot bring. Also, that is not saying that all marriages are perfect. All marriages are imperfect. Marriages that seem perfect are because you have two committed people that work at it every day.

Perez Hilton tried to say that there are a thousand benefits/rights to married couples that are denied to everyone else. He said that same sex marriage would open up those benefits/rights to everyone. Dennis said that those are issues that can be settled without calling a same sex union, marriage. Marriage should be between a man and a woman. Children are frequently are asked about marriage. If you add sexual confusion by asking, are you going to marry a man or a woman, you are going too far. Children should have examples of men being men and women being women. About 97% of the population is straight. Why should we add sexual confusion to children when they do not need it?

From the debate between Perez Hilton and Dennis Prager it was obvious who won. Dennis won on the issues. Dennis had all the facts on his side. Dennis had all the religious, social and cultural issues to back him up in the debate. All Perez Hilton had, was the emotional issue of “fairness” or “equality”. All of us should be treated equal. But, all of us do not have equal rights. There are some things I cannot do because I do not have the right. Other people can do those things because they have the right. That is fair because I have not earned the right. Until I earn the right, I have no basis in asking for the right. Some rights are God given, like freedom of speech. Others are earned, like higher pay because of an education. Most rights are earned. Many people hear the word rights and expect it to be given to them as a God given thing. We are getting away from the policy of earning.

“When the left enters, diversity of thought goes.” That statement by Dennis Prager, just as I was getting out of my car to go to work was profound. He had been leading up to that statement by saying that the right considers the left wrong and the left considers the right evil. He had been giving numerous examples of left leaning people that would not give the time of day to a person who expressed an opinion from the right. Dennis said that this problem had been occurring since Karl Marx. Also, all fascist states, from the Nazi's to the communists, have been from the left.

What brought this all on was the Miss USA beauty contest. Miss California had answered a question about Vermont granting gay marriage and what did she think the rest of the states should do. Miss California said that she was glad she lived in a country where people could choose both. She then elaborated more on that thought and closed with the fact that in her family she was brought up that marriage was between a man and a woman. She closed that she did not want to give offense to anyone. Perez Hilton, one of the judges, went ballistic, called her nasty names and called her intelligence into question on U-Tube. Yesterday, one of the co-chairs of the Miss USA Pageant went on CBS and basically said that if you do not have leftist views, you cannot win a beauty contest. She said that Miss California had not been compassionate in her answer. In my mind, I could not think of a more compassionate and inclusive answer to the question. I would have been much blunter.

At almost all colleges and universities, you have to hold leftist opinions to be hired. If you have ever put forth a conservative opinion in public, you have little chance of being hired as a full-time faculty member. If you manage to get past the hiring committee and they find out that you have conservative views, you have little chance of being promoted to full professor. The quality of your scholarship is not important. Your ability to teach is not important. If you hold conservative ideas, you have little chance to get past the leftist gatekeepers. When conservatives ran the colleges and universities there were many liberals and Marxists that taught at the schools and attained full professorship. Today, that cannot be said of conservatives in a liberal environment. You will find exceptions, but the general rule is that conservatives need not apply.

At the major newspapers and television stations, conservatives need not apply. The television stations are finding that they need some conservative hosts, so will hire some selected conservatives. But, the general rule is that they only hire liberals. As a result, you get this liberal bias. The TV stations and newspapers cannot see the liberal bias because all the people they hang around with are liberals. Since all their liberal friends hold exactly the same opinions that they do, they see absolutely no problem with reporting news with a liberal slant. They just figure that the liberal position is the normal position for everyone in the US. When they are confronted with the liberal bias claim, they are dumfounded. They cannot possibly have a liberal bias in their news reporting. Yet, you see it time and again. In the interview with the co-chair of the Miss USA Pageant, the reporter just took what the co-chair said with no questions being raised in her mind. If she had no bias, she could have asked the co-chair to give an example of how Miss California could have answered the question more compassionately. That would have put the co-chair on the spot to put up or shut up. If she could not give an example, then she would have been exposed as a fascist. If she could give an example, then she would have vindicated Miss California. Also, the reporter could have asked the co-chair what the difference was between the answer Miss California gave and the answer Barack Obama gave during the campaign. He said that he believed that marriage was between a man and a woman. He did not even acknowledge that gays had any right to marriage. Miss California did make that acknowledgement. That also would have put the co-chair on the spot.

Liberals are dominating the American scene more and more throughout my lifetime. As a result, conservative ideas are disparaged more and more. About the only bastion of conservative thought is talk radio and part of the internet. Congress is getting ready to fix that problem as soon as they can think of a way around the Republicans. Then, they will shut down talk radio and all conservative thought on the internet. We have to hope that the Republicans, as weak as they are, can hold on until the elections in 2010. Then, we have a chance to fix part of the problem we created in 2008.

Listening to the Dennis Prager show, I heard something quite disturbing. He was telling us about the beauty pageant that was held over the weekend. Miss California was given a question from one of the judges. The question was approximately, New Hampshire recently approved gay marriages. Should other states follow their example? Miss California said approximately, that she was glad she lived in a country where people could believe what they wanted to. But, that she and her family believed that marriage is between one man and one woman. Miss California came in first runner-up in the event.

One of the judges was outraged. After the event, he made a U-Tube video where he called her stupid and other names for not saying that gay marriage was a good thing. This judge said that if Miss California had won he would have gone on stage and caused a scene.

That is really disturbing to me. Things are starting to get out of hand where people that believe in gay marriage are concerned. Those of us who believe in traditional marriage are now not just wrong; we are stupid and a lot of other unprintable names. The next thing you know, we will not be able to voice our opinions at all. The left believes it knows more than all of recorded history and every religious and secular leader throughout time. That is really scary. When something has worked well for thousands of years, why change it?

The real thrust behind all this gay marriage talk where anyone who disagrees with gay marriage is now not just wrong but stupid and worse, is that the left wants to control the agenda. The way they control the agenda is to intimidate everyone into keeping silent. If they keep calling everyone bad names for supporting tradition, then people will start keeping quiet. That is how they imposed political correctness and other leftist changes in the language. Now words do not even mean what they have meant for hundreds of years.

What is happening right before our eyes is that our free speech is being taken away from us. It started with political correctness. We let that go because it seemed harmless at first. Now the left has gone beyond political correctness into changing the thoughts of everyone. If they cannot win the discussion of ideas, they will win with intimidation. They will bully everyone into believing, or at least saying, what they want them to say. When they achieve that goal, then there will not be anyone to stop them from completely dominating the culture. They almost do so now, so this last step will just complete the process.

Those of us who believe in truth and right need to speak out and say that we will not be intimidated. I will not stop saying that I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. Marriage is not between two people of the same sex. The reason behind marriage is to have and raise children. Two people of the same sex cannot have children through natural means. They are incapable of doing what the purpose of marriage is, so they fall outside the definition of marriage. If you want to call their unions something else, then that is fine. But, they are not marriage and never will be marriage, no matter how much the left cries that they are.

We need to take a stand here and now. Our rights are being trampled by the left. They believe that they know more than the combined world. They want to impose their failed doctrines on the American people. If we do not take a stand now, we will lose our freedoms and America will be a historical country. We cannot let that happen. The Tea Parties were a first step, but we need to continue. Stand up and be counted. Do not let yourself be intimidated by the left. You will end up stronger, though you may catch a few arrows.

The Tea Parties are now in our past. They were wildly successful as far as participants are concerned. There were a lot more people that turned out than anyone expected. A partial count had the total at about one million people. That count only included about one third to one half of the sites that had Tea Parties.

The main stream media and the liberals are trying to downplay the Tea Parties any way they can. The worst was from a Clinton era holdover Janeane Garofalo on the Keith Olbermann show. She declared that all Tea Party attendees were racists. Her reasoning went this way: Barack Obama is a black man. All of the people at the Tea Parties were protesting against the government and Barack Obama, so therefore, all the people at the Tea Parties were racists. That is flawed reasoning. It is true that Barack Obama is a black man. It is true that all of the people attending the Tea Parties were protesting against the actions of the government and Barack Obama. Nobody was saying that Barack Obama should not be President. They were just saying that he was not acting in a responsible manner. There is a huge difference. But, Janeane Garofalo was not talking to the attendees or even liberals. She was talking to the black audience. If she could convince blacks that the Tea Party attendees were racists, then she could defuse the issue for blacks. Anyone with a brain could see through her arguments. Keith Olbermann could not see through her arguments. He treated them as if they were absolutely true.

I read some comments from participants in the Tea Parties on Lucianne.com. All of them were positive and saying that we now need to continue to work to change things. The consensus was that we need to work from within a major party, probably the Republicans as they are the closest to our position. There was some talk of a third party, but that was rejected because it would guarantee another term for Barack Obama and that cannot happen.

Right now, there is a lot of energy about the wrong direction the country is headed. There is no single group or person that is leading the charge. Until there is a single person or group, the movement will continue to be scattered on the issues. The central issue of taxation and spending is agreed on, but the rest of the agenda is unfocused and blurry for most of the participants in the Tea Parties. In the comments I read there was a lot of talk of a Reagan stepping forward. There will probably not be another Reagan in my lifetime, but there can be a strong leader. Some of the previous leaders, like Newt Gingrich, were discussed and dismissed. Most of them had too much baggage from past encounters. Newt’s problem was sitting on that couch with Nancy Pelosi. He will never be forgiven for that mistake.

The strong leader that steps forward has to be sure of what needs to be done. The message has to be clear and simple. The message has to be consistent. The message has to be positive. The leader has to be inclusive of all people. The Mike Huckabee example where he trashed a strong segment of the Republican Party because he did not like their religion cannot be allowed to be part of this leader’s character. Right now, there is a vacuum that needs to be filled. There are many people that have tried to fill that position and failed. We do not need a RINO, we need a true conservative. In fact, the message from the Tea Parties was loud and clear. If you are supporting wasteful spending and excess taxation, you are a target of the Tea Parties. The politicians in power got the message; it is up to us to make sure that they continue to hear it.

The memo that came out from the Department of Homeland Security this week still troubles me. The thought that those who were considered patriotic Americans for over 200 years are now thought to be potential subversives is disturbing. How could we get this way so fast? Just a couple of months ago, patriotic Americans were celebrated. Now, they are looked at as potential terrorists. There is something wrong with that picture. What happened in the intervening time to cause that to happen? Two things happened since January to cause these events to happen; the swearing in of Barack Hussein Obama and the selection of Janet Napolitano as the head of the Department of Homeland Security.

When Janet Napolitano was selected as the head of Homeland Security, I did not think that she was the right person for the job. I was more concerned about her lack of concern for the borders and said so at the time. She was at best a poor Governor of Arizona. She did almost everything wrong and in a ham handed way. That is the way she has been handling the Department of Homeland Security.

Way back in the dark ages when I was in college, there was a book called the Peter Principle. The Peter Principle said that people rise to their level of incompetence. It was talking about their rise in the business world, but it also applies to politics. The difference is that in politics, you can fool the public into voting for you, even if you are incompetent. Just look at Maxine Waters, she has to be the least intelligent person in the Congress. She gets re-elected from her district with wide margins. The same can be said for Barbara Boxer. She has to be the least intelligent person in the Senate. Yet, she gets re-elected in California. Both have exceeded their Peter Principle level of incompetence by a wide margin.

Janet Napolitano did ok as an Attorney General. She handled the cases fairly and generally there were few complaints. When she became Governor, she was obviously in over her head. She was able to fool the public into voting for her for a second term. Then, she managed to back Barack Obama in the beginning, so she was picked for Homeland Security. In Homeland Security, she has no clue how to run the department with any degree of efficiency. This report that defames veterans and other patriotic Americans is a result of her incompetence.

Janet Napolitano came out to answer questions about the report yesterday. She made motions toward making amends about the report, but her only example of a returning veteran was Timothy McVeigh. I am sorry, that is not an apology. She basically said that she agreed with the report and everyone could stick it in their ear. Now she used nice sounding words that will fool the main stream press, but the meaning was unmistakable.

The people responsible for this despicable report, especially Janet Napolitano, should be fired, immediately. Unfortunately, their boss is Barack Obama and he most likely, at the very least, is sympathetic with the thrust of the report. Janet Napolitano will not be fired by Barack Obama unless there is massive public outcry for her to be fired. The good thing about this report is that it opened some people’s eyes. They were fooled by Barack Obama and were still trying to give him a chance. When the report came out and they found out that they were being targeted as possible terrorists, they had the last straw. Now, they will never vote for another Democrat again. That is a good thing. We need to rid ourselves of this Democrat scourge as soon as possible. I just hope we are not too late in riding ourselves of this problem.

Earlier this week, Neal Boortz had a link up on his Nealz Nuze that just said something about it being good to start your week. I clicked on the link because I was curious and found the U-Tube video of Susan Boyle. To say I was moved by the video was an understatement.

I have been cursed with perfect pitch. That means that singers that sing out of tune drive me crazy. Since over 90% of all today’s singers sing out of tune, I almost never listen to music anymore. When Susan hit her first note, I knew I had heard a singer that was exceptional. Not only was the tone clear, full and rich, it was exactly on pitch. The reaction from the crowd took about one note longer before they also realized that they were hearing an exceptional voice singing.

When Susan came out on stage, she was unremarkable. She is 47 years old from a small town somewhere in either northern England or Scotland. That comment comes from living in England for two years and knowing a little bit about English accents. The judges were unimpressed with her from the start. They handled her as if she had no business on that stage. When she said she wanted to be as big a star as the biggest star in England, the judges were incredulous. Susan was a bit “cheeky” with the judges in response to their stern tone. At that point, people were laughing at Susan. Her hair was not well done; she probably had fixed it herself. She looked to me like your typical middle-aged housewife in England. She wore a plain dress, nothing fancy. In other words, she was up there in a plain wrapper and asked the world to believe.

From listening to the Dennis Prager show, I learned a few other facts about Susan Boyle. She was oxygen deprived at birth. That has given her a learning disability. The learning disability made her the brunt of many jokes by her classmates in school. They taunted her and bullies attacked her. Most of it was verbal and she says those scars never go away. She lived with her parents until her father passed away about 10 years ago. Then she lived with and took care of her mother until she died recently. She spent her free time singing in the church choir. She also said that she has never been kissed.

I like to think of myself as old hard heart. The real story is that when I see a success story like this, I get all choked up. She stood there with all her handicaps and won. She asked for no special favors. She was granted no special favors. She had one chance to succeed or fail. She took that chance and succeeded far beyond her wildest imaginations. One week ago, nobody had heard of her except for a few people in the collection of villages she calls home. Today, millions of people know of her and applaud her success.

Time will tell if success will change Susan Boyle. It will obviously change her on the outside. She will have money to have people fix her hair. She will have money to buy fancy dresses. She may even lose a little weight. Like almost all of us (myself included), she has put on a few pounds over the years. She is not badly overweight, but a few pounds would greatly improve her image. The real test will be if she changes on the inside. Right now, she is proud of who she is and yet humble at the same time. She is here with no regrets over what has happened in her life. Will success change that self image that she currently has? Only time will tell.

I wish Susan Boyle well in her future singing career. She has a voice that you so rarely hear. I hope some singing coach doesn’t try and change her voice into something else. Right now, she has a perfect voice. The volume, pitch and fullness are all in the right amounts. If you mess with perfection, sometimes you end up with something much less. In my estimation, she does everything right when it comes to the voice, don’t change a thing. You may need to work with her on timing or reading music, but somehow I doubt that. She already got that training in the church choir.

Today is April 15. It is time that many people will be attending the “Tea Parties” that are being held all over the country and even in some foreign countries. How many will attend is anyone’s guess. The one here in Phoenix is on the lawn in front of the Senate offices in Phoenix this evening. KFYI will have many of their talk show hosts there to speak to the crowd. Since KFYI is the most listened to station in the valley, I would expect a good turnout at the Tea Party.

There are rumors that ACORN and other left wing nut jobs are going to try and infiltrate the Tea Parties to try and stir up trouble. If they manage to stir up trouble, they will discredit some of what the Tea Parties are trying to achieve. The goal is to protest the massive tax increase that is coming and also the other socialist policies of the Obama administration. Since people know that there might be people from left wing goon squads present at the meetings, there should not be much trouble.

Since I have to work this evening, I cannot attend our Tea Party in Phoenix. I will be there in spirit. I wish I could go, but I do not have enough time off to afford to go. I agree with the goals of the Tea Party and wish them well. I will most likely support whatever activity comes out of the Tea Party here in Arizona.

Since I support the Tea Party and write this blog, I am probably on the Janet Napolitano’s list of subversive people. I doubt that there is a more patriotic individual in the country. But because of the definitions that Homeland Security is dealing with, patriotic Americans are listed as subversives. There was a report written in the Homeland Security Department that got leaked to the press that gives out all this information. This report details how anyone that believes in the second amendment and the right to bear arms is a subversive. Anyone who does not support and Obama administration is a subversive. Anyone who is a believing and practicing Christian is a subversive. Since I am guilty on all counts, I must be a subversive. All along, I thought that I was a patriotic American. That is what I have been taught that patriotic Americans believed in since I was a child. Up until January 2009, the government believed that patriotic Americans had those qualities. Now, the worm has turned and those qualities are now unpatriotic. How things are turned upside down in my country.

I support the Tea Parties because I want my America to be the America she has been. I want patriotic Americans honored for being patriotic Americans. I want heroic Army, Navy, Marine and Air Force personnel honored for their service. I want their stories told like we told the Audie Murphy story from World War II or Sgt. York from World War I. Those stories make men and boys want to emulate those heroes. It makes better patriots out of all of us. Unfortunately, we do not get to hear about the heroes of the current wars. I am sure that there are heroes that are not being recognized. We need to hear their stories. We need their stories made into movies just like they used to do to raise patriotism.

Whatever the outcome of the Tea Parties, just talking about them is a success. They sprang out of nowhere and have grown into something big. There is no single leader of this movement. If this movement can be harnessed and focused, we can take this country back in two stages, 2010 and 2012. It also might put some spine into the backs of those noodle backed Republicans we have in the House and Senate. The Democrats keep giving the Republicans fantastic talking points to completely destroy the Democrat positions, but the Republicans are unfocused and drop the ball. If they had a spine, that would not happen and we might even get America back by June.

We are seeing the imposition of socialism on our economy by the Obama administration and the Democrat Congress. This socialism will destroy what is left of the American spirit. Once socialism is imposed on an economy, it is very difficult to get rid of it. People get used to a benefit and then expect that the benefit will be there forever. Also, there is the worry that from socialism to communism is a very short step.

Barack Obama is allowing people to send money to Cuba. That is a change from a policy that has been in place for about 50 years. Rumor has it that the Castro regime is struggling financially because of poor cash flow. This increase in cash from America should keep the Castro regime solvent well into the future. The question is: why would Barack Obama prop up a communist regime that was about to collapse from under its own weight? Right now, there are not definite answers, but lots of speculation.

The best guess that I have heard is that he wants to keep all the communist countries that surround the United States strong. Since Barack Obama probably is more closely aligned with communist regimes than he is with American ideals, this guess makes a lot of sense. I say that he is more closely aligned with communist regimes because what he has done to this point would be no different if he were a communist, even though he has not shown himself to be one, yet. The big difference between what a communist would do and what Barack Obama has done, is that a communist would centralize control to a greater extent.

The Castro regime was set to collapse when Fidel and/or Raul die. There would be a blood bath as various factions would try to gain control over the country. But, there would be a chance for the country to achieve some independence at that point. Propping up the Castro regime means that the Castro brothers will be able to select someone to follow them. They can do this by buying off everyone. Without the cash, they would be unable to buy anyone off so anyone could have gained the upper hand. This will just mean an orderly transfer of power. How good a hold on power that person would have is another question, but he would gain power. By having power, it would make it nearly impossible for the people to achieve any sort of independence without a huge loss of blood. Even with this orderly transfer of power, there may be a huge loss of blood as this person consolidates power before anyone else can threaten him.

This transfer of cash to Cuba is the wrong thing at the wrong time. The time to send cash to Cuba is after the Castro regime has ended. Then the people will need money to rebuild Cuba into the economic power that it can be in the Caribbean. Before Castro seized power, Cuba was a great tourist destination. It also had a lot of business activity. Now, there is little tourism and little business activity. Cuba is strangling on communism. Cash will allow Cuba to continue to defy logic and continue as a communist country. The only reason that Cuba has remained communist to this day is Fidel Castro. He has single handedly kept Cuba communist all these years. He has also kept all possible adversaries in prison or in graves.

The Cuban population in the Miami area is upset over this relaxing of the restriction. They were hoping that when Castro died that the island would become free. An infusion of cash would delay that from happening and the Cuban population is hopping mad. I say good for them. Remember this anger when you get to vote in 2010 and 2012.

Over the weekend, the US Navy rescued the captain that had been captured by those Pirates from Somalia. The courage shown by our US Naval personnel was extraordinary. Their discipline was extraordinary. Their ability to take out an enemy combatant without them being able to return fire was also extraordinary. The only question I have is why did it take so long?

Captain Phillips also showed remarkable courage in this entire ordeal. He volunteered to be a hostage in the standoff on the ship. The standoff occurred when the pirates boarded and tried to take the ship. The crew outnumbered the pirates and stabbed the lead pirate in the hand with an ice pick. The crew held the upper hand, but they had no guns. The pirates were in a weak position, but because they had guns they could not be dislodged. That is why the agreement for the captain to be a hostage and the pirate leader to be a hostage. The crew and the pirates agreed that upon the release of the pirate leader they would release the captain. That did not happen.

The captain feared for his life. He was beaten up while he was a prisoner. When he saw an opportunity to escape, he jumped from the ship he was on and tried to swim to safety. The pirates shot at him and soon had him back in custody. The Navy stood by and watched this scenario play out and did nothing. I wonder why the Navy did not attempt a rescue of the captain at that time. He was away from the pirate vessel and a well placed cannot shot in the pirate ship would have sunk it. Then the captain could have been rescued earlier. I am not sure how far away the captain got from the pirate vessel. Maybe he was too close for a cannon shot to be safely attempted.

Now, I know today’s military and how it is micromanaged from above. It almost seems like they could do away with everyone between the rank of Captain and Major General and still function just as well as they do. I do realize that they need the ranks I am just commenting on the fact that the people on the scene do not get to make the decisions. Barack Obama made the decision to rescue the captain. I am sure that the Navy recommended that he make that decision. So, I must give Barack Obama credit where it is due and give him a credit for making the decision to rescue the captain instead of giving in to the pirate’s demands. I half expected him to give in based on his track record. He must have taken a lot of convincing before he made the decision to act.

The pirates are now saying that they will kill all American and French sailors they come in contact with. That is because the French also raided the pirates and rescued their hostages instead of bowing to the demands. Since we now know what will happen to our sailors we have three choices to make. The first choice is to ignore the pirates and hope they do not capture any Americans or French. This is rather silly. If there is shipping in the area with Americans or French, they are bound to be captured sooner or later given the situation.

The second option is to pull all American and French sailors out of the region. This is also not a good option. It is running from danger. Running from danger just encourages more of it. If the pirates got wind that American and French sailors were removed from the region, they would ramp up their demands because they would have scared the Americans and French away.

The third option is to arm all shipping that sails near Somalia. We did this during World War II and it was quite successful it stopping the Germans and Japanese from capturing our ships. The ships would have to have large guns capable of sinking another ship that could cover all parts of the merchant ship. The merchant ships would also have to have an assortment of small arms available in case the ship was in danger of being boarded. These small arms would have to include assault rifles and handguns. The world would have to be notified that any ship that was identified as a stranger would be sunk with no questions asked. This would make piracy a very dangerous business. More pirates would die than would be successful. Therefore most would give up the business as not profitable.

We did teach the pirates a lesson. That lesson is that Americans are not good hostages. Americans mean dead pirates, not money. That lesson was originally taught by Thomas Jefferson and John Adams way back at the beginning of our country. It was time the world relearned the lesson. Congratulations to all those involved in the rescue. There were a lot of heroes in this story. That is what makes America different from other places. We breed heroes here in the United States from ordinary people.

Barack Obama has been President for almost three months. In that time, he has spent most of it demonizing CEO’s and other high profile leaders of the financial and business industry. Part of the demonizing has been about the excesses that these executives do in the way of private jets and other executive perks. Some of the excesses are probably justified. Most of the things that seem to be excesses are really well deserved perks. We on the outside would have a difficult time to judge.

For example: Some of those AIG executives that got those big bonus checks had been working for $1 in pay. Those checks amounted to their pay for the year, not a bonus on top of what they had been making. Had that been brought out, the bonus checks would have been brought into better perspective. Unfortunately, it was better politically for the Democrats to demonize those executives than it was to tell the truth.

Michelle Malkin had an article this week that said that Barack Obama was flying a chef in from St. Louis to make some pizza’s for the White House Good Friday celebration. Now, I like pizza as much as anyone, but flying a chef in to cook pizza is a bit much. There has to be at least one good pizza place in Washington, D.C. I have never had a St. Louis pizza so I cannot comment on whether they are any better than any other, but the cost cannot be justified. Talk about your executive perks, this is right up there with any executive perk that Barack and the Democrats demonized about the CEO’s.

There has not been one peep of foul from any Democrat over this obvious show of excess by Barack Obama. It just shows the hypocrisy that rules the Democrats. If a Democrat does it there is no problem. If a Republican does it, cry foul to the nearest reporter and get your face on the TV. Keep crying foul until you have convinced the public that this Republican has just killed his mother. But, no matter what, keep quiet about anything a Democrat does. The party comes first. Party over principles is the code word for Democrat politicians. There was another ideology that had a similar code. I believe that ideology was the communist party. I am not calling the Democrats communists, I am just pointing out a similarity between the two parties. The similarity could just be a coincidence. Just like Republicans and Nazi’s both have men in their party. That is a similarity that is just a coincidence, not a problem.

Seven members of the Congressional Black Caucus visited Cuba this past week to visit with Raul and Fidel Castro. They came back with glowing reports on both Raul and Fidel. They also reported on how wonderful conditions are in Cuba. They said nothing about the civil rights abuses going on right now against blacks in Cuba. Blacks are systematically rounded up and jailed over the most trivial of charges. This way they keep the majority black population under control. The ruling class in Cuba is entirely white. There are no brown or black skinned people in Cuban leadership. If this were to occur in America, these black Congressmen would cry foul to the nearest reporter. Since it is being done by a favorite, Fidel Castro, they say nothing. Politics trumps race when it comes to some liberal black politicians. This is the same pattern that we have with the excesses of the CEO’s and Barack Obama. You cry foul when a Republican leaning CEO commits an excess that can be demonized. You are silent when a Democrat goes even farther.

What we have are hypocrites in leadership positions in the Democrat Party. They say one thing and do another. They demonize one person and do the same or worse themselves. For example: A Republican Congressman sends questionable emails to Congressional Pages. That is demonized as the worst crime ever committed by a Congressman. The Republican resigns in disgrace. Democrat Congressmen have had affairs with those pages and were re-elected many times from their districts. A Republican has an affair with a woman so he has to resign in disgrace. A Democrat has an affair with a man and that man runs a prostitution ring out of the Congressman’s home. The Democrat is rewarded by given leadership positions. A Republican makes a comment to a retiring friend that we needed others like him. The Republican is forced to resign from leadership and almost lost his Senate seat, because Democrats accuse him of supporting the KKK. A Democrat is a leader in the KKK and is rewarded with many terms in the Senate and many Senate leadership positions. Does anyone see a pattern here? Democrats always project what they do onto the Republicans then get everyone to believe that the Republicans did the deed.

What we need is honesty in politics. When we find out that a politician is not telling the truth, that politician needs to be required to tell the truth on the same medium that they reported the falsehood. I know that some of the falsehoods are just matters of semantics, like the KKK example. In the examples with the pages and affairs, the Democrat politicians were open about their affairs and were rewarded anyway. That just shows you that Republican voters and politicians have some sense of morality, Democrats do not. Democrats believe that they can say or do anything and it is just fine. Republicans have to be held to a higher standard than the general public. I just think Democrats should have to be held to the same standard that Republicans are held. It sure would make things a lot better in Washington.

Barack Obama is facing something that was first faced by Thomas Jefferson over 200 years ago. He has a ship captain that has been captured by pirates. The entire ship had been captured by the pirates, but the crew took the initiative and captured the ship back. The pirates escaped with the captain to a small emergency boat that has no gasoline for power. So we have a good old fashioned Mexican standoff.

The pirates claim that they are not afraid of the US Navy. They claim that they will stand with their captive and not release him. They also say that if the US Navy tries anything, they will kill their hostage. The problem with their killing the hostage is that is their only bargaining chip. As long as the captain is alive, they have something to bargain with. As soon as the captain is dead, the pirates are probably dead as well.

There is one warship currently in place and two more on the way. Having more warships present will not make any difference on the outcome. One warship was more than enough. If one could not handle the situation, three will not be able to handle it any better. The only advantage of three is that there might be personnel on the other two that could help rescue the hostage. If there is to be negotiations, the other two ships are not needed. The other two ships could provide better security to keep the emergency boat where it is.

Barack Obama will need to make the executive decision on whether to negotiate or to try to rescue the captain. Since Barack Obama is a liberal, he will choose the option to negotiate. Liberals will never take action. They will talk even though talking is futile. They will also assume that the other side is negotiating in good faith. That is usually not the case when dealing with outlaws or rogue nations.

What Obama should do is give the pirates an ultimatum. He should say that the pirates have until a set time to release the captain. After that time, one pirate will die every hour until the captain is released. If the pirates try and counter by killing the captain, then the pirate ship should be blown out of the water. But, there should not be negotiations with pirates. We do not want to make the same mistake we made when we were a brand new country. Then we negotiated and it just brought more piracy. We had to take military action to end the piracy in the early 1800’s and it will do so today.

If the pirates find out that seizing American hostages is unprofitable, they will leave American shipping alone. Strong action by the President and the US Navy will avert problems in the future for shipping in the region. Weak action by the President and the US Navy will cause continual problems for US shipping and all shipping in the region. It would just make the pirates bolder.

The decision rests with the President. Does he act like a President and solve the problem or does he act like the noodle backed liberal that he is? Let us all hope that he takes up the mantle left by Thomas Jefferson and John Adams. They decided that piracy in the northern part of Africa would not be tolerated and they eliminated it. It took the creation of the US Navy and dedicated service. We need to act like the leader of the free world, not some third rate power. The ball is in Obama’s court and the clock is ticking.

With all the high profile shootings lately, there is one thing that is certain: Liberals will call for more gun control. In the liberal mind, people don’t kill people, guns kill people. In each one of these cases the person that did the killings was described by people as someone who was likely to commit an act like this. All of them would have to be considered somewhat off their rocker or crazy. Ann Coulter wrote about this in her article this week. I cannot write as well as she does, nor do I have her sense of humor. I do appreciate both and recommend her article highly.

Barack Obama is a liberal, as if that is any surprise. When the North Korean dictator shot of the missile this past week, he made the typical liberal response; he called for controls on missiles and nuclear weapons. What he should have done is stop the missile from being fired in the first place. If the missile had been fired and we had been unable to stop it, which I doubt, we should have shot it out of the air. It does not matter that the missile was a failure and fell into the ocean. That it was fired and we did nothing says that we are weak and cannot stop crackpots from shooting missiles and nuclear weapons at us. Do not think that Russia, China, Iran and the terrorists were not watching and learning from this little episode.

Back to gun control, liberals are calling for more gun control because some nut cases, that should not have had guns, killed people. Liberals believe that if all law abiding citizens give up owning guns, then the outlaws will give up their guns as well. That will end gun ownership and we can all live happy lives together. As is shown in every case where guns are taken from citizens, crime goes up. Every time gun ownership is encouraged, crime goes down. In every one of the mass murders of civilians, if even one person had a concealed handgun there would have been less loss of life. That was shown recently at a Burger King where a gunman came in to kill people. A person had a concealed handgun. He pulled out his gun and the only two people injured were the concealed handgun person who was wounded and the gunman who was killed. The other patrons of the store were unharmed, though I am sure that they were scared. I would rather be scared and alive than scared and dead any day.

The Second Amendment to the Constitution was put there for a number of reasons. The main reason was so the individual American could defend himself and his country. The other reason was so the individual American could defend himself against an intrusive government. The Founding Fathers did not trust government. They believed that government had a tendency to become totalitarian over time. The Second Amendment was written to keep the American government honest. If the American people were armed, it would be difficult for the government to become totalitarian, even if it wanted to. With the current occupant of the White House, I can see how the Founding Fathers knew what they were talking about. I never believed that we would ever need to defend ourselves from our government, now I am not so sure.

I am not endorsing the killing of anyone. I do not believe in killing. But, I do believe that a person should have a right to defend himself/herself against a person who wants to do them harm. If that defense requires that one of us dies, then it will be the other person. When I became a Deputy Sheriff I was asked if I could ever kill another person. I said that I did not know, but if it was a choice between him and me, it would be him. The committee liked that answer because I was honest.

We need to have the right to bear arms in the United States as much to protect ourselves and our property as against the government. That right was written as the second Amendment. That means the Founding Fathers believed it second in importance to freedom of speech. We should not give this right up just because a few lunatics obtained guns illegally and used them. The old saying still goes: If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.

Barack Obama is returning from his magical mystery tour of Europe. It is time to look at exactly what he has accomplished in this trip.

First of all, there was the media adulation. They could not get enough of the Obama’s. That was the same no matter where they went. It was more like they were rock stars than the President and First Lady. For that part of the trip, I would have to give them a gold medal. They handled that part of the trip with great success. I would give this part an A.

Second, there was the entire meeting with Queen Elizabeth II. That was a disaster from start to finish. First, he gives the queen a second class gift of his talks. I mean, that is taking this public adulation too far to think that the queen would want to hear him talk. Then there was the protocol problem between Michelle and the Queen. That is minor. It is a mistake that any person not acquainted with royalty could easily make. I would have to grade this part a C-. The gift was poorly selected and showed a lack of class on the part of Barack Obama.

Third, there was the meeting with the G-20. If you were a socialist, the meeting went very well. Since I believe in capitalism, I believe the meeting went very badly. Barack Obama basically said that he would go along with anything that the Europeans wanted. That is not the stuff of leaders. It is especially not the stuff of the leader of the Free World. Like it or not, Barack Obama is the leader of the Free World, for now. The worst part was having Russian President Medvedev say that they were good buddies. The Russians should fear us, not have us be our best friend. That is a red flag that something is dreadfully wrong. I would have to give this meeting a D-, at best.

Fourth, there was the meeting at NATO where Obama expected Europe to bow to his wishes and send a lot of troops to Afghanistan to help us defeat the Taliban. He did get 4000 troops committed, but they were entirely support troops. He did not get a single combat unit out of his meeting at NATO. I would have to give the NATO meeting a D-.

He then made a couple of speeches and went to Turkey to give more speeches. Those speeches were terrible coming from an American President on foreign soil. He got his facts all wrong and blamed George Bush for all that is wrong in the world. In Turkey, he bowed to the Muslims and tried to make them believe that we are their friend. He did bow to the King of Saudi Arabia which is a major diplomatic disaster. The speeches and visit to Turkey would have to deserve an F.

The last part of his journey was to visit the troops in Iraq. That was a good gesture on his part. From pictures, the soldiers seem to be enjoying the opportunity to meet with the President. A visit from the Commander in Chief is always a stirring time for the soldiers in the field. That he was doing this while his Defense Secretary was announcing cuts in Defense spending is outrageous. Obama is increasing spending by outrageous amounts in every area except for the one area that is essential. In the one area that the government is supposed to do and is essential, he is cutting spending. He is not just cutting the growth; he is cutting the actual spending. I do not know how you can do that when we are at war. The thought just boggles the mind. This part of the journey would have to rate an A for visiting the troops and an F for timing.

The scorecard does not look very good for the trip. In fact, it does resemble the first trip by Juan and Evita Peron after they took power in Argentina. The trip was supposed to be important, but only ended up as a fluff trip. This trip of the Obama’s turned out to be just as much of a fluff trip as the Peron’s.

What I can see out of all this is that Obama has surrounded himself with “Yes” men. His advance team is terrible. The people in charge of selecting gifts for foreign leaders are so bad that there are not words to describe how bad they are. The advance team that briefs the President and his party on what is coming was not much better. The advance people that negotiated with the Europeans before he got there did not do a very good job of nailing down agreements. All told, other than planning the flights and hotels, the trip was a disaster. It was one of, if not the, worst trips by a President in my lifetime.

Yesterday, Vermont became the first state that ratified a bill authorizing people of the same sex to marry. They had to override the veto of the Governor to complete the task. All the other states that have authorized same sex marriage have been because of unelected judges. Dennis Prager discussed this issue on the way to work today.

What is the real issue with same sex marriage? Is it the rights that married people have? No, same sex couples can get the same rights if they so choose. Is it to get the same benefits that married people have? Maybe, but these benefits can be obtained in ways other than getting married.

Then what is the real reason? The answer may lie in the acronym used by the Gays and Lesbians, LGBT. That stands for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender. The gays and lesbians claim that they are that way because it is genetic. People are bisexual and transgender because of choice. That would indicate that the goal of the organization is to blur the line between male and female. If you blur the line between male and female, then bisexual and transgender become more acceptable. Also as an offshoot, gays and lesbians are not considered different at all.

Why throw away thousands of years of Jewish and Christian tradition just because a few people say so? Shouldn’t we acknowledge the wisdom of the ages? There has to be a reason that the Jews and Christians adopted the marriage covenant between men and women only. The reason is obvious. If you want society to continue, you have to have children. The only way to have children is for men and women to get together and create a child. Marriage then protects the woman and children from starvation and death. Traditionally, the man is obligated to care for the woman and children. Both the man and the woman then train the children in what is expected of them to make them good members of the society. This practice has successfully continued civilization to our day. It is a successful practice.

We started to modify that practice when we needed women to work during World War II. At that time, women had to go to work because most of the men were off fighting in the war. Women liked earning a paycheck. When men came back from the war, many women had a difficult time giving up the paycheck to become the housewife again. That started women working. In our time, women have to work to provide enough money to pay for the houses that we own. Generally, men also do not earn enough money to have a wife and children at home like they did before World War II.

Gays and Lesbians say that changing the definition of marriage will not have any impact on society. I believe they are wrong. It will take a few years, but I believe that changing the definition of marriage will confuse the gender roles that men and women have had for thousands of years. In other countries where they have relaxed the marriage laws, marriages are much fewer. That means more women raising children without the aid of a husband. I do not want to sound like a male chauvinist pig, but I believe that men are essential in a family. Boys need to learn how to be men and girls need to know how men are supposed to behave. Just like boys need to learn to respect their mother and sisters, girls need to learn how to be women from their mothers. A family where one of these roles is missing is not a complete family. Studies show that children are less likely to be involved in crime if they come from a home with a father and a mother. I am not saying that there are not good people that were raised by just their father or their mother. I am just saying that in general, children born and raised to a married father and mother turn out better.

If you want a predictor of crime, one of the best statistics you could use is did the person come from a one parent household. If you want a predictor of poverty, one of the best statistics you could use is did the person come from a one parent household. The percentages are against one parent households being successful. There are many that are, but there is a larger number that do not make it. There are just not enough statistics on children raised by two fathers or two mothers to be valid, but my guess is that they are not much better than single parent households. Only one gender is represented. A successful family has both genders as role models.

I have been successfully married for almost 37 years. During that time, each of us has had a role in raising our children. Both of us taught them different things and that turned them into whole individuals. Our children laugh when they identify that this or that trait came from me. It makes us closer as a family. I frequently see my father in the things that I do and say. I am sure that my sons do the same thing. As I look back, I would not change much. I would still marry and raise my seven wonderful children, even if I knew how much of a problem that was going to be.

Our historically challenged President is off jet setting around the world, changing the past. The latest was the talk he gave just before jetting off to Turkey. In the talk, he talked about how the Prague Spring was a success in changing Europe. He must be joking. The Prague Spring was a total disaster from any perspective. The only problem with the Prague Spring is that the left has decided that it was a golden time and taught that it was successful in changing communism.

Let me refresh your memory like Dennis Prager did mine this morning. In 1968, Alexander Dubcek instituted some reforms in Czechoslovakia. This included, but was not limited to, freedom of expression. Since the Soviet Russians hated freedom of expression, they feared the power of freedom; they decided to put down this rebellion while it was still a peaceful, non-violent revolution.

The Soviets sent in the tanks and slaughtered thousands. The Czechoslovakian government was ousted and a puppet government was put in its place. Maybe Alexander Dubcek expected America to come to his aid. That was not to be as President Johnson was bogged down in Vietnam and was hoping to be re-elected. Getting America involved with the Soviets right then would have been impossible for President Johnson. It was obvious that the Soviets did not fear anything that the Americans would do at that time. They just came in and cleaned house. Those that were not killed outright were sent to the Gulags and never heard from again.

The Prague Spring was the second time in 12 years that the Soviets came in and cleaned out reform minded people from Eastern European states. The first was in 1956 in Hungary and the second in Prague. They followed the same script each time. They came in with tanks and guns to defeat upstarts that thought they could win with ideas and good intentions.

What you intend to do is great. What you actually do is better. If you intend to change the world with ideas, you better have some way to back it up. Unfortunately, the world is filled with people with guns. Those that have the guns make the rules. You can have all the wonderful thoughts in the world, but without guns behind it, are useless. Of course, a people that have no ideas and have guns is also not good. The best of all possible worlds is when people have great ideas and are willing to back it up with their lives and guns. Then you have the ability to change the world. Barack Obama thinks that ideas change the world if they are good. That is wrong. Just look at Prague and Hungary and you will see that good ideas and good intentions are not enough. You also have to be able to back them up with guns.

A world without guns would be nice, but it will never happen in my lifetime. As Americans, we have the best ideas and we also have the best military. We do not have the best leader right now. We have a leader that thinks that good intentions are better than a strong military at deterring terrorists. We have a leader that thinks that if your intentions are good enough, you can keep all the bad guys at bay. He is living in a dream world. Unfortunately, that dream world can and will get a lot of people killed if Obama does not wake up soon.

On a side, but related note, why did Barack Obama bow to the King of Saudi Arabia? He should have known that American Presidents bow to nobody. I knew that for at least the last 50 of my 60 years. If I knew it so long, surely he has known it for a long time. When Bill Clinton was President, the New York Times made a point of lecturing Mr. Clinton on the fact that Presidents do not bow to anyone. That was over a head nod to the Emperor of Japan. Surely someone in his party would have remembered the lecture from the New York Times on the subject just a few years ago.

I am becoming more and more convinced that Barack Obama surrounds himself with “yes” men. The number of times he puts his foot in his mouth or he does something stupid or he gives a tacky gift to another head of state, it cannot just be innocent mistakes. There is a pattern emerging. That pattern is one of incompetence abroad and dealing with heads of state. That is what was warned during the election, but everyone scoffed and said it would not matter. Well, it does matter. Barack Obama represents the United States. When he acts like a country bumpkin, it makes the entire United States look like a bunch of country bumpkins. We used to run a tight ship over at the State Department when it came to this kind of thing. Now the wheels have come off the bus in only three months, disgraceful.