Recall that in March, 2010, when the Obamacare battle was raging, following a walk through a Tea Party rally outside the Capitol, black congressional leaders John Lewis and Emanuel Cleaver accused the Tea Party protesters there of spitting on them and calling them the “n-word.”  Media outlets ran with it, but then Andrew Breitbart promised a $100,000 reward to the NAACP if anyone can show a video confirming the charge.  The $100,000 was never paid.

You would think that, with the marvels of modern technology, someone would at least try to fake a video of some tea partiers yelling the n-word, but there have been no takers.

This was the event that put Andrew Breitbart on the map for me and probably for many conservatives.  If ever a media outlet repeated the charge made by Lewis and Cleaver, a fair follow-up question would be whether the charge was ever confirmed, and why the $100,000 Breitbart reward was never collected.

Even without such a question, the nagging suspicion remained in the minds of all news consumers.  After all, is the reporting of the news really reporting the objective facts as they really happened, or is it just a series of accusations of one group on another?  A $100,000 reward to confirm a media narrative that went uncollected is a big stain on the credibility of any media outlet that reported this charge as fact.

Anyway, in recent online debates I have had with liberals, I have heard that you cannot compare the deficits under Presidents Bush and Obama because President Bush did not include the costs of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars in his deficits, whereas President Obama did.  President Obama does the stand-up thing and includes expenditures where they really belong, so it is unfair to compare the deficits under the two presidents.  Liberals have explained this to me several times.

While I don’t claim to be an expert on government spending, I have written a couple of columns that required a cursory research of Congressional Budget Office reports, and this argument sounds a little strange to me.  You would think there would be a footnote next to the relevant deficit numbers, explaining that these numbers are not really apples-to-apples comparisons.  A footnote like this: “oh, by the way, these deficit numbers between 2003 and 2011 are not really fair comparisons.  The costs of the Iraqi and Afghanistan wars have been omitted from the 2003 – 2009 figures, but have been added to the figures since 2009.”  Something like that.  But I haven’t been able to find such a footnote.

So, in the spirit of Andrew Breitbart, I am hereby offering a reward, and keep I mind that I do not have the amount of money that the late Mr. Breitbart had: if anyone can show to me that magic footnote that explains that the deficit numbers of Presidents Obama and Bush are not direct comparisons because of their treatment of war expenditures, I will give to that person my Starbucks card that still has $4.15 credit on it.

Just think of it: $4.15 for a delicious Starbucks coffee drink!  While this might not be enough to get a “Venti” sized anything at Starbucks, this will pay for a “Grandi” sized coffee or Frappuccino.  You can even wait until the holidays when Starbucks sells its pumpkin pie-flavored or peppermint coffee drinks.  How cool is that?

So get to work!  Go to cbo.gov, treasurydirect.gov, or whitehouse.gov/omb and find a report that will show that the annual deficits listed under Bush and Obama really are apples-to-oranges comparisons because of war expenditures.  Show me the footnote, and the Starbucks card is yours.

Not that I blame liberals for trying to fudge the issue.  The deficits under President Obama have truly been nightmarish.  While many of us conservatives were disappointed that President Bush’s annual deficits averaged $251 billion per year during the eight years of his presidency, President Obama finished his first year as president with a 2009 deficit of $1.4 trillion.  And sure, fiscal year 2009 overlapped both presidencies.

But what about the years 2010 and 2011?  Free from the sinister influence of President Bush, surely the annual deficits under President Obama for those years would be less horrifying.  But not so: 2010’s deficit was $1.3 trillion, and 2011’s deficit was another $1.3 trillion.  A recent CBO study even projected that the deficit for 2012 looks to be another $1.2 trillion.  The United States now has a total debt of $15.7 trillion, making President Obama the most debt-inducing president of all.

With deficits like these, the interest part of our annual spending is going higher and higher, and the CBO projects that by 2020, interest from prior debts will make up 11% of our annual spending.  Gee, you would think that as that interest amount gets higher, our country would be headed to bankruptcy or something.

The recent controversy regarding the Susan G. Komen Foundation and its decision to de-fund and then re-fund Planned Parenthood for breast exams got me thinking: there has to be another place for women to get breast exams besides going to Planned Parenthood.  After all, in any given year, over 300,000 babies are killed inside Planned Parenthood clinics.  Truly a repellent organization.  Fortunately, there is an agency already in charge of examining people all the time: the Transportation Safety Agency (TSA).

It is not as far-fetched as it sounds.

In only a few months Obamacare will kick in, and many doctors nationwide will be out of work.  So why not have the TSA hire them to conduct breast exams on women and prostate exams on men before they board their flights?  The traveler will not only be checked for weapons but will also be given a clean bill of health for breast, prostate, or other types of cancer.

And let’s have a reality check here: it is only a matter of time before terrorists will begin to smuggle explosives up their rear-ends, so body-cavity searches will someday be required in order to board a plane.  Why not have a group of professionally-trained doctors on hand, not only ready to search for weapons but also for pre-cancerous polyps in the large intestine while they are at it?

And having body-cavity searches before boarding an airplane will probably weed out 99.9% of all terrorists, so just by virtue of having such exams we will end terrorism on airplanes as we know it.

Of course, such searches will keep most non-terrorists from flying too.  But what is wrong with that?  Airplanes are too crowded anyway.  Remember those nice, un-crowded airplane flights before airplanes were de-regulated in the 1970’s?  This will be a way to return to those days.

And have you seen the searches that are already being done at the TSA security checkpoints nowadays?  Do a Google search for “TSA” and then press the images tab, and you can see all sorts of invasive, kinky searches being done on the most harmless-looking people.  For example, I just saw a slightly-overweight, balding white guy getting his genitals searched, and the TSA guy wearing latex gloves turned his palms to the outside, to pretend that he was not directly touching the guy’s crotch.  Right!  Why not just hire doctors to do this search and let them directly touch the genitals, and give the traveler a testicular check-up while they are at it?  That would be a win-win situation: safer travel and more regular testicular cancer screening!

Or how about that woman with her arms held out by her side, getting a full-frontal fondling of her breasts by the TSA agent?  What is the difference between what she is experiencing versus a regular breast cancer screening exam?  Not much.  Except the woman in the Google image went on to her flight and had no idea if her breasts contained the beginnings of breast cancer.  With specially-trained doctors and nurses at the checkpoint, checking not only for weapons but also for cancerous lumps in women’s breasts, at least the women traveler will go to her flight knowing whether she needs a follow-up mammogram or is good for another year without needing another breast exam, all courtesy of the TSA.

And someday those follow-up exams can be located right next to the security check-point area!  After the initial encounter with the TSA, mammograms and pap smears can be offered nearby, so that these follow-up tests can be conducted and still give the traveler time to make her flight.

Another advantage to doing bodily exams at security checkpoints is the fact that no one will claim they are being profiled.  Let’s face it: since 9/11 the passengers who look the most like Mohamed Atta and the rest are the ones who are most likely to be left alone by the TSA.  But a new TSA security search coupled with, for example, a prostate exam, would be a medical procedure that would not only find weapons but would also find out if that traveler needed to have a follow-up cancer screening.  Now, anyone looking like Mohamed Atta might complain if they have been left out of the security screening!

OK, that might be a little far-fetched, I admit it.  But from the stand-point of the doctor-guard, withholding a security check/prostate exam and waving through someone is not letting that traveler out of a hassle, it is withholding from the traveler a benefit.  So the doctor-guards will not even want to wave through any politically-correct class of people like Muslims, because skipping the security check would deny them a benefit.  Why would any fair-minded person want to withhold from Muslims a benefit that everyone else is receiving?  That wouldn’t be fair, and in fact would be discriminatory!  Quick — somebody give CAIR a call!

Yes, folks, this could be the way of the future.  We better get used to seeing less agents in brown shirts and more doctors and nurses in white coats nearby our airport security checkpoints.  It is good for security, good for our health, good for our national healthcare costs, heck, it’s even good for the Susan G. Komen Foundation because it can de-fund Planned Parenthood again.  Safer skies, safer breasts, safer prostates, safer colons.  It is the TSA of the future!

Soon we will know the winner of the Florida Republican primary, and the winner in Florida will probably be the ultimate Republican nominee for president.  So it is time to start considering whom to have for vice president.  Florida Senator Marco Rubio is the man.  It’s not too soon!  Don’t take “no” for an answer!

During the time he has been a senator, Rubio has already accomplished a strong conservative voting record.  As a Tea Party activist, he has followed through with pledges to oppose all tax hikes and he voted in favor of the Ryan Budget to restrain entitlement spending.  He has called for repeal of Obamacare and abolition of capital gains and estate taxes, and he has also called for a flat-rate federal tax.

And take your pick on all other conservative issues, and Rubio is on board for all of them: national security, abortion, vouchers and charter schools, gun rights, streamlining regulatory burdens on businesses, and opening up drilling for oil here in the U.S.  There are more positions, but you get the point.  Rubio is a solid conservative who would be a great fit with any candidate at the top of the GOP ticket.

But it is not only his stands on the issues that call for a draft-Rubio movement for vice president.  It is Rubio’s full-throated defense of American conservative values and free-market capitalism that appeal to conservatives.  During the four debates he had in his 2010 race for Florida’s Senate seat, Rubio truly stood out.  He even spent some time criticizing the moderator, which was cool back in 2010 and is even cooler today.  Replaying highlights of Rubio’s Senate debates, as will inevitably happen during his campaign for vice president, will be an excellent national introduction for Rubio.

Forceful, unapologetic articulation is a new requirement for Republicans: it is not only a good track record or voting record, conservatives also demand the ability to forcefully articulate conservative principles.  Just ask Texas Governor Rick Perry.

Rubio would also be the first Hispanic candidate for high elective office.  Oh sure, we will be told, Hispanics don’t vote for ethnicity alone, but if the GOP could put a significant dent in the 67% to 31% advantage Hispanics gave Barack Obama over John McCain in 2008, the presidential race is almost over before it starts.

The only drawback Rubio might have is that he has served in the Senate for only two years before running.  But where have we heard that before?  Possibly a certain Democratic presidential candidate in 2008?

But unlike Barack Obama, who before his election to the U.S. Senate spent seven years in the Illinois State Senate setting a record for voting “present,” Marco Rubio spent nine years as a representative in the Florida House of Representatives and even served two years as Speaker of Florida’s House.

Rubio will also be an asset in recent political developments.  In many political issues, the credibility of the politician on a certain issue determines his ability to get something done.  For example, that was why Richard Nixon, the perennial cold warrior, was able to go to China.  It is also why Governor Mitt Romney, noted rich guy, will never get top marginal tax rates dropped and in fact he is not even proposing it.  In the case of Marco Rubio, his mere ethnicity gives him credibility on immigration matters, so whoever the president will be, Vice President Rubio will be able to lead the issue of securing the border against illegal immigration while instituting a functional, bipartisan guest worker program, major electoral issues this year.

Rubio can also provide needed cover on another issue: the recent pandering to “Space Coast” Floridians.  Who would have ever thought that in the current days of $15 trillion national debt, Republicans would be outdoing each other on space proposals?  I mean, really!  I guess when I called Newt Gingrich “the Apollo 13 candidate,” more references to space were probably a given, so it might be my fault.

But in this primary season the Republicans have courted every Floridian vote, including the Floridians in the so-called “Space Coast.”  Hence the recent Republican calls for more trips to space, including a permanent station on the Moon.  If this keeps up, Moon-shots for Floridians will be like ethanol subsidies for Iowans, an obligatory pander to Florida voters from each new crop of presidential candidates.  As a Floridian, Rubio can put a stop to it and call it the shameless pandering that it is.

Other names mentioned for vice president include Susana Martinez, governor or New Mexico, would be very good, especially on energy issues; and Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, who just won re-election by a landslide.  Jindal is also very good on energy issues and has recently been making a lot of news on school choice issues.  Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels has also been mentioned, and he has a great fiscal track record.  The charismatically-challenged former presidential candidate Tim Pawlenty has also been mentioned as a possible vice president.  In his recent candidacy Pawlenty showed that he stands for most of the issues Republicans favor.

Good people, but none of them is Marco Rubio.  So let’s draft Rubio for vice president and get this general election campaign started.

Let’s have a show of hands: who among those reading are annoyed by loud cars or motorcycles, or a driver who is playing horribly loud music?  A few days ago I was passed by a motorcycle that must have had something done to its muffler to make it louder.  My ears are still ringing!

Something must be done.  But wait – something has already been done!  Well, in theory.  Here in California there is a law against having a car or motorcycle that has an obnoxiously-loud muffler.  For cars the limit is 95 decibels, and for late-model motorcycles the limit is 80 decibels.  And for any music blaring out of someone’s radio, if it is heard 50 feet away, then the police can give a citation. There are probably similar laws in other states (you can probably find the law in your state by checking your sate’s DMV website).

And what is a decibel?  According to everywhere I have looked, here are some typical decibel readings: normal conversation is 60 decibels, a dishwasher is 75 decibels, a train whistle is 90 decibels, a car horn or rock concert is 120 decibels, and ear-pain begins at 125 decibels.

So you would think that with these laws on the books, the problem of extra-loud cars and motorcycles would not exist, right?  Wrong.  I have been an attorney practicing law in California for over 20 years, and I have only come across one loud exhaust case.  The case involved the exhaust from a car owned by a teen kid who must have failed the personality test with flying colors.  Mr. Attitude.  The case against him was weak because while the officer used a decibel-meter, there is no indication that it was ever calibrated.

And that is the problem with loud exhaust cases.  Any time a machine is used to show the results of anything, there also has to be evidence that the machine had recently been calibrated by a certified agency with a calibration license.  This normally comes up in drunk driving cases, where a breath test machine result is reported, but only after the evidence shows that the machine was calibrated.  This is called foundational evidence.

With a decibel-meter, there is no such calibration.  A police officer can use a decibel-meter and issue all the citations he or she wants, but if the officer cannot show that the decibel-meter had been calibrated, the case will be dismissed.

As for loud music cases, I haven’t seen any, but I would bet that police officers feel uncomfortable issuing loud music citations because the law is vague.  What if an officer is 50 feet away from a car and hearing loud music, but the officer doesn’t know which car is playing the loud music?  Traffic officers like dealing with certainties, and this might cause them to give fewer tickets for loud music.

But they should.  I don’t listen to rap music voluntarily, but it seems as if all you have to do is open your car window in a traffic jam and you can hear rap music as loud as if you played it in your own car.

And have you noticed that it is never country-western music or symphony music?  Always rap, and usually with a hard base.  And sometimes you can hear the strangest sexual lyrics in the rap music in a traffic jam.

So here is what I propose: states should develop a calibration program for decibel-meters.  And if an officer doesn’t have a decibel-meter handy, they should be trained to testify that the exhaust was so loud that it caused pain (125 decibels), was louder than a car horn (110 decibels), or some other comparison.  Decibel measurements are loosely-based on informal hearing experiences anyway.

As for loud music cases, laws need to be changed to allow citations for hearing music less than 50 feet, or maybe allowing a citation if the base from someone’s music causes vibrations outside the car.  Also, traffic officers need to be trained to enforce loud music cases so that they are more comfortable with the issue.  I would argue that an extra fine should be imposed for loud music with sexual lyrics, but I know that will never pass.

Or what about a private organization to lobby states to enact tougher loud exhaust and loud music laws?  Something like “Mothers Against Loud Drivers”?  Hey, you never know if someday there will be a car playing music so loud that other drivers cannot hear a siren from an ambulance or fire truck, and an accident happens.

Or what about making some of these laws misdemeanors with jail consequences?  Or have a loud exhaust or music ticket add to a driver’s license “point count,” so that after a certain number of points, the driver could actually lose his driver’s license?

But something enforceable has to be done about all this.  Just like how drunk driving went from being an occasional annoyance to an offense that is taken seriously, loud exhaust or music driving also need to be treated seriously.  With some of these suggestions, maybe something can be done – and soon! – about this evil inflicted upon the rest of us!

OK, I feel better now.  Thanks for hearing my rant.  You can put your hands down now.