I’m a conservative Republican. That comes as a big shock to you, I know. What you might find more surprising is that I voted for George McGovern in 1972, Jimmy Carter in ‘76 and ‘80, and Walter Mondale in 1984. The first Republican I voted for was George H.W Bush in ‘88. Let’s say my political views have changed. I like to think they’ve become more enlightened, and I believe history bears me out. My point is that people whose beliefs remain static, ignoring reality, are ideological dinosaurs. They cling desperately to concepts and visions of Utopia that simply don’t work in the real world. I think it unnecessary to specify who those people are today.

Newt Gingrich, who’s surging in the polls and stands a better than even chance of winning the Florida GOP primary on January 31^st, is being raked over the coals because he identifies himself as a Reagan Republican, when ancient history shows he opposed the 40^th President on some key issues. So what? A lot of people, including Republicans, did the same.

As an example, Gingrich, the Congressman from Georgia, was voluble about his belief that Reagan’s strategy of bankrupting the USSR with massive defense spending would never work. He was wrong. In fact, the Soviet Union turned out to be a huge Potemkin village, and when Reagan called their bluff, they collapsed. So Newt was mistaken. And?

That was a relatively minor disagreement, whereas the two men were in total accord on the far more vital issue of the size, power and expense of government. Both believed passionately that, as Ronald Reagan put it, “…government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem.” That was Gingrich’s position then, and it’s his position now. That’s not a stubborn unwillingness to change, it’s a recognition of universal truth.

As a social, as well as economic, conservative, I have an affinity for Rick Santorum, who’s never backed off one inch from his moral stance, which is the correct one. But the upcoming election is about the economy and jobs, and no one is more qualified to challenge Big Government advocate Barack Obama in that arena than Newt Gingrich.. As the redoubtable and erudite economist Thomas Sowell has observed, Gingrich would tear Mr. Obama to pieces in a head-to-head debate. In fact, Gingrich has challenged the President to a trio of three-hour debates. I seriously doubt the President is sufficiently self-destructive to take him up on it.

The “ethics cloud” under which Gingrich resigned from Congress was trivial by comparison to the overt corruption that exists in that august body today. Only one of a number of alleged violations was sustained by bipartisan investigators – that Gingrich improperly accepted payment for teaching a college course which was politically tendentious. Wow! Some scandal!

Newt Gingrich is not Ronald Reagan, nor does he pretend to be, But as an advocate of the economic policies that made the Reagan administration so hugely successful, he’s the closest we’ve got. Reagan’s son Michael has endorsed him. In abandoning his Presidential bid, Rick Perry threw his support to Gingrich too.

In his State of the Union address, which was little more than a campaign speech, President Obama proposed a suicidal doubling of the 15% Capital Gains tax rate. If there’s a more effective way to stifle investment and discourage the expansion of business, I’d like to know what it is. Furthermore, Mr. Obama proposed an even greater expansion of government size and power by announcing a new bureaucracy, headed by Attorney General Eric Holder, no less (try to hold your laughter to a minimum) to investigate “corrupt” campaign contributions. This from a man whose war chest is over a billion dollars, thanks in large part to contributions from Wall Street. What do you suppose those contributors are hoping for in return? Solyndra was chump change.

This is an election about two radically opposed concepts of government. One says the White House knows best and will make dictatorial end runs around Congress to achieve its goal of turning the United States into a Socialist state on the disastrous European model. The other maintains that government should be as small, inexpensive and unobtrusive as possible, so that individual liberty and economic opportunity are maximized. This ought to be a simple choice. But alas, three generations of public school students who were subjected to liberal indoctrination make the outcome dicey.

Again, Newt Gingrich isn’t Ronald Reagan. But he may be our last, best hope to avoid the disaster Barack Obama is so enthusiastically courting.

1/25/12

The subject was adoption by gay couples. Two students at Shawano Community High School in Wisconsin, about 50 miles northwest of Green Bay, were asked to write opposing op-ed articles on the topic for the school newspaper. That’s the sort of balanced discourse required in a Democratic Republic, right? Let all points of view be heard and trust the people to choose from among them. It’s precisely the reason for the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech. But this lesson in tolerance and reason turned into a shameful display of political correctness – the sort of thing so-called “liberals” engage in all the time.

The 15-year-old boy who was asked to write in opposition to gay adoption chose to cite passages from the Bible, including verses from Leviticus calling homosexuality “detestable” and punishable by death. Obviously, the boy was not suggesting gays should be killed; his intention was to show that, from a Biblical standpoint, men – and by extension women – having sexual relations with others of their gender is a sin. Maybe you don’t agree. That’s your right. And by the same token, the boy author had the right to cite the Bible in supporting his opposition to gay couples adopting children. But his right was not respected – far from it.

The Shawano High School principal called the boy into his office, where he was subjected to hours of lecturing, ridicule and threats of suspension. This for writing an article with a point of view he was asked to advocate. Turns out the parents of a gay student were offended and complained to the school. Offended? Too bad. If the First Amendment were meant to protect only non-offensive speech it would be superfluous. On the contrary, the guarantee shields all speech, most especially when it involves politics. And, thanks to the Gay Rights movement, human sexuality is very much politicized.

There are a few exceptions to free speech rights. Inciting to riot and threats of physical violence, for example. But the Bible says what it says, and quoting from it is most emphatically protected speech. Unless you want to ban the Bible, of course, which I’m sure the “LGBT” community and others on the Left would favor.

The boy was accused of “bullying” and “intimidation”. Nonsense. He was expressing a legitimate point of view. It was the school principal who acted as the bully, and he should be fired forthwith. The message he sent to his young charges is that any expressed opinions that oppose the tyrannical dialectic of the Left will be punished. It’s simply an outrage.

Millions of Americans draw their convictions from religious faith. Are they to be barred from the marketplace of ideas because supposed “liberals” – who actually behave in anything but a truly liberal way – are offended by traditional morality? If the Shawano High School principal is not censured, at a minimum, it will be a violation of the very principles on which this country was founded, primarily individual liberty and the right to think, believe and speak as one sees fit.

There may well be a lawsuit in the offing and there should be. No public institution, funded by taxpayers, can be allowed to violate fundamental Constitutional rights. The case is a perfect vehicle for putting left-wing fascism on trial and slapping it down hard.

Gays have my tolerance, but not my approval. I find the idea of homosexuals marrying and adopting children abhorrent. Don’t like that? Tough. My beliefs are drawn from the well of Christian faith, not to mention reams of research showing children need both a Mom and a Dad, and while I dare not judge another’s heart or relationship with God, I certainly can discern the quality of actions. That is not judgment, but merely distinguishing between right and wrong behavior. And believe me, I’m as guilty as anyone of sin. That’s why I’m a Christian who relies on grace, unearned favor, as my sole means of reconciliation with God.

The principal of Shawano Community High School should apologize publicly for his despicable actions and be otherwise punished. Anything less is an affront to the freedom of all Americans.

1/24/12

I don’t claim any qualification to be a sports columnist. Oh, I’m a football fan alright, but as a student of the game I belong in first grade. I know good play when I see it, though, and what I saw from my beloved New England Patriots on Sunday didn’t rise to that level – not for the most part. They were only good enough to win the AFC Championship, and that on a missed, 31-yard field goal by Ravens kicker Billy Cundiff that left his teammates on the sidelines with their mouths hanging open, disbelief in glazed-over eyes.

Tom Brady snapped a post-season record of 18 straight playoff games with at least one passing touchdown. He did rush for one, from about a foot out, risking grave bodily injury in the process. Brady went up and over center, an airborne feat that put the ball over the plane, but during which Ravens linebacker Ray Lewis hit him hard in trying to stop the score, which must have hurt. But Brady, now a veteran at 34 years of age, showed no sign of injury, spiking the ball hard a la Rob Gronkowski. It wasn’t the sort of play to make coach Bill Bellichick feel comfortable, but at day’s end, it helped give New England the win.

Brady was not himself in the game. He had a pitiful rating of 56, completing 22 of 36 passes for no touchdowns and two interceptions. Yards per attempt, just 6.64 yards. This was not the Tom Brady who’s a shoo-in for the Hall of Fame, probably the year after he retires. What’s up with that?

A lot of credit goes to the Baltimore defense, who took a page from the Steelers’ regular season win over the Pats, putting eight men in the box and knocking the receivers off their routes. Of course, that left an opening for the running game, of which New England’s Ben-Jarvus Green-Ellis took full advantage. His total wasn’t great – just over 60 yards – but he tore off some crucial first downs and scored easily from eight yards out. New England’s O-line played excellent foot ball, and the defensive front, led by pro-bowler Vince Wilfork, kept the game close.

There’s a school of thought that says Brady was pressing too hard. Following an interception, Brady uncharacteristically threw a bomb into the end zone, intended for the seldom-targeted Matt Slater. But it was off by a yard, and turned out to be a Ravens interception on a tipped ball. Things were not looking good, with little time left and the Patriots clinging to a three point lead.

In the subsequent series, Baltimore mounted an effective drive to put their kicker in position to tie the game with what should have been a chip-shot field goal. That’s when Providence (not the city in Rhode Island) intervened. The kick, almost incredibly, went wide left. With eleven seconds left and the Ravens out of time-outs, Brady knelt on  the snap and time expired. A big, if ugly, win for New England, advancing them to the Super Bowl for a rematch with the New York Giants, who beat them on a last minute touchdown in the Super Bowl four years ago.

In assessing the forthcoming match-up, it’s important to remember a couple of things. The first is that Tom Brady never has had two bad games in a row. He stands an excellent chance of tying Terry Bradshaw as the only quarterbacks with four Super Bowl championship rings, further cementing him as one of the greatest QB’s ever to play the position.

Secondly, even if the vaunted Giants defense tries the Baltimore-Pittsburgh strategy, no quarterback ever has been better than TB at the quick snap, fast release tactic that finds wide receivers and two outstanding tight ends on crossing or post routes. When he’s on his game, Brady is the master of that maneuver. The question is, will he bring his ’A’ game to Indianapolis on February fifth. I say yes.

Brady has been working with the man who’s been his mentor since he was a 15-year-old high school quarterback. Tom Martinez is gravely ill with complications from diabetes, and may not live to see his star pupil play in Super Bowl XLVI – that’s 46, in case you’re not familiar with Roman numerals. But that hasn’t stopped him from acting as Brady’s adviser and, if I were a betting man, I’d wager he’s been urging Brady to settle down and play the way history says he can.

Giants QB Eli Manning has been playing the best football of his career in recent games, and the Super Bowl match-up promises lots of drama. When the final whistle blows, however, look for a ten-point Patriots win. It’s a matter of destiny.

1/21/12

The ballots have been counted in South Carolina’s GOP Presidential primary, and it turns out that Mitt Romney’s momentum has hit a wall called Newt Gingrich. Despite being anointed by some powerful politicians, including South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint, whom many regard as a kingmaker and Governor Nikki Haley, a darling of the Tea Party, Gingrich beat Romney by double digits. In so doing, he picked up the votes of Independents and Evangelicals and, somewhat surprisingly, even women, despite the nasty interview recently given by one of his ex-wives.

Since 1980, no candidate has gone on to earn the nomination of either party without winning in South Carolina. Of course, trends, like records, were meant to be broken. But Gingrich now carries substantial momentum to Florida, where he already polls well. Another historical note: never before have three different candidates won the first three contests.

An interesting and perhaps telling point: voters told exit-pollers one of the main reasons they went for Newt is electability, a sharp contrast to the conventional wisdom about Romney. There can be little doubt that Gingrich benefitted greatly from his sterling debate performances, and it’s a good bet that he, alone among the other GOP contenders, can go head-to-head with Barack Obama and essentially shred the President on economic issues.

Mitt Romney comes in a distant second in the Palmetto State. Rick Santorum finishes third with Ron Paul not too far behind in fourth. Santorum has said he will stick regardless. A third place finish in South Carolina, after his surprising victory in Iowa, puts Santorum in the “exceeds expectations” category, which is always a good place to be in politics. As for Ron Paul, he plans to soldier on.

The Gingrich victory, while remarkable, is hardly a surprise. The past several days of polling saw him surge past Romney. What is somewhat unexpected is his solid showing among Evangelicals, whom he has not courted with any real vigor and who were expected to go heavily for Santorum, even as they did for Mike Huckabee in 2008. On the other hand, aside from his divorces and the negative ethical cloud under which he left Congress, there’s nothing about his positions that Evangelicals would find antithetical to their key issues.

The mainstream media have done yeoman’s work in portraying the former Governor of Massachusetts as the one man who could beat Barack Obama in the Fall. That alone is enough to give a Republican pause. Why would the MSM, which usually fawns over the President and his policies, push a candidate they truly believe could beat their favorite? As in the memorable line from‘Hamlet‘, “Something is rotten in Denmark.”

Even some on the Right, including the usually arch-conservative Ann Coulter, have allowed themselves to be convinced that Mitt is the one Republican who can unseat Barack Obama. They’re willing to overlook Governor Romney’s hugely unsuccessful move to universalize health care in Massachusetts, which even the President points to as the model for ObamaCare. They’re incredibly charitable in ignoring Romney’s flip-flops on abortion and gun control, along with other “epiphanies” that (coincidentally?) occurred to Mitt when he decided four years ago to run for the Republican nomination.

Rick Santorum has his own negatives to overcome. During his tenures in the House and Senate, Santorum was obliged, like many another Republican, to sign off on increases to the debt ceiling. He also earmarked projects that would benefit his district and state. And what of it? Every member of Congress feels duty bound to return to his or her constituents some of the money extorted from them by the feds.

In the meantime, Santorum fought tirelessly against issues, such as partial-birth abortions, that violated the moral compass of his Republican base in Pennsylvania. Yes, he voted to increase government spending, but tried to ensure the increases were as small as possible. That merely portrays him as a lawmaker who was willing to compromise on some things, so that others more palatable to conservatives would find their way into law. Isn’t the big Democrat knock on Republicans their unwillingness to compromise?

Newt Gingrich’s record as a Congressman and Speaker of the House speaks for itself. He engineered the historic Republican takeover of Congress in 1994 with his ‘Contract for America’ and engaged in successful mortal combat with the Clinton White House to reform Welfare and reduce government spending. Democrats are fond of referring to the “Clinton budget surpluses”. It’s a flagrant misnomer. Those were the “Gingrich budget surpluses”, period.

Romney likes to brag about cutting taxes in Massachusetts. What he doesn’t say is that any decrease in taxation under his watch was more than offset by increased fees and expensive regulations that made it harder to do business under his watch. The most expensive of these was RomneyCare, the universal insurance plan whose cost overruns have exceeded 1000%, even as health insurance premiums in Massachusetts have become among the very highest in the nation. These hardly amount to the record on which a so-called “conservative” should be able to run as a prospective Republican nominee for President.

The Florida primary is racing toward us, on January 31st. Expect Gingrich, Romney, Santorum and Paul  to campaign heavily in the Sunshine State, and things could get rough and tumble. Mitt Romney will be fighting for his political life, is extremely well-funded and organized, and can be expected to put on a full court press. Likewise, Gingrich, whose campaign coffers are certain to swell after his South Carolina triumph, will flood the airwaves and the speaking circuit. He just might pull it off. If so, whence Romney? Some very big states have yet to hold primaries and, whatever happens in Florida, it’s unlikely Romney will throw in the towel.

Things have gone from interesting to fascinating in the GOP presidential race. The next few weeks promise to be highly entertaining, especially for political junkies like me.

In the summer of 1966, my wonderful Mom took me on a Union Pacific Railroad tour of the great National Parks of the west. I was armed with a Kodak Brownie camera, a simple, boxy device that just happened to take great pictures. I snapped scores of them, in Yellowstone, Grand Teton, Bryce, Zion and Grand Canyon National Parks. Many were good enough to grace the pages of a calendar, not to brag about my rudimentary skills as a photographer, but to sing the praises of that inexpensive, basic camera that was a staple of my generation and several that went before. Now, Kodak may be going the way of horse-drawn carriages, outpaced by technology.

Eastman-Kodak has announced that it’s filed for protection under Chapter 11 Bankruptcy law, while it tries to reorganize and bring the company back into a competitive position. That’s a tall order in a time when even the cheapest cell phone takes pictures which can be downloaded directly into a computer and printed on photo paper. I’m rooting for Kodak for two reasons: nostalgia and an American bias toward the underdog. But I’m not optimistic.

My childhood memories are saturated with Kodak imagery, from television advertisements to the giant electronic billboard that loomed over the main lobby of Grand Central Terminal in New York City. And the aforementioned Brownie, of course. But that’s my right brain talking. The left cerebral hemisphere, the logical side, tells me this is the way of the world, the law of obsolescence. It remains to be seen whether Kodak can adapt somehow.

A little over a century ago, buggy-making was a major industry. But the automobile was in its early ascendancy, and soon the manufacturers of buggies were faced with two alternatives: go out of business, or revamp their process to make carriages that would sit atop a car chassis. Most had to take the first course, although a few continued to make the horse-drawn variety to appeal to a small, novelty market. Those who chose the second route became pioneers in the automobile industry.

The aptly-named Flint Wagon Works was instrumental in bringing Buick to its hometown in Michigan, as was the Durant-Dort Carriage Company. The biggest early automobile manufacturers in Flint, they helped ensure their former trade would become nearly extinct. But the point is, they adapted. Buick and other big automakers would soon become expansive enough to build engines, chassis’ and over-carriages, but the old buggy-makers profited handsomely from their involvement in the industry that rendered their former business obsolete. Many others of their ilk simply folded. The advance of technology, its influence on consumers, is pitiless.

Recently, Kodak has tried to enter the modern market by putting out a line of printers. I own one myself, a three-in-one printer/scanner with built-in fax capability. It works great, but Kodak’s foray may have been too little, too late. A number of other big companies have been turning out similar products for a long time, and there’s nothing in particular to distinguish Kodak’s printer from theirs, except for maybe the company’s famous name and a price set somewhat lower than its competitors. Not enough, evidently, to save Eastman-Kodak from the bankruptcy courts.

I would love to see Kodak find a way to survive. My gut feeling, though, is that Kodak will wind up being bought and absorbed into one of the more successful big companies – Hewlett-Packard, maybe, or Epson, Panasonic or Toshiba. Then the Kodak name will vanish from all but the happy memories of a simpler time.

There is a line in the ‘Desiderata’ that has stuck with me: “Take kindly the counsel of the years, gracefully surrendering the things of youth.” Where the exponential growth of technology is concerned, the counsel of the years can be harsh and mustering the grace to surrender equably the things of our youth can be difficult. I am truly sorry that Kodak may well turn out to be one of those things.

Despots and autocrats get things done in a hurry. Their whims become policy and their policies are carried out at once by an obsequious bureaucracy. The Constitution of the United States, by contrast, was intended to slow things down. Specifically delegated authority is required for a governmental body to act, and its actions are subject to approval and/or review by authorities in different branches. It’s called “the separation of powers” and it was never meant for efficiency – it was designed to ensure balance and time. Balance so that no one branch of government would become all-powerful; time so that the people, by whose consent the entire system is supposed to operate, would have a chance to assess and weigh in on all proposals that affect them. President Barack Obama is flouting the very charter that gives him Executive power.

Mark Mix is not exaggerating when he says the President’s so-called “recess appointments” to the National Labor Relations Board have created a Constitutional crisis. Mix heads one of several business groups who’ve petitioned a federal judge, already considering a related case, to rule on the legality of those appointments. Their argument is quite simple: the Senate was not in recess when His Royal Highness named three political cronies to the NLRB and another to head up a new federal consumer protection agency. The upper chamber met in pro forma sessions throughout the holidays, never adjourning for more than two days at a time. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who’s defending the President’s actions, is the very man who used such special sessions to prevent George Bush from making recess appointments during his administration. Talk about having it both ways! It’s the sort of thing that gives hypocrisy a bad name.

Almost 50 years ago, the late historian Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. published a book titled “The Imperial Presidency”, using a phrase that had gained currency during the 60’s. Schlesinger made a lengthy and compelling case to support his thesis that American Presidents have, since the turn of the 20th Century, arrogated increasingly extra-constitutional powers, at the expense of the Legislative branch of government. He would have had a field day with Barack Obama, who has consistently used regulations to enact the equivalent of laws that didn’t pass muster in Congress. It’s a direct contravention of the process dictated by the Constitution, in which – simply put – the Legislative passes laws, the Executive runs the government in keeping with them and the Judicial enforces and scrutinizes the laws themselves. It’s an ingenious system, aimed almost exclusively at preventing any individual or group from exercising absolute power. The Founders had had quite enough of that in the person of King George III.

The President’s repeated battle-cry, as he bypasses Congress and behaves like a dictator, is “We can’t wait!”. The Constitution says “You must wait!”. Senator Reid says Republicans have been practicing “obstructionism on steroids”. The Constitution presumes and even requires obstruction, as members of Congress debate, delay and try to block legislation their constituents oppose. That’s their job. We live neither in a pure Democracy nor in an Oligarchy (although the tenures of some in Congress make you wonder). The United States is a Republic. Congress is composed of citizens, not feudal Lords; the President, too, is a citizen, not a King. All are elected to specific terms to serve the people for a limited time in a limited government. The degree to which we’ve strayed from that brilliant vision has led us inexorably toward authoritarianism and entrenched bureaucracies that quietly oversee the day-to-day functions of government.

President Obama is using powerful agencies, such as the EPA and the INS, to enforce rules that act the same as laws, but which never underwent the legislative process required by the Constitution. Who knows what atrocities will be committed by a union-controlled National Labor Relations Board, or by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a creature of the Dodd-Frank bill whereby government assumes unprecedented new power over business and commerce?

Many legal experts, even some who generally favor Obama policies, believe the President’s “recess appointments”, made while the Senate was not in recess, will be overturned in federal court. Let’s hope so.

Barack Obama comes across as a genial guy and a skilled orator. So did Julius Caesar.

There’s nothing new about religious advertising on TV. It’s been going on since the medium was in its infancy. So what’s different about the half-minute “John 3:16” spot that aired during an NFL playoff game; why should there be a controversy over that? Answer: its immediate inspiration.

If you were among the tens of millions who watched the Saturday night game between the Denver Broncos and New England Patriots, and weren’t channel-surfing during the commercial breaks, you probably saw the ad.  Sponsored by the Evangelical Christian organization ‘Focus on the Family’, it features a montage of children reciting a Biblical verse – John 3:16, from the Newer Testament. Except for the high production values, and some enthusiastic asides from the kids, that’s also not new. I remember from my childhood – yes, we had TV then – advertisements that utilized the same chapter and verse. This time, though, it had a special resonance.

The previous weekend, in a concatenation of circumstances too improbable to be labeled coincidence, Denver quarterback Tim Tebow led his team to an unlikely victory over the Pittsburgh Steelers in round one of the AFC playoffs. In the process, Tebow – a devout Christian who once sported ‘John 3:16’ painted onto his eye black – passed for 316 yards with an average yards-per-completion mark of 31.6. I’m no statistician and can’t figure the odds against all those things converging in a single 60-minute game. I suspect they’re incalculable. Probability leaves a lot of room for randomness but, in our universe at any rate, it’s not infinite. Such precise symmetry strongly suggests the “fix” was in, and since no human power could have manipulated those particular numbers amid the chaos of football, who does that leave as the “fixer”?

John 3:16 must be considered the best-known Biblical verse in Christendom. It also is the most unifying. Cutting through all artificial distinctions of creed, denomination and polity, it states in simple terms the central faith of Christianity. Evidently, however, a lot of people were unfamiliar enough that they made recourse to that 21^st Century encyclopedia, the internet. ‘Focus on the Family’ reports around 100 million people worldwide got on the web after the ad ran and plugged ‘John 3:16’ into search engines. To quote from the spot’s own script, “That’s a lot of people….Wow!”.

So who’s complaining? Well, the usual assortment of materialists and people who say they don’t like “religion being shoved down our throats”, along with the predictable activists who abhor traditional Christianity because it doesn’t endorse their personal choices. I’m strongly tempted to digress into a theological discourse about the difference between forgiveness and approval, between love and license, but I’ll refrain because I’m heading toward a point about Tim Tebow himself. A pair of them, really.

The first is that people are resistant to the notion that God would speak through something as existentially meaningless as a football game. I can relate to that. But think about it this way: if so many millions of people care enough about football to watch it on a Saturday night, why would God not use that as a vehicle? After all, if there is a God, surely He is the God of all things, from the cosmic to the quantum. Football fits in there somewhere, maybe between the birds of the air and the lilies of the field.

My second observation is that a lot of people apparently object to the idea that God would animate Tim Tebow as a means of outreach. I’m sorry, but I don’t find that outlandish at all. The Christian paradigm is that God chose to come to Earth as a poor carpenter – rather than as some person endowed with worldly power – precisely so that we could identify with Him and would not mistake His intentions. In fact, we’re not just invited, we’re told explicitly to join with God in spreading the message of redemption and salvation. I can’t imagine why Tebow would be exempted from the Great Commission just because he plays on a bigger stage than most of us do.

To my knowledge, Tim Tebow has said nothing publicly about the breathtaking numerical anomaly that took place in the Denver-Pittsburgh game. He wouldn’t. Make no mistake, Tebow is a sincere Christian. What’s more, he’s deliberate – his walk matches his talk, although I’m sure if you asked him, he’d say he’s a miserable sinner who’s unworthy of God’s love and favor. And isn’t that the point?

HBO talker Bill Maher enraged many when he tweeted, after Denver’s latest defeat, “Wow, Jesus just f****d Tim Tebow bad!” This on Christmas eve. Subtle as ever, Bill. Not that it should have shocked anyone, really. Maher is notorious for ridiculing people of faith, without regard for particulars. But an obscene reference to Jesus on the eve of the day set aside to celebrate His birth? Even for Bill Maher, it was egregiously tasteless and offensive.

But let’s leave aside, for the moment, the leftist and occasionally humorous observations of Bill Maher, who knows nothing but what he thinks. Let’s instead talk about Tim Tebow, the incredibly tough athlete who won a Heisman Trophy as the quarterback who led the University of Florida to two NCAA championships.

Tebow is the essence of humility. Whatever credit he doesn’t give to his teammates, he gives to God. That has characterized his football career since high school, and continues to be his greatest single attribute to this day, as the starting quarterback who has led Denver from a dismal one-and-four start to a position where a victory over Kansas City on Sunday would give them the AFC West division title. And to whom does Tebow give the glory? You know the answer.

Tebow’s strength of character, derived from a faith so strong that it takes him to missionary work in impoverished countries, has inspired his teammates from his earliest days of receiving a football from the center. His tireless work ethic, which has led to physical strength resulting in record rushing numbers for a QB, impels those around him to emulate his endless workouts and indomitable spirit. For all of which he gives glory to God. This is something to be ridiculed? It brings shame on anyone who would do so.

Getting back to Maher, he prides himself on being shameless. It’s hardly a creditable attribute. Anyone who makes outrageous statements can claim the same dubious distinction. But Maher’s Christmas eve tweet was not merely offensive but utterly gratuitous. Are we supposed to believe that faith in God should lead to victory every time a team so inspired takes the field? Jesus thought not, “In this world you will have trouble,” He said, “but be of good cheer. I have overcome the world.” Surely that applies to something as existentially meaningless as football games.

So now, let’s compare the two protagonists of this little essay. On the one hand, we have Bill Maher, failed stand-up comic, HBO talk-show host with few discernible convictions except a dislike for conservative hypocrisy. Liberal hypocrisy gets a mention here and there, but Maher’s red meat is social conservatism, behind every corner of which he finds contradictions, as though conservatives ought not to be human, or that having standards is meaningless unless you adhere to them unswervingly. Astonishingly unrealistic.

On the other hand, we have Tim Tebow, a man of character, integrity, courage, strength and faith, who lives out his convictions daily and with devotion. Tebow, who is in inspiration to his teammates and Denver fans alike. Tebow, whose drive to win, inspired by giving glory to God, led the Broncos from also-rans to contenders. Hmmm. Tough choice between the two, huh?

Maher’s Christmas eve obscenities have led to a call for a boycott of HBO. I can’t say I haven’t considered cancelling my own subscription, not because of Bill Maher in particular, but because most of HBO’s original programming is so crammed with leftist dialectic. But then I’d miss good stuff like “Boardwalk Empire”, “Game of Thrones” and movies that I enjoy. Why should I let a moron like Bill Maher deprive me of that?

Mr. Maher: read Aquinas, Aristotle, Augustine or C.S. Lewis and consider honestly whether you’re in their intellectual league. If you are not, which I assure you is a certainty, then keep your obscene mouth shut about true people of faith like Tim Tebow. You are not fit to wash his jockstraps.

Generally speaking, the American Association of Retired Persons is no friend of the Republican Party, which is odd because Americans of retirement age and beyond are more likely to be conservative and vote Republican than other age groups. However, the AARP has aired TV ads characterizing proposed GOP plans to reform Medicare and Social Security as schemes “to take away our health care and retirement”, which of course they are not.

Now, some Republicans in Congress are questioning the tax-exempt money AARP receives from product endorsements, in some cases from firms they say the seniors’ group effectively controls. Is it tit-for-tat, payback for those misleading TV ads? If the GOP lawmakers’ claims were without real substance, I’d be inclined to think that the case. But it isn’t.

Take as an example United Health Care, which markets an insurance plan to supplement Medicare. UHC’s advertisements don’t just carry an AARP endorsement – ‘Medigap’ is marketed as though it were an actual AARP product. The group’s royalties from that ad campaign, plus supplying its member mailing lists to UHC, jumped from 284-million dollars in 2007 to 670-million last year, an increase of over 230%, all of it tax-free. And since AARP endorses ObamaCare, its take from UHC’s insurance supplement would skyrocket if the Health Care Reform plan takes effect. This amounts to a mix of politics and money-making never intended to be covered under the 501-C3 designation for tax-exempt organizations.

The three Republicans on the House Ways and Means Committee who are objecting to all this have no desire to take away the AARP’s general status as a tax-exempt charity. But they want the IRS to take a close look as those fantastic profits it’s getting from product endorsements. Naturally, the Association has its defenders as well.

Democratic tax lawyer Bill Josephson says royalties, or “passive income”, from endorsements are a common means of fundraising for charities and are completely proper. However, Congressman David Reichert, the Republican from Washington, says that’s true only if the charity has no day-to-day control over the firm that manufactures the product being endorsed. And he says the AARP virtually runs United Health Care. Hence the request for an IRS investigation.

Maybe all this sounds like a contradiction. Aren’t Republicans the party of less taxes? Yes, but that doesn’t make them the party of neglected revenue. In fact, just the opposite. If GOP plans to cut taxes and reform the IRS are to be successful, then all legitimate sources of federal revenue must be tapped. It won’t do for an outfit like the AARP, or the Sierra Club, or countless other charities to forego payment on taxable income.

Look, I’m eligible for AARP membership myself, and the organization does a lot of good, which can only increase as the population ages. But that doesn’t mean I want it to become the richest, most powerful lobby in Washington D.C. As a conservative, I have problems with some of AARP’s positions, especially when it comes to ObamaCare and reforming Medicare and Social Security. Maybe it’s time to de-monopolize. What if we organized another seniors’ group with a more conservative (and realistic) agenda? Given the political leanings of most Americans over 55, that might well be a highly viable plan. By the way, don’t look to me as an organizer/founder. I write commentaries and let others do the real work. I’m fond of the arrangement.

There is a huge difference between raising taxes and collecting the taxes needed for those functions of government necessary to running the country. If in fact, the AARP is skirting the 501-C3 rules, then those revenues fit into that category and should be taxable. It’s not as though we can afford to overlook legitimate sources of taxable income, what with our 15.2 trillion dollar (and rising by the second) debt. Just for fun, and to scare yourself silly, go online and Google ‘National Debt Clock’. It’s astounding.

A nation that fails to care for its needy elderly is a nation without honor. In the United States, however, most senior citizens are extremely well off, not in terms of income but of assets. Organizations such as the AARP are helpful in protecting the interests of our seniors. That should not be done at the expense of the general welfare of the entire population.

Not surprisingly, former Pennsylania U.S. Senator Rick Santorum gets precious little time to state his views at Republican debates. The bulk of questions are aimed at front-runners Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich, with Ron Paul being given more chances than his candidacy warrants to articulate the Libertarian viewpoint, probably for the sake of sensationalism. Congressman Paul makes statements that are so far outside the mainstream of political thought, both liberal and conservative, as to be entertaining, if unlikely to win him the nomination.

When Santorum does speak, however, he is concise, on point and deeply conservative. He is ardently pro-life, opposes the gay political agenda, and advocates a no-nonsense foreign policy that includes warning Iran of military action when it is proven the Mullahs are building nuclear weapons, as they almost certainly are doing. Santorum has more experience with foreign policy than any of the others can claim. His twelve years in the Senate, which followed two terms in the House, included eight on the Armed Services Committee, during which he was heavily involved in U.S. relations with Israel. While certainly not unique among the GOP field, his strong advocacy for Israeli security, guaranteed by American military might, is informed by first-hand experience the others lack.

Other than Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum’s position on the economy is most consistent with those of Ronald Reagan, his political template. Lower personal and corporate tax rates, an end to capital gains and inheritance taxes, and a radical downsizing of the federal regulatory bureaucracy, along with removing the burdensome rules on business signed by President Obama in the Dodd-Frank bill, broadly define Santorum’s economic philosophy. He would repeal Obamacare and promote a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution. When Santorum talks about the economy, one can hear echoes of the Great Communicator himself.

An average of U.S polls finds Santorum the choice of only four percent of Republican primary voters, and while he’s received key endorsements from Iowa newspapers in that state’s caucus, now a week away, Santorum scores too low even to show up in averages of New Hampshire primary polls. It seems likely that, for all his tenaciousness and tireless campaigning, Santorum may wind up dropping his campaign after New Hampshire, although he could hang on through the South Carolina primary that follows. It’s a shame, really.

Rick Santorum’s social conservatism has more substance even than Michelle Bachmann’s, as he worked influentially in the Senate for passage of the law banning partial-birth abortions (infanticide) and advocated the use of adult stem cells, rather than those harvested from aborted babies, in research aimed at curing Parkinson’s and other neural disorders. His opposition to gay marriage is in line with his fellow contenders, with the exception of Ron Paul, but his previous statements regarding the practice of homosexuality itself has landed him in hot water with gay and liberal groups, including the Log Cabin Republicans.

Santorum’s statement in a 2003 interview that he believes the Supreme Court’s sexual privacy ruling in Griswold v. Connecticut was wrongly decided and that homosexuality weakens  the American family, created a firestorm of controversy which included a widely-publicized attempt to make the word ‘santorum’ an adjectival noun meaning homophic and anti-gay. The Senator, whose pro-family positions are ironclad, was not intimidated and never backed away from his statements. That doubtless is hurting him even among social conservatives, who tend to believe sexual activity between consenting adults is a personal matter, even as they oppose gay marriage and special rights for the ‘Lesbian-Gay-Bisexual-Transsexual’ “community.

At this point, it would take the equivalent of a political earthquake which would swallow up Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich and a few others to create a scenario in which former Senator Santorum wound up the candidate facing Barack Obama next November. The Obama hatchet-men, especially David Axelrod, would have a field day portraying Santorum as an extremist far outside even the Republican mainstream. And they might have a point. But Presidents do not shape the nation’s social climate, although they have influence, and Santorum’s economic and foreign policy positions would reveal Barack Obama as the inept tyro he is.

Rick Santorum is a strong believer in American exceptionalism, whose firm position is that the American experiment in liberty stands on three legs: economic, political and moral. His is a welcome voice in the current campaign. The loss of that voice would be missed in the ongoing conversation about the meaning of freedom that is the United States of America.