Yes and Eugene Joseph’s disappointed too. The WaPo scribbler’s 1/29/’12 piece opens with some thunder about his hero “botching” the contraceptive issue and complains that the president’s ”progressive Catholic allies” have been “thrown under the bus”(Wow! that’s an original turn of phrase. Sure wish I’d thought of it.) However the key sentence comes later and begins, “ But speaking as an American liberal who believes that religious pluralism imposes certain obligations on government,…”

And ladies and gents there it is in plain black and white: something called “religious pluralism” does what? Why it “imposes certain obligations on government…” Now this is instructive. Mr. Dionne holds an entirely novel view of freedom of religion and conscience; to wit: We don’t have it! Instead the fact of many religions means the government has “certain obligations” Certain obligations Mr Dionne!? And what might they be? A general, but meaningless nod toward something or other called pluralism?

(Dionne is a Catholic. He surely knows the faith claims made by his church give no quarter whatever to pluralism. The Roman Catholic Church is bold to proclaim that it alone is the True Church and bears the marks that prove it to be founded by Jesus Christ, namely that it is One, Holy, Catholic or Universal and Apostolic. It teaches that in so far as other denominations differ from Catholic teaching they are in error. It holds that the Bishop of Rome or Pope is The Vicar of Christ on Earth who is infallible speaking “ex cathedra” and further that the pope is like Peter “the rock” upon which Christ founded his one true church. Now this same church unlike the Obama administration also holds that all human beings with informed conscience must listen to that conscience because it is of God. The RC church also since Vatican II has been a leader in preaching and practicing tolerance where tolerance does not mean countenancing wrong doing, abortion for example I add this to in no way cast aspersions on Roman Catholicism, but as a small example of the essential meaninglessness of pluralism as modern-day liberalism has it.)

Dionne’s entire objection is the kind that usually gets laws tossed out because it is vague, that is to say meaningless. Our founders take the whole issue much more seriously and thus we have, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” I am in no way a constitutional scholar, but of course I don’t have to be; nor does anyone. The “free exercise therof” needs no explanation, and it most definitely doesn’t impose just “certain obligations” on government. That word “prohibiting” clearly and positively means a citizens right of faith and conscience (religion) is guaranteed. The government, Mr Dionne, doesn’t have an obligation to consider this or that exercise of religion; it is prohibited from interfering in the realm of faith and conscience. Period.

Pitiful naivete is demonstrated in the whole Dionne column. He ought to know that The Left will always sooner or later attempt to control conscience. And yes, before the objection is raised, I mean what Dionne’s own Catholic faith calls informed conscience. He is not only naive but to use another Catholic phrase of art: Invincibly Ignorant. Washington habitue that he is, it is beyond incredible that he ever looked to the rising federal health care tyranny to guard religious freedom. The whole history of The Left tells all of us what’s coming. Health care inevitably involves the deepest questions of human existance which in turn mean questions of right and wrong. Health care can not ultimately be separated from religion and conscience.

Obamacare per force must enter into matters of faith. Dionne’s column is useful in a way he no doubt didn’t intend.

As an aside I’d like to venture a prediction, and I’m pretty sure of this one. The administration will at least partly cave on the Catholics and contraceptives issue. Dionne will no doubt write another column in the manner of a boot licker who thanks his master for not kicking, but only slapping him.

“He got it right because he hadn’t done it before…” Patrick Sweeney (The Gun Digest Book of the Glock 2008)

Gaston Glock’s seventeenth patent filed in August 1981 covered the innovative design of a semi-automatic handgun and so he named it the Glock 17. He spent another nine months testing and improving the weapon which was markedly different from  others because it was largely made of very tough plastic and was designed with no preexisting factory. The 17 had immediate success winning a competition with Europe’s top gun manufacturers for a contract to supply the Austrian Army’s standard side arm.  Paul M. Barrett, an assistant managing editor of Bloomberg Businessweek, researched the Glock saga over 15 years and the compelling result explains in detail how brilliant engineering, canny marketing, publicity both good and bad, leveraging anti-gun politics and plain serendipity helped Glock  become a huge player in the most lucrative gun market of all, the US of A.

Herr Glock had never owned a gun when he decided to compete for the contract to replace the Walther P-38 the long-standing standard-issue side arm  in the Austrian Army. He had enjoyed some success managing a car radiator factory near Vienna and also operated a small business making brass hardware in his garage . This sideline also did some work for the military and thus Glock found out about the army’s search for a new pistol.

Always industrious, Glock began a through study of small guns. “That I knew nothing was my advantage,” he said later.  The 50 year-old did know the army wanted a light durable pistol with more ammo capacity than the P-38; a gun with fewer than 40 parts, a light and smooth trigger and a streamlined frame that would not hang up in a holster.  As he researched  patents and interviewed gun experts Glock decided that he could design a weapon that met the army’s requirements better than anything other makers would likely offer because they were stuck with certain production methods and unlikely to retrain their skilled and expensive labor.

Importantly, Glock also concluded that conventional gun safe levers created problems particularly when the shooter was under stress. He designed a system that included a safety lever adjacent to the trigger along with two “internal” safeties. This feature of his guns, still unchanged, delights those who use Glocks, but along with the extensive  use of plastic makes the Austrian firearm the gun anti-gun groups love to hate.

Gaston Glock was fortunate to have a very talented support staff, perhaps none more so than Karl Walter an Austrian-born US citizen whose marketing for the new pistol quickly cracked the American market.  Walter arranged a review of the 17 by prominent gun writer Peter G. Kokalis, then the technical editor of Soldier of Fortune. When Kokalis visited Glock’s still small manufacturing operation he thought the gun was ugly until he visited Glock’s cellar range and opened fire. In the 1984 review headlined “Plastic Perfection” Kokalis wrote, “The Glock pistol represents an entirely new era in small arms technology”

The high-capacity Glock came along just as many US law enforcement outfits were seeking a weapon that would allow them to outgun criminals. particularly those involved with drugs. Their Smith & Wesson revolvers were thought to offer too little firepower in fights where the opponents often had semi-autos with high capacity magazines. And S&W’s quality had noticeably slipped. Police agencies routinely sent back new Smith’s that were defective out of the box.

Among the seekers was the Jacksonville, FL Sheriff’s office. When a Glock sample arrived chief of firearm training John Rutherford remembered opening the box and exclaiming, “We don’t want any crap like this.” His assistant later retrieved the piece from the couch where Rutherford had tossed it. He was Emanuel Kapolsohn who just a year later would be named one of the top five trainers in Police Defensive Handgun Use and Encounter Tactics. Kapolson knew the 17 was finding its way into police holsters and suggested it be taken seriously. Rutherford took a second look and told Barrett that in a few days, “We were fighting over who was going to get the Glock. It’s just like shooting a revolver, and that’s what everybody liked about it. You pull it out, you pull the trigger and you put it away. That was the beauty of it.”

Rutherford and Kapolson also noted that the Glock had only 34 parts and quality was very high. “You can take 50 Glocks apart and put 50 guns together after mixing all the parts, and they all shoot.” Rutherford’s 90-page report recommending the purchase of Glocks was soon circulating in law enforcement agencies throughout the country.

New York City’s PD early in 1986 banned the Glock in part because of reports (erroneous as it turned out) the part plastic gun was a terrorist weapon of choice. A federal agent had taken a Glock apart,  disguised the metal parts and passed through airport security. This and other incidents led anti-gun groups and politicians to single out Glocks as  particularly dangerous weapons. However NYPD firearms trainers were buying Glocks with their own money and Karl Walter sensed opportunity. During the summer the city’s Emergency Services Unit, the equivalent of other city’s SWAT teams, ordered 70 Glocks. Then in 1988 the police commissioner’s carry permit was examined by the New York Post. The paper discovered the top cop’s carry gun was a Glock 17! The headline called the Glock a “super gun”. Walter couldn’t believe his company’s good fortune; a potentially crippling ban by America’s biggest police department had given the gun maker priceless publicity. Much of the book relates how Glock through luck, but mostly by deliberate cunning turned the lemons of the anti-gun crowd into profitable lemonade.

Anti-gun folks slowly began to learn that frontal assaults on Glock didn’t work. Glock in turn became expert at using adverse publicity to burnish its image as the bad-a**ed gun you’ve got to own. Any conservative will enjoy Barrett’s numerous and often humorous descriptions of liberal fear-mongering about the Glock. Even Hollywood got into it: In Die Hard 2 the Bruce Willis character shouts to an airport police captain, “That punk pulled a Glock 7 on me! You know what that is? It’s a porcelain gun made in Germany. It doesn’t show up here on your airport x-ray machines, and it costs more than you make here in a month.” No matter that every “fact” in the line is wrong, Barrett notes, the Glock got its very own ”Dirty Harry” moment.

Smith & Wesson meanwhile waited too long to take its new competitor seriously and when it did was immediately one-upped by old man Glock himself. S&W working with the FBI developed a .40 caliber round designed for a softer recoil than 10 mm rounds which female agents disliked. Glock went to the S&W exhibit at the SHOT show in LasVegas and scooped up a few of the new rounds . He quickly realized that only minor changes were required to convert the 17 to the new .40 cal ammo. Because Glock’s manufacturing is computer based the company introduced a .40 cal model quickly and it was an immediate hit especially with police departments. The S&W offering was too late and never caught on.

Today about two-thirds of US police officers carry Glocks including the majority of the NYPD. This in turn has helped drive regular consumer sales. And Gaston Glock who survived an attempt on his life by a hammer-weilding hitman hired by Glock’s financial advisor is a very wealthy man of 82 with a young bride.

This book could plausibly be on the required reading list for business, marketing, political science and sociology curriculums. The main player is the Glock autopistol, a weapon that trainers praise for making bad shots average and average shots good. A product of the highest quality with a 70 per cent profit margin. A gun with a dark reputation not at all supported by crime statistics. An innovative gun marketed on its merits and plenty of sex and booze. A gun that made anti-gun folks examine all of their tactics which generally failed and quite often resulted in another Glock marketing triumph. Author Barrett, himself a fan of the unique pistol, deftly weaves it all  together for a most interesting read.

In Westfield, NY, if you shop at the local supermarket you will likely see many of the welfare-state perks.

It’s not quite as easy as it once was because many of those perks  now resemble pay checks and credit cards. But if there are two or three folks ahead you at check out and you have good or decently corrected vision you can easily spot checks and plastic from various agencies representing various programs to help “the poor”

Food stamps are common. I’m not quite sure just how one obtains them, and am equally ignorant about the current appearance. I do know they are common because the cashiers will often mention that this or that can’t be purchased with them. Then there is “WIF”. Very common. Checks from Chautauqua County and New York state are abundant. Some are no doubt actual pay checks for county and state employees.

During the warmer months I notice many of “the poor” have a tattoo or two or three. Many buy cigarettes, scratch-off lottery tickets and plenty of beer and snacks. Lest I sound puritanical let me add that I think all of these choices are none of my business. I just don’t like helping to pay for them. Also, to me “poor” means having trouble with provisions, basic shelter and suitable clothing.

My view of adequate food doesn’t include salty snacks, beer and ciggies. If money for basic shelter and proper clothes is a problem the tattoo(s) will have to wait. A tattoo does cost money doesn’t it?

Noticing such things during the past few decades has set me firmly against the idea of reincarnation. If I were to be placed by an angry Karmic Justice into the hands of many of the mommies and daddies I see in various circumstances I would know that I had been very bad indeed in a previous go round.

One local school district (Ripley, NY) estimates the cost of public K-12 education at approximately $250,000. This doesn’t include things like head start etc. The cost of health care and retirement benefits for the local police department is now about equal to and soon will surpass the payroll for active employees. Most of Chautauqua County’s budget is mandated by Albany and the greatest percentage is for various programs to benefit “the poor”

A son of a friend of mine is addicted to opioids. His dad asked last summer if I could take the lad to a rehab in Buffalo (Dad had last minute car trouble) After delivering the young man into the hands of the rehab industry (This, he told me, was his fourth go round) I headed back to my trusty Honda. A not unattractive young lady accosted me in the parking lot and offered certain favors for twenty bucks. Even a hard hearted sob like me was moved to offer some real help. I told her I thought she was on the road to ruin. She explained that she is “always broke” because her boy friend is a drug addict. I told her to leave him. She said she couldn’t, so having offered a rational solution to her plight I drove home quite certain that many of “the poor” have similar stories.

In my opinion true poverty ie. the lack of life’s basic necessities through no fault of your own or genuine misfortune is fairly rare in the United States. Much of the “poverty” I’ve seen is either a choice or the result of many bad choices.

I was born in 1945 just after the war. My dad made very little money. We didn’t have a car till I was seven and I slept in the same bed as my two brothers till I was nine. Our flat had one bedroom; Mom and Dad slept in what was supposed to be a small dining room. When my sister came along in 1954 my parents had saved enough for a down payment on a modest house. (Just nine doors away from young Tim Russert and his family as it turned out)

I never considered we were poor. Of course I was blessed with the one indispensable: great parents. It did not cost $250,000 for my K-12 education. I paid $500 tuition for my first college year at the University of Buffalo. I quit college for a full-time radio job. Then came the draft and I was a $78 a month private in the US Army. Later, there was 13 months in Saigon spinning the hits on AFRV. So my country borrowed two years of my life.  A tax of sorts.

I’ve paid plenty of taxes of course. Plenty. My happiest memory of “investing in government” was my time in New York City where my net pay was less than my total tax deduction .

When I reached fifty-five or so I was a vice-president at my firm and making the best living ever, but eager to salt some away not for retirement, but for a buffer that would allow me to explore other vocations and aspirations. The tax code really put a crimp on this as I now was in “the rich” bracket.

And so on and so forth. I write this not for sympathy-I have a good life. Rather I write it as a long explanatory preface to the following:

I don’t give a rhodent’s rear end about “the poor” and I could not care less about Romney’s not focusing on “the poor”

Mr Faithful and Ms True collided with Mr & Mrs Hardin Colfax  last evening. Time of the encounter was fixed exactly at 8 pm Eastern Standard. It happened on The Trail.

Yes, at eight exactly grinning anchorbots screamed  “Romney Wins!!” Faithful and True also screamed. “Oh! Oh! How could they know so quickly??? The doors at the polling places have not yet been fully closed!” Faithful hit the remote. Another outlet but the same story. Even the same words! “Romney Wins” This was too much. Not only was the whole thing rigged, fixed, bought and paid for; but The Establishment was rubbing their noses in it! They didn’t even bother to write different scripts. Just “Romney Wins!” They think its funny!

“It’s a big darn circus,” Faithful whooped. Pure shook her head and had energy only to whisper, “That’s why they use the elephant! Oh Lord! It’s just a big circus.”

Earlier that same day two so called “respected” polls had indicated just this result: Romney Wins. How could they know? Unless it was a rig job, a fix job.

They’d been had…again. An election-so called had been carefully staged. People voted. ID’s were checked. It looked real but it couldn’t be. Billionaire Mitt Romney, a card-carrying Socialist! had been declared the victor on all the hundreds of channels at exactly eight pm Eastern Standard. Romney! His father made little kitty cars! His real name was Pablo Ramos, but he changed it when he entered the country illegally! Then he got rich and caused trouble. American cars were big gas hogs, he bleated. We need kitty cars!

To the computer! Faithful and Pure were angry and very sad too. Salty tears blurred their efforts to communicate with the like minded. Mistakes were made. A few hard cases studied the output. In the safe privacy of their own home they felt free to laugh.

They munched on their nothing burgers and said to no one in particular, “This doesn’t pass mustard!” They read that new theories were now required. Some complained that they were being played for clowns. Some opined that an old man was waving a bong at his cadre of crazies.

More than a few very nice HD flat screens bit the dust. And the owners later found the extra warrenty didn’t cover “abuse” Was throwing the chip-dip football helmet through the screen “abuse”? Yeah, probably. That’s a rigged up thing too. It was a tough night…and don’t you dare laugh!

Newt Gingrich’s last attempt to ride the big elephant will(did) effectively end tonight when Mitt Romney wins(won) the Florida GOP primary with a large plurality. UPDATE: I wrote this very early today. Since then FL Sen. Marco Rubio has appeared on CNN and predicted tonight’s winner will likely carry the GOP standard in November. Also two late-breaking polls show Romney with a total greater than the sum of the projections for Gingrich and Santorum. Now we know with about 80 % of votes counted those polls got it just about right.  So , unexpected and unlikely developments aside, it’s Mitt. Get used to it. Embrace it. And please don’t whimper that Romney is a sure loser in November; that he’s just another gooey cone of vanilla soft serve from the establishment refreshment stand.

Not so. Not even close. My confidence comes partly from events in Iowa and then last week. Romney’s desire to be 45 is much more a part of who he is than his apparent inclination to be nice. I’m as certain as any mere observer can be that Romney is a nice fellow in the sense he’d be a great next-door neighbor. However Newt’s unexpected challenge to Romney allowed us to see how the latter reacted under pressure, particularly after results in South Carolina and the early polling in Florida indicated Gingrich had caught fire.

Well the Gingrich fire is out. Romney and his team demonstrated the quick reflexes necessary to dispatch Newt and do it with celerity. Team Romney and not the least, the candidate himself turned back the Newt mo in about a week. As in Iowa the ads on behalf of Romney appeared on TV 24-7; almost all negative. But more advertising money doesn’t explain Romney’s much improved debate performances. Mitt proved he’s a quick study as he successfully made the changes recommended by his new debate coach who previously guided Michelle Bachmann. Tonight Romney gave a very upbeat and conservative victory speech. I am amazed at the improvement Romney has displayed since South Carolina. Newt deserves a Thank You card for jolting Romney and impelling him to improve as a candidate.

The former Massachusetts honcho left no doubt that he can be the stormin’ Mormon as he smacked down Newt in both debates. Newt had until last week used his debate time more effectively than any of the others so the reversal was impressive and revealed that Romney has the skills to debate Obama.

As the first month of 2012 ends it still seems likely that the American economy will be Topic One in the electioneering. Romney has great credentials for just that kind of contest. Democrats can bring out every worker laid off because of Bain Capital. They can paint Romney as an out of touch rich boy. It won’t work. It will just remind voters that Mitt has created jobs, has the smarts to make a fortune and is much the better choice to get the US economy up to speed. Tonight Romney contrasted his deep experience in the private sector with President Obama’s miserable performance to date. Obama and his merry men and women will bluster that they can’t wait to attack Mr 1% in the general. It won’t work. Romney is much more fluent in matters economic than 44.

And Obamacare will be on the table. Who better to pick it apart than Romney who can very plausibly argue that having been there, done that, he has much better answers to the very real problems of health care. Who better than Romney to detail flaw by flaw why Obamacare has to be repealed? And tonight Romney again pledged to repeal Obamacare.

The dumb card? Forget it. In fact President Obama may look a bit like the deer in the headlights when he’s Mano a Mano with Mitt on the debate stage as the questions come on jobs, regulation, trade and the like. How will Obama and Democrats down the line respond as Romney plainly explains how the so-called stimulus package wasted money, how Obama’s anti-fossil fuel policies have created high energy prices that are a drag on the average household?

This past week many of my reservations concerning Mitt Romney disappeared. Most importantly he showed the ability to both take  the gloves off and put the brass knuckles on. Unlike Dole and McCain he will use the entire political weapons inventory. We won’t be left sputtering at the TV as our guy decides not to land a punch to prove something to someone somewhere about fairness even as he bends over due to a below the belt whack from his opponent.

UPDATE#2: Today I have read much anti-Romney polemic here. I don’t hold with most of it. Romney is not “stealing” the nomination nor is it “rigged” The man from Massachusetts simply got to 2012 “firstest with the mostest” in a phrase coined, I think, by a Confederate general. I was for Jon Huntsman. Huntsman made a bet on New Hampshire and spent a great deal of time and significant amount of dough there. He finished third and Romney wasn’t to blame. Huntsman like Perry failed to convince enough voters. No black magic involved. I have some sympathy for Newt though. Some of the pro-Romney ads were over the top. However, can anyone argue that Gingrich would not face similar and probably heavier fire in the general?

Tonight Newt promised to soldier on as the genuine conservative. Gingrich also gave a brief outline of a new Contract With America. Gingrich’s remarks had to my ears at least a distinct echo of the bunker. Rick Santorum admitted that either himself or Gingrich will have to quit if Romney is to be stopped. He suggested that Gingrich should be the one to leave because Gingrich’s baggage has become an issue and thus saps energy from the conservative alternative.

Yes, it’s still a four man race but Mitt by later today will have(tonight has) lapped the field. The checkered flag is in view and the singing fat lady is ready to wave it.

Well maybe when the first Starbucks opens. They could offer their exclusive “Luna Latte”

Honeymoons on the Moon? “Oh Sweetie I’d kiss you if it weren’t for this here space suit.” Or “We coulda’ gone to Vegas! But no!” How about the disappointed newlyweds who discover you can’t take romantic earth-lit cruises on the Sea of Tranquillity.

Oh well, as I noted in a previous and deliberately mis-titled post (Newt Is Best Qualified), it is the “judgment thing” with Gingrich. He came out of SC with much mo. So then he decides to propose a colony…on the freakin’ Moon. It’s a big idea. Yes Newt so big and so heavy it just helped sink your ship.

Unemployment is awful. Federal spending is out of control. Iran may get the Bomb. But Florida has “The Space Coast” and Newt went for it. Went for it with a proposal that the old Doc himself was able to skewer with the best line of the recent debate when Paul joked that some politicians ought to be sent to our nearest neighbor in space.

Well, it was inevitable. At 68 Newt has not yet learned caution. He even forgot history in this case. His Moon dream reminded me of the failed Vanguard rocket early in the space race.There was ignition, a big poof and a teeny would be satellite left beeping forlornly on the beach.

I post this in the spirit of Redstate’s seeking to promote conservative ideals and clean house in the Republican Party.

UPDATE: None other than Brother Erickson noted that Ron Paul gave some of the best answers in tonights (1-26) debate. These answers concerned domestic issues. Newt Gingrich seemed eager to throw praise Paul’s way. So for politically minded and rational folks the Paul campaign offers an opportunity to expand the base.

Dr. Ron Paul for a variety of mostly valid reasons is not popular nor supported by the Redstate community. I myself do not support him. I don’t believe he has any chance of being the GOP nominee. In particular I find his foreign views generally incoherent if not dangerous. In some respects he strikes me as a novelty candidate, a kind of reductio ad absurdum of libertarian, isolationist conservatism.

I also believe that certain of his views could be usefully co-opted to expand the reach of the Republican Party. Certainly we can have a discussion about the Federal Reserve, an immensely powerful institution without elected officials and operating in partial secrecy. Certainly we can have a discussion about the number of US bases abroad. Certainly the so-called War on Drugs has and is having unintended consequences just as Prohibition did. You may disagree with Paul but on these topics at least there is nothing “nutty”.

Dr Paul has some appeal to the under thirty demographic. Are they all or even mostly “nutty” Should the Republican Party just write off Paul and his supporters? Is there nothing to be learned by reasonably examining his appeal. Is there something scary about doing so? Will doing so cause some kind of lasting harm, if any? Of course not. Studying a set of political, policy and campaign points can not of itself cause harm.

And the last I checked Paul has an R after his name. The GOP hasn’t tossed him. This past debate he indicated to my satisfaction at least that he won’t run under another label.

I find some of the attacks leveled against Paul to be fanatical. And fanatical and conservative don’t mix. That’s my opinion. But some of the charges made against Paul and his supporters are false, fictitious and untrue. That is a fact. This kind of thing is in the Leninist tradition. It has no place in the GOP. There is nothing of conservative ideals in it.

Eric Dondero, Paul’s senior aide from 1997 to 2003 who filled other posts for Paul starting in 1987 wrote the following Dec 26, 2011 ( I found this on Right Wing News): “I’ve noticed in some media that my words have been twisted and used for an agenda by both sides.” Writing to “set the record straight” he continues. “Is Ron Paul a “racist” In short, No. I’ve worked for the man 12 years, pretty consistently. I never heard a racist word toward Blacks or Jews come out of his mouth. Not once. (Italics mine) Dondero adds that Paul has hired many Blacks and Hispanics.

Dondero does describe his former boss as “clueless” and “out of touch” concerning African-American and Hispanic culture.

Dondero, himself part Jewish vehemently denies Paul is anti-Semitic, “Absolutely No. As a Jew (half on my mother’s side) I can categorically say that I never heard anything out of his mouth, in hundreds of speeches I listened too (sic) over the years or in my personal presence that could be called “Anti-Semite” No slurs. No derogatory remarks” (Italics mine)

Dondero is equally frank about Paul’s foreign policy views and labels them “Anti-Israel” Paul sides with Palestinians, and further wants an abolition of the Jewish state according to Dondero.

Mr. Dondero’s article devotes considerable words to Paul and Gays. Succinctly, Dondero concludes Paul is somewhat uncomfortable with Gays, but is not a homo-phobe.

Paul is harshly criticized for his foreign policy views which Dondero describes as “sheer lunacy” Dondero writes that Paul was deeply influenced by Joe Becker, the latter a disciple of anarchist Lew Rockwell. Paul under intense staff pressure voted for the military action in Afghanistan following 9-11. Not to do so would have been “political suicide” according to Dondero who along with other staffers was much relieved.

Dondero characterizes the flap over what he calls “silly remarks” in some of Paul’s newsletters as a side show.What he terms the “big scandal” is Paul’s”horrendously outrageous views on foreign policy, Israel and national security for the United States”

So Dondero, rightly in my opinion, provides enough information to raise objections of the most serious kind to the Paul candidacy. But if his criticism is credible then it also seems credible that Paul is not a racist, is not anti-semitic, is not a homo-phobe. I am quite aware that many conservatives might view Paul’s anti-Israel stance as anti-semitic, but Dondero does not. He just strongly disagrees.

Now I see a post headlined: “well, well it looks like the 19 year-old in New Jersey who was firebombing synagogues is a jew-hating paulbot” The “evidence” for this is that the suspect was posting “Paul 2012″ on facebook. Now this is odd because the poster’s own facebook page states that he DESPISES (his caps) Islam. Not Islamo-fascism, not Islamic terror groups; but the whole of Islam. This is religious bigotry and neither our party or politics has room for it. The post opines that firebombing synagogues is “typical paulbot behavior and all the more reason why the republican (sic) party  need to shun Ron Paul and his loony followers like lepers” Typical paulbot behavior…firebombing synagogues. This is useful political discourse, an ornament for conservatives and Republicans. Yeah right.

The latter post is typical of this self-proclaimed Tea Party media director’s hyperbolic attacks on Paul and his supporters. My favorite is the post which seeks to link Paul and his apparently homicidal acolytes to the murder of three Pittsburgh, PA police officers!

The poster directs readers to his outfit’s web page. One of the videos displayed features Joyce Kaufmann calling for “bullets” if “ballots” don’t work. (Video July 2, 2010) Also prominently featured is “Micheal the Black Man” (Micheal Warns) who preaches that Satan is actually one-third of all the Black women in the US. Real name: “Lilith” Racist? Well I suspect Black women, at least a third of them, would find it so.

I disagree with a lot of what Ron Paul is attempting to sell. Not all of it however. As I wrote above, he raises some legitimate points. He also does it in the clear light of day. You can agree or disagree. You may argue he brings disrepute on our party and philosophy, but despising Islam, calling for violence and fronting for racist religious views definitely harms our cause. The Huffington Post already has picked up on Joyce Kaufmann noting that she advocated hanging illegal immigrants who were arrested.

I am 66. I am proud to be a conservative. I believe the cause of limited constitutional governance deserves all the support I can muster in the public square.  No despising, no hating, no hyperbole necessary.

And so the Speaker of the House taking his example from a Big Three Anchor should conduct tonight’s Obama re-elect er uh that is the President’s all-important State of the Union media event, no didn’t mean that; address was the word I was looking for.

This is far more important, and infinitely more solemn than any stinkin’ debate. It is more important and deserves far more attention than even the funeral of a philandering drunk….uh Lion of the Senate. And funereal is a proper tone at that. So an occasional sob or suppressed laughter politely made to sound like a shriek of grief is okey dokey too.

But Gosh Almighty Jeepers no applause to disrupt the SOTU. It’s too important. And comb your hair! Smile only if your teeth have been Cloroxed in the past two months! But no interruptions. It’s all too important; way too weighty for that. You mind now. Uncle Bri doesn’t want to use the bad wooden spoon.

Note: I wish I had thought of the title, but I “borrowed” it from the now suspended Huntsman campaign. Huntsman of course was my  first  choice, but such is war.

Mitt and his Merry Men can’t be happy with Gallop’s latest 5-day rolling average numbers of GOP voter preferences nation wide. Just this week Romney’s lead over second-place Newt Gingrich has narrowed a rather shocking 13 per cent!  Romney led Newt 37-14 at the start of the week. Now it’s a 30-20 proposition. (MOE: +/- 4%)

Gallop carefully notes the latest numbers include only one day of news about the former speaker’s second failed marriage. Paul and Santorum finish the week tied for third at 13 apiece.

When Gallop began tracking this year’s GOP contest Gingrich led Romney 37-22. The Princeton N.J. firm calls Gingrich’s ups and downs “remarkable” and describes the race as one of “unprecedented volatility”

One odd note on Gallop’s latest tracking graph is that Gov Rick Perry’s support was rising on the same slope as Gingrich’s. but of course from a lower number. Was Perry beginning to resonate nationally? We’ll never know.

If Newt wins tomorrow and the national trend continues Mitt looks less inevitable. But there’s that “unprecedented volatility” which continues to be the political big story. Both Mitt and Newt long to ride the Big Elephant, but the ole pachyderm continues playing hard to get.

has a two-hour interview with Newt’s ex. Debating whether to air