Right Wing Nut House

John Hawkins penned an article for PJ Media advancing the notion that cats are inferior to dogs “in every way.” He gave five reasons trying to prove this theory — tried and failed. In fact, though Hawkins entertaining article was written largely tongue-in-cheek, the underlying bias against cats came through loud and clear.

We cat lovers are used to this. Forget everything you know about race, ethnicity, religion, ideology, or political affiliation. The great schism in humanity is between those who love cats and those who don’t and it’s been that way going on 5,000 years.

I suspect John really doesn’t hate cats. If he does, it’s because cats don’t like him very much. Felines have an unerring ability to size humans up and decide if they can be properly enslaved to do their bidding. In short, unlike dogs, humans don’t choose cats. Cats choose them. Dogs have absolutely no dignity or discernment when it comes to giving their love and loyalty. Anyone who feeds them, pats them on the head, or, best yet, throws a stick that they can mindlessly fetch, earns their ceaseless — and boring — adoration.

It’s been this way for tens of thousands of years. Genetically speaking, dogs are failed wolves. It is probable that the first wolves domesticated by man were Omega wolves — the lowest ranking wolf in the pack — who hung around human campfires hoping to get a few scraps of food. The Omegas were kicked around by their own pack and this complex carried forward through the ages so that dogs today will do anything to please its master.

Not so, cats. From the cat’s point of view, it is us that should do anything to please them. Do they turn their nose up at the food we put in front of them? Try a different dinner.

Busy and don’t want to be bothered petting them? Try ignoring a cat determined to have you pay attention to them. If you do, they are likely to deliberately knock over that glass of soda on your desk right on to your keyboard. Those who think it an accident are delusional.

As for Hawkins’ 5 ways that cats are inferior to dogs, I will make short work of his thesis.

1. Dogs are much smarter than cats.

Scientific studies prove that dogs are smarter than cats. But this is silly. There isn’t a scientific study that has been devised that can hold a cat’s attention for more than two minutes. Any test a dog can pass, a cat has no use for. It’s like asking an MIT grad to take the same math test as a second grader.

Besides, cats have a vested interest in keeping their superior intellect hidden from humans. The absolute worst thing that could happen to a cat would be if we started to take them for granted.

2) Your dog loves you. Your cat couldn’t care less if you were murdered by clowns.

What appears to a dog lover as indifference is actually a sign of a cat’s psychological health. Dogs have massive insecurities and feel they must constantly demonstrate their love. Cats are totally secure in the knowledge that they have you by the short hairs, so to speak, and feel absolutely no need to give any outward manifestation of their affection. They believe it says volumes that they allow you to exist in almost the same space as they do, although not on the same plane of the universe.

3) Dogs are better pets.

John’s reasoning needs to be revealed:

Dogs have spent thousands of years earning the title “man’s best friend” while cats spent that time perfecting the art of spitting up hairballs. Your dog would rather sleep outside on the ground with you than inside a warm, comfortable house. Your cat is kind of hoping you’ll die so he can eat you. Dogs use the bathroom outside. Cats stink up your house by insisting on using a litter box. Dogs are renowned for their loyalty. Cats are mainly known for murdering small animals and dropping them in front of their owners in an attempt to horrify and intimidate them.

Cats spit up hairballs because they are smart enough to clean themselves. Oh, they’ll allow you to brush them when they are of a mind to sit still long enough. But this is a bonding exercise — they really don’t need it.

And what are you doing sleeping outside on the cold ground, John? This is a sign of intelligence? Cats — and their masters — know better to come in out of the cold and sleep in a nice, warm, bed.

And those small animals murdered by cats carry disease and pestilence. In the Middle Ages when Europe carried out felinicide and nearly wiped out the cat population, the black plague — a disease born by fleas carried by rats — killed 75% of humans on the continent. Needless to say, a healthy population of urban cats would have nipped the plague in the bud.

Do dogs have the capability of saving humanity?

4. Dogs are happy and fun while cats are generally annoying.

There is no animal on planet earth more attuned to humans than cats. Because of this, they sense immediately whether you approve of them or not. If you are scared of them, they make it a point to jump on your lap and look at you with that baleful predator stare. If you find them annoying, you are likely to get the “figure 8″ treatment. This is when you are walking into another room and the cat moves effortlessly between your legs, making figure eights, back and forth, hoping you will trip over your own feet and go crashing to the floor. It amuses them to know that they annoy you and can actually turn your annoyance to rage.

Don’t mess with cat’s, man. They’ll make you sorry you ever met them.

5) Cats would murder you if they could.

“Murder” is a little strong. Yes, it’s true that when you catch a cat sitting in the middle of the room and staring at you he is thinking only one thing — lunch. But this is part of the cat’s charm. They aren’t thinking of attacking and killing you. They are mulling over their options on how best to manipulate you to get us to do their bidding. A well modulated “meow,” a perfectly timed leap into your lap, or the strategic head butt usually work equally well in tugging at our heartstrings and getting us to do our master’s bidding.

I have been kept by cats for more than 40 years and rejoice in my slavery. Once you recognize the cat’s superiority to humans — and dogs — you gladly allow yourself to be captured by them. It is a privilege to be enslaved by a beast whose ineffable qualities give us such pleasure, and whose aloofness and other-worldliness delight and mystify us.

Did I mention I love dogs too?

You won’t want to miss this episode of the RINO Hour of Power with your host Rick Moran and co-host J.R. Dunn of American Thinker.

Last week saw two horrific terrorist attacks; the shootings in Paris and the massacre of 2,000 innocents by Boko Haram in Nigeria. ISIS continues its bloody slaughter in Syria and Iraq while making its first moves into Afghanistan while Al-Qaeda and its affiliates are on the loose all over the globe.

Three million people, with 44 world leaders, marched in Paris on Sunday against terrorism. But who are the terrorists? What do they want? Can they be defeated?

We’ll ask Patrick Poole, an expert on terrorism and national security these questions and get an expansive overview of terrorist groups around the world.

The show streams live from 8:00 - 9:00 PM Eastern time. A podcast will be available shortly after the end of the show.

You can join us live by clicking the icon below or by clicking here.

I used to spend Thanksgiving with one family member or another; flying to Washington, DC or driving to our family house in the Chicago suburbs. It was hard for all of us to get together with 10 children splashed across North America from California, to Canada, to the Midwest, and East Coast. But there were usually gatherings of 3 or 4 on of us on Thanksgiving which made for a satisfying experience.

But the last decade, that hasn’t been the case. The Chicago suburban house was sold years ago after my mother died. And usually, I was working or too involved in a project to take the time. I regret those missed opportunities — especially now that travel is physically difficult for me.

But I’m not asking anyone to feel sorry for me. The long skein of memories of Thanksgivings past are more than enough to fill me up with joy and be thankful for what I have in the here and now.

Those cherished memories led me to write of the 10 reasons why Thanksgiving is my favorite holiday. I’m sure you can add a few reasons of your own.

10. The Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade

Yeah, I know. Pretty pathetic, huh? Watching a parade on TV barely beats watching golf or curling.

But over the last 50 years, I may have missed the parade 3 times. It is pure Americana — a spectacle of culture and capitalism that is absolutely irresistible. Lorne Green, who played Ben Cartwright on NBC’s long-running western Bonanza, co hosted with the irrepressible Betty White, who never failed to be awestruck by the gigantic balloons of superheroes, cartoon characters, and literary icons, manned by 50 volunteers who were sometimes lucky not go get blown away when there was a stiff breeze. Today’s hosts — mostly talent from The Today Show are engaging but lack the charm and warmth of previous hosts.

Pop stars, Broadway’s finest, and even talent from the Met would stop in front of the NBC broadcast position and lip-sync their latest hit.

And yes, I still get excited when the parade concludes with Santa and his sleigh.

9. The start of a long weekend.

When I was in school, Thanksgiving meant the longest weekend off of the year. Even as a young adult living in Washington, I was almost always able to wangle Friday after Thanksgiving off from my boss. It’s a nice break just before winter is beginning to sink his claws into you and the weather is still warm enough for outdoor activities.

Today, I’m not sure how many Americans take Friday off, but it’s a lot fewer than used to. Still, I’m sure the kids enjoy the extra time off from school.

8. The official kick-off of Christmas season

That’s a laugher considering that some retail outlets put up their Christmas decorations the day after Labor Day.

But once upon a time, before everyone knew what “Black Friday” meant, and stores were closed on Thanksgiving, part of Thanksgiving day was spent pouring over the Sears catalog. Funny thing is, we rarely picked out gifts for ourselves. We’d see something in the Big Book and say, “John would love that,” or “That would be a great one for Peggy.” Thus, we all shared in the spirit of giving.

Thanksgiving was also the day my Mother unveiled that season’s Advent Calendar, a sure sign that Christmas was just around the corner.

7. Football

There are some families that plan their entire day around the football games. A little overboard if you ask me, but when the Bears play, the entire family would be glued to the TV. The Detroit Lions have been hosting a Thanksgiving Day game since the 1930’s and the Chicago Bears have been a frequent opponent. It’s a little different when you don’t have a rooting interest in who wins, but as a means to get away from pesky cousins or annoying uncles, it was a godsend.

6. Turkey

Baked, roasted, fried, grilled — any way Turkey is prepared, it’s a special food. The smell of turkey in the oven brings the memories forward thick as prairie grass. And since it takes so long to cook, the smell serves to build your appetite for the feast to come.

My father would receive a gift from a supplier friend of a humungous 24-26 lb Turkey every Christmas and Thanksgiving. The damn bird was as big as a bear cub and barely squeezed into our old fashioned Kenmore oven. But since my mother was usually cooking for 29 people — aunts, uncles, cousins, and a few friends of the family — she always bought a 13-15 lb bird to supplement the feast as well as assure the family of open-faced hot turkey sandwiches the following night for dinner.

Overdosing on tryptophan laden Turkey was a requirement, which meant a lot of sleeping kids and adults about a half an hour after dinner was over.

5. Dressing

My mother made the best dressing of any mother in the world and you can quote me on that. Not too much sage, just the right amount of onion, sausage that wasn’t too spicy, and 3 loaves of Wonder Bread, wetted to exactly the right consistency so that when it came out of the bird, it was never too dry or too gooey.

Margie Lou Moran’s dressing was a gift from the gods, equally good hot or cold, by itself or with gravy, eaten with a fork or fingers. It never lasted more than two meals despite the mountain of dressing she made because so many of us would sneak into the fridge and grab a handful.

4. Lime Jello with Cottage Cheese and crushed pineapple

My mother would make two large molds of this stuff and watch it disappear. It may sound counterintuitive to combine jello and cottage cheese, but it worked. And the acidic snap of the pineapple went very well with the lime.

She was at a loss to explain the jello’s popularity. She once said that she probably made 1000 gallons of the stuff in her life and might have eaten three bites herself.

3. The late night turkey sandwich.

In a family of 7 growing boys, a feast at 5:00 PM or 6:00 PM meant that we were ravenous again by midnight. Hence, the tradition of the midnight turkey sandwich.

It wasn’t so much the food that made it memorable as it was standing in the kitchen with my brothers, laughing, joking, roughhousing — making strong the bonds of kinship.

Turkey on rye with sharp cheddar with a dash of horseradish sounds like a food that would give you nightmares. But it was delicious and just the thing to assuage the pangs of hunger and send you off to sleep.

2. Family dinner

In talking with others through the years of their experiences at Thanksgiving dinner, I found some remarkable similarities. There’s usually someone who holds forth, regaling the family with stories and jokes — many of them repeated year after year. Everyone laughs at the same place, making the same asides in response. It’s almost script-like in its comforting repetitiveness. A special feeling of closeness descends on those at the table. The stories, the jokes — they’re not as important as sharing love and affection with those of the same blood, or adopted by marriage.

Cheers for the cook, rasberries for the turkey carver, and a hearty toast to cement the bonds of family and fill the heart with contented joy.

1. My Mother

My mother conducted Thanksgiving dinner with the rhythm of a symphony orchestra and the efficiency of a drill sergeant. It was always an amazing performance. To get two turkeys, three pies, jello, rolls, vegetable, mashed potatoes, gravy, sweet potato casserole, and whatever else, making it to the table hot and delicious at the same time always impressed me as a miracle.

This was a time before instant dressing, ready made pie crusts, fancy salads you can buy at the grocery store, or any other time saving prepared foods we routinely use today. Everything was made from the ground up; homemade pie crusts that were so flaky it melted in your mouth. The aforementioned dressing — a food group by itself. The labor involved in preparing a feast for 25-30 blows my mind.

She’d be up at 6:00 AM, usually with the youngest on her hip or toddling around in the kitchen. There would be 12 hours of kneading, baking, mixing, roasting, peeling, and chopping with the result never in doubt. As the girls got older, they would help, but there is little doubt who was responsible for a repast that never failed to bring ooohs and ahhhs to those assembled.

For myself, Sue doesn’t like turkey but she always makes one anyway. We always have a prime rib roast to go with it — a tradition that we started 8 years ago when we got together and one that I cherish as well. And as the house fills up with the smells of Thanksgiving, I return once again to a table seen through the mists of memory with so many smiling faces — many of them gone now, but still alive and well in that place in my heart where recollection evokes feelings of love and longing.

If you think you know something of history, this quiz, based on the latest book by VDH, The Savior Generals, can be fun and challenging.

The quiz is part of PJ Media’s latest project, the Freedom Academy. I’m a member of the literary panel for the academy, along with authors and web personalities like Andrew McCarthy, Jonah Goldberg, Rich Lowry and others. Here’s the info about the book club.

Here are a couple of questions from the quiz:

How did Themistocles Die? (10 points)
Of old age in Athens
Killed gallantly the next year at the Battle of Plataea
Committed suicide while working for the Persians
We have no information of what happened to him

Who were the Americans actually fighting in Korea? (10 points)
North Korean communist forces
Red Chinese soldiers of the People’s Liberation Army
Russian military advisors
All of the above

Whom did Sherman consider his most gifted colleague? (10 points)
Gen. Henry Halleck
Secretary of War Stanton
General U.S. Grant
General George Thomas

Not easy, eh? Be prepared for some brain teasers from the professor.

By the way, your going to want to become a premium member of the Freedom Academy if only to have access to Dr. Hanson’s 4 hour series of lectures on Western Civilization. There are also series of programs on the Federalist Papers, and a series on the creation of the US Constitution.

Take the quiz here.

Just who is this guy Ted Cruz and what does he want? The Senator from Texas has been all over the news with his campaign to defund Obamacare this week - despite not having much of a plan to do so.

Now he’s on the floor of the Senate talking until he drops, he says. Is he a sincere patriot standing up to the entrenched interests in Washington? Or is he hugely ambitious, cold, calculating politician with a monumental ego?

You won’t want to miss this next episode of the RINO Hour of Power with your host Rick Moran and co-host Fausta Wertz of Fausta’s blog.

An examination of the man and his motives - Ted Cruz will be the topic of discussion. The hosts will be joined by JR Dunn of American Thinker.

We stream live from 8:00 - 9:00 PM Eastern time. A podast will be available shortly after the end of the show.

You can join us live by clicking the icon below or by clicking here.

This is the sixth in my series of week-long blog posts called Countdown to Gettysburg“. They are written from the perspective of someone who lived at that time and as if the internet existed in 1863.

The introduction to the series is here.

Previous Posts:

June 27, 1863

June 28, 1863

June 29, 1863

June 30, 1863

July 1, 1863

****************************************************

As I write this, there is a hint of red in the sky foreshadowing the dawn of another day in this war. That red means it will be another scorching day with temperatures in the 90’s. And for our boys camped out on the hills and ridges overlooking the town of Gettysburg, it means another day of desperate fighting.

Or maybe not.

I half hoped that Bobby Lee would try his old trick of giving us the slip and swing around our flank to make a dash for Baltimore or even Washington. That way, he could face us on ground of his own choosing by assuming a defensive posture, daring Meade to attack well fortified positions. I feel certain that he got that advice, probably from Longstreet. One look at the map below will tell you why:

GETTYSBURG AT DAWN JULY 2

As you can see, our boys are in excellent position, better than we could possibly have dreamed. We occupy the high ground from Culps Hill in the north to the base of the hill called Little Round Top in the south. It kind of reminds me of a fish hook.

In short, a very strong defensive position on, as General Meade says, “good ground.”

During the night, General Sickle’s III Corps, along with General Hancock’s II Corps and General Slocum’s XII Corps arrived and were deployed expertly by Hancock. Reb strength is unknown but we should assume that most of their boys have arrived too. Right now, all we’re missing is VI Corps and they’re not expected to arrive until afternoon.

One note from yesterday’s battle; casualty figures are much worse than originally thought. In addition to losing General Reynolds, I Corps suffered an unbelievable 70% in casualties. They took upward of 10,000 men into battle and now have less than 2,500 effectives. That finishes I Corps as a fighting force, at least until it can be reorganized.

As for XI Corps, most of their losses are in the “missing, presumed captured” category. The fact that they broke and ran yesterday contributed in no small way to I Corps astronomical losses. They better fight well today. We’re going to need them.

It’s getting lighter in the east. Washington city is quiet, expectant, waiting anxiously for news. We hear that Grant sent a note to Pemberton asking him to surrender at Vicksburg. No reply yet but if true, the fall of that rebel stronghold on the Mississippi would be a devastating blow to the South.

But it won’t mean a thing unless our boys can whip Bobby Lee in Pennsylvania. And that’s something we’ve never done.

Check back for updates through the afternoon.

UPDATE

There’s an expectant quiet on the field. It’s almost noon, brutally hot and so far, the rebs have been satisfied with some exchanges of long range artillery fire and a few instances of pickets firing. Mr. Wilkerson of the New York Times has wired me with the information that General Sykes and his V Corps has arrived with General Sedgewick and the VI Corps expected shortly.

Lots of reb movement has been observed but so far, no attacks, not even cavalry skirmishes. I wonder what Bobby Lee is waiting for? Major Rathbone says to keep on eye on the left. He says army intelligence has put Pete Longstreet’s Corps opposite General Sickles who’s holding the extreme left next to a little stand of trees called Zieglers Grove. Rathbone thinks Lee will have his best Corps commander - Longstreet - lead the attack. It makes sense except for one thing; Bobby Lee never does the expected.

When I get any more reports, I’ll post again.

UPDATE II

It’s mid afternoon now and the news from Gettysburg is grim.

Mr. Wilkerson of the New York Times:

General Meade is beside himself because of the action taken by General Sickles. Posted on the extreme left of the Federal line, Sickles was dissatisfied with his deployment believing he could be flanked rather easily. About a half mile further left was a hill with a peach orchard on top. Sickles formed his line there thus leaving a gap in the Federal lines of about 1/2 mile and isolating him from the rest of the army. Here as a map of our positions at that time:

GETTYSBURG AT 3:00 PM JULY 2

Meade was fit to be tied when he saw this saying in response to Sickles promise to support Howard’s XI Corps that it would do no good, that the rest of the Army of the Potomac would have to instead support him.”

I’ll wire you later with details.

Wilkerson confirms much of what I’ve heard from the War Department today. I’ve also heard that the rebs are ready to move against Culps Hill on the right. Here’s what my source in the War Department thinks things look like at the moment on the extreme left of our position:

GETTYSBURG AROUND 6:00 PM JULY 2

I will have more as soon as I get it.

UPDATE III

As long as I live, I shall never forget what has just been relayed to me by an eyewitness in Colonel Vincent’s Brigade of General Barnes Division V Corps. It is, simply put, the most outstanding example of courage and intestinal fortitude I’ve ever heard.

It happened at Little Round Top. Following the rout of Sickles Corps by Hood’s men, several regiments of Alabama and Texas boys started to make their way up the undefended Little Round Top. Just in time, General Warren, who was operating a signals station on top of the hill, recognized the danger and sent out a call for the nearest available troops to come “at the double quick.”

Those troops belonged to General Barnes Division, a Pennsylvanian by the name of Colonel Strong Vincent. Vincent sized up the situation immediately. It was as dire as the Army of the Potomac ever faced.

If the rebs had been able to sweep Little Round Top, it would have been a relatively simple thing to drag a few batteries up there where, protected by a few regiments of infantry, they could have shelled the entire Union line all the way past Cemetery Ridge to Culp’s Hill. The army would have to leave. And with Lee putting pressure along the entire front, it’s likely such a movement would have turned into a rout.

High stakes indeed. Vincent placed his men along a spur of Little Round Top just below the summit. Here are the dispositions of our boys:

Little Round Top 6:00 PM July 2

At the extreme left of the line was Colonel Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain’s 20th Maine. They were the anchor of the line. If they gave way, the entire army was flanked. Clearly, Chamberlain’s men would have to stand firm.

And stand firm they did, I’m proud to say. The rebs made charge after charge, each time lengthening Chamberlain’s lines out to the left a little more. Those Alabama and Texas boys were relentless. My eyewitness lost count of the number of times the rebs charged up that hill. Finally, it was apparent that Chamberlain would have to do something because his boys were almost out of ammunition. More than half his men were killed or wounded. He couldn’t retreat and if he stayed where he was, he’d be overrun.

So he ordered his boys to fix bayonets and charge!

That’s right. One lone regiment charging two divisions of rebs.

Well don’t ask me how or why, but his boys made a spirited charge down that hill, broke the backs of the reb effort to take the hill, and saved the Union army.

Like I said, I’ll never forget it as long as I live.

It’s getting near dark, but fighting is still raging all along the line. I’m told there’s a fierce fight around Culp’s Hill where General Wadsworth’s boys were temporarily dislodged by 3 divisions of Ewell’s Corps. I say temporarily because Wadsworth ordered a counterattack and after some of the worst hand to hand fighting of the war, our boys regained the hill. But Ewell’s boys aren’t going away. They may try a night attack to throw our boys off that hill.

And the rebs also made an effort to take Cemetery Hill right in the middle of our line. They actually broke through for a few minutes. Then the 1st Minnesota pulled something similar to Chamberlain’s feat and charged the attacking rebs. I hear their losses were 90%.

Other casualty figures are unavailable right now but the general consensus at headquarters is pretty grim. Sickles Corps was badly mauled and some other units on our left were also decimated. I should have a better idea by morning of where we stand.

About today, I guess you can say we’re holding our own. That’s the best you can say. It was a very near thing in some cases, with the rebs extremely close to breaking through and splitting the army or flanking our boys and levering them off the ridge. And we paid dearly for it.

One sad note. Do you remember Mr. Wilkerson, the New York Times reporter whose son was a Colonel in the 127th New York? Well, the last my source saw of him was near the Devils Den where he was sitting, weeping uncontrollably next to the body of his dead son.

When this cruel war is over…

The Adventures of Ozzie and Harriet, the longest running live action situation comedy in television history, debuted on radio in 1944 and ended it’s TV run in 1966. Such longevity in the entertainment business is remarkable and a testament to the creative genius of Ozzie Nelson, a former band leader who married singer Harriet Snyder in 1935. The couple decided to appear as a team so that their separate careers wouldn’t keep them apart. This led eventually to the radio incarnation of their show and finally, their successful TV run.

As with all the 1950’s and early 1960’s family-themed sitcoms, the shows featured a strong, loving father, a doting, submissive mother, and usually one or more precocious children whose every day problems became the plots for most of the episodes. They all lived in neat, trim, suburban houses, with comfortable but not ostentatious furnishings. The children were well-fed, always wore clean clothes, and were respectful of their elders, authority figures, and rarely misbehaved.

The key to Ozzie and Harriet’s popularity, as well as series’ like Father Knows Best, Leave it to Beaver, and Make Room for Daddy was simple: TV was portraying the ideal family, in an ideal setting, with ideal characters, living mostly idyllic lives. Those shows are skewered by modern day critics who scoff at the portrayal of the family in such a positive, unrealistic light. But the fact is, many millions of Americans saw themselves being portrayed by those TV families and they embraced the values that were illuminated by the characters every week.

But we all know it wasn’t really like that. Daddy may have had an affair with his secretary and sometimes beat his kids. Mom may have been a closet alcoholic and a psychologically abusive witch. The teenage girl occasionally had sex and got pregnant. And the teenage boy might have struggled to suppress his attraction to the same sex while failing algebra and getting in trouble with the law for going joy-riding in a neighbor’s car.

The problems of the “traditional families” in the 1950’s aren’t really much different than problems faced by families today. Except that the families today don’t look much like the Nelson family. It’s just a pity many conservatives apparently don’t see that, or refuse to accept it.

The essence of America is change. It is the source of our greatest strength as a society — our ability to right wrongs, adapt to new situations, and reinvent ourselves. We can alter the course of history if we work hard enough and believe strongly enough.

What we can’t do is turn back the clock. But for some on the right, this simple, physical law is ignored and the political and social ramifications of this inability to deal with the massive structural changes in our society is threatening to make conservatism irrelevant and the Republican party a memory.

Pew Research recently released a rather startling survey which showed that 4 in 10 American households with children now feature women as the primary breadwinners. The internals of the poll are fascinating; 37% of those women are married and make more money than their husbands. But 63% are single mothers. Perhaps it’s not surprising that most of the married women are white and most of the single women are black and Hispanic — a sad commentary on the effects of poverty on the family.

Pew offers a logical explanation:

The growth of both groups of mothers is tied to women’s increasing presence in the workplace. Women make up almost of half (47%) of the U.S. labor force today, and the employment rate of married mothers with children has increased from 37% in 1968 to 65% in 2011.

Erickson, appearing on Fox News along with Juan Williams and Lou Dobbs, showed why Josh Barro was right when he wrote, “Erick Erickson Shows Everything That’s Wrong With The GOP”:

I’m so used to liberals telling conservatives that they’re anti-science. But liberals who defend this and say it is not a bad thing are very anti-science. When you look at biology, when you look at the natural world, the roles of a male and a female in society and in other animals, the male typically is the dominant role. The female, it’s not antithesis, or it’s not competing, it’s a complimentary role.

Erickson’s saved himself from complete ignominy by using the word “typically” to describe sex roles in the animal kingdom. That may be true. But there are enough examples of females being dominant — especially among primates — to question his scientific acumen.

And, of course, humans are a little different than the rest of the animal kingdom. As rational, self-aware thinking apes, we have the ability to rise above purely instinctive behavior and make choices based on the notion that, while there are many differences between men and women, we are possessed with equal levels of intelligence, ambition, and innate ability.

But Erickson’s beef is not with nature (one can never be sure, but one hopes he accepts the above premise), it is with the choices that women make and how those choices are affecting the family. They are not the choices that Harriet Nelson would have made, nor many women from the 1950’s.

For single mothers, there is no choice. More than 8.5 million women are forced to work outside the home to support their children. Almost 30% of single mothers live in poverty. With absent fathers, who are likely to contribute little in the way of child support or alimony, support structures for single mothers are nearly non-existent. What choice does Erickson want these women to make? Find a man and marry him? If only it were that simple.

The 37% of women with children who have chosen to pursue a career that allows them to be the primary source of income for the family are what’s really eating at Erickson and other conservatives. “Having mom as primary bread winner is bad for kids and bad for marriage,” said Erickson. Oh really? And on what scientific basis is that statement made? The “traditional family,” where the dad works, and the mom stays at home all day to take care of the kids, is nearly non-existent. Only 14% of families fit that template today. The overwhelming majority of women work outside of the home — not exactly what Harriet Nelson had in mind, but that’s America. Women make up 47% of the workforce and nearly a quarter of them have more education and training than their husbands. A growing number of fathers — 3.5% — are “stay at home dads” and make themselves responsible for child rearing while their better educated, more successful wives go off to work.

There’s much more. When Erickson claims that female bread winners are bad for children and their marriage, what kind of family is he imagining where the kids are better off and the marriage has a better chance of success? One can have little doubt that Erickson would reply the “traditional family” is what he has in mind.

But what is a “traditional” family? A few facts on what the family unit looks like in America today:

* Single parents account for 27 percent of family households with children under 18.
* More than two million fathers are the primary caregivers of children under 18, a 62 percent increase since 1990.
* One in two children will live in a single-parent family at some point in childhood.
* One in three children is born to unmarried parents.
* Nearly half of all marriages end in divorce.
* More than one million children have parents who separate or divorce each year.
*More than half of Americans today have been, are or will be in one or more stepfamily situations.

If there is such a thing as a “traditional family” today, it is a blended family — parents and children the result of more than one union. But there are other kinds of family units that would certainly fall under the rubric “non-traditional”:

* Estimates show that approximately 2 million American children under the age of 18 are being raised by their lesbian and gay parents
* The number of unmarried partner households has increased by 72 percent in the last decade from three million in 1990 to more than five million in 2000. These figures include both same-sex and different-sex couples.
* One-third of lesbian households and one-fifth of gay male households have children.

Studies still show that the optimum situation for children is to have a married, different sex couple as parents. A child’s chances of success in education, in employment, and in building their own stable, monogamous relationship as an adult increases dramatically if they live in such an environment.

But truly, how many children can live under “optimum” conditions”? Do we tell everyone else they can’t have kids? There are a million reasons why families break up and it is a certainty that women being primary breadwinners isn’t one of them. Blame the ease of divorce compared to 50 years ago. Blame a culture that devalues monagomy. Blame fathers who beat their wives, mothers who constantly bitch about money, or couples who simply drift apart. But there is no basis to blame female breadwinners except an outdated notion of women and the family.

That conservatives consider themselves guardians of the traditional family, and family values is a good and noble thing. But the guardians of tradition, to be effective, must recognize the times in which they live and adjust to the changing realities of the culture and society. It’s no use trying to recapture the Ozzie and Harriet version of the family, or any notion that women will eschew the opportunities that the 21st century is presenting to them because they may end up making more money than their husbands. That kind of thinking has gone the way of the Studebaker and Davey Crockett coonskin caps. Conservatives should concentrate on channeling the changes we are seeing in the family unit into productive outlets that helps parents nurture children and empowers families to achieve security. Building non-governmental support systems in the community is a good start. This means affordable day care, after school activities, and perhaps educational opportunities for the parents.Voting for politicians who even vaguely understand the value of a well-ordered free market couldn’t hurt either.

In other words, conservatives must work to strengthen the voluntary community. Not by lecturing women about how much money they make and hectoring them about how seeking their idea of a fulfilling life is selfish and even unseemly, but by welcoming everyone, of every race and yes, sexual orientation, into the circle.

Otherwise, conservatives and their political party will find themselves on the outside looking in.

“May you be cursed to live in interesting times,” says the fake Chinese proverb. But this is getting ridiculous — and embarrassing, if you’re a conservative.

Liberals made idiots of themselves during the Bush years believing that every revelation that “proved” “Bush lied, people died” would rid the country of the smirking Texan by way of impeachment. The American people, in their righteous anger, would rise up and smite the illegitimate cowboy (and his sidekick, Darth Cheney), bringing down his regime — with the help of Democrats who only wanted what was best for the country. Of course, they never mentioned that with Bush and Cheney out of the way, the Democratic Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi would become president. Little details like that always got lost in the shuffle.

Recall the snark on conservative websites this idiocy elicited at the time. The right had a gay old time rattling liberal’s cages, making helpful suggestions as to which Marx brother might lead the effort to convict Bush and Cheney in the Senate, and other sound pieces of advice. A good time was had by all in portraying the left to be unhinged, out of touch, and out of their minds.

Bit now, the bottom rail is on top and it is the right embarrassing itself by pushing for the impeachment of President Obama. It’s hard to keep track of how many scandals have seen Republicans and conservatives calling for Obama’s head. The granddaddy of them all is, of course, the Birther issue and all its attendant trappings of conspiracy and intrigue. Then there was the “Fast and Furious” gun walking scandal where people have actually been murdered by guns sold to Mexican drug gangs by hapless ATF agents and overseen by incompetents in the Justice Department.

There’s much, much more. In an effort to be helpful, here is a website that has listed 100 potential articles of impeachment against the president. Some might think that 100 articles of impeachment is a stretch. Others may believe it’s a pretty good start. But perusing this list is like getting in a wayback machine and reading what the left was saying about President Bush at the time. It’s the same sort of madness and hysteria that afflicted liberals who could never quite separate their partisan desires from doing what was good for the country.

Now comes the attacks by terrorists on our diplomats in Benghazi on September 11 last year and the panicked, incompetent, and ultimately dishonest response by the State Department, the Department of Defense, the CIA, and the White House. Coming as it did in the midst of a close campaign for the presidency, the political overtones in that response resonate to this day. And several prominent Republicans and conservatives see in that response a reason to overturn the election of November 6, 2012 — to toss the votes of 65 million Americans into the gutter.

It isn’t just fringe players on the right who are serious about impeaching the president. Mike Huckabee said on his radio show recently:

‘When a president lies to the American people and is part of a cover-up, he cannot continue to govern,’ Huckabee said on his radio show Monday.

‘As the facts come out, I think we’re going to see something startling. And before it’s over, I don’t think this president will finish his term unless somehow they can delay it in Congress past the next 3½ years.’

Washington Times columnist and Boston radio host Jeffrey Kuhner believes the president should be impeached for allowing the Boston Marathon bombing:

The Boston massacre was a defining moment. It exposed Mr. Obama’s narcissistic and reckless approach to combating terror. There can be no illusions any longer — we are in a clash of civilizations between radical Islam and the West. Mr. Obama has denied this painful reality long enough. By burying his head in the ideological sands, he has made Americans pay a terrible price. It’s time he is held responsible for his gross negligence. It’s time that he be impeached. Justice demands no less.

WorldNetDaily has been running a petition since February demanding the impeachment of the president. Twitter’s #impeachment tag appears very popular with about a tweet a minute. That doesn’t include references to impeachment in tweets using #Benghazi, or #bigtimescandal which top the trending topics.

Form CEO of PJ Media Roger Simon got on the impeachment bandwagon long ago:

While we are making Watergate analogies, it’s worth noting this is far worse than that noxious moment in American history or the other recent impeachment episode — Clinton. In the former, some dumb zealots broke into the campaign headquarters of the opposition party in an election that wasn’t remotely close. Nevertheless, the paranoid Nixon destroyed himself by trying to cover up the idiocy. Clinton wagged his finger at us and lied about sex under oath, while his wife — an important figure in Benghazi where she has already been caught dissimulating — similarly lied by publicly blaming her husband’s philandering on the “great right-wing conspiracy.” (What power!)

Creepy behavior all around and certainly nothing remotely presidential, but, compared to Benghazi, no one died or was even injured. As far as I know, no one even stubbed a toe.

Benghazi, on the contrary, was an important battle in the Global War on Terror, which has now reached our shores more than once. It will undoubtedly do so again. Those who take this casually in the slightest are conscious or unconscious traitors or fools — or so self-interested as to be beneath contempt.

John McCain also believes that Benghazi is worse than Watergate, so Mr. Simon doesn’t stray far from the mainstream by making that charge.

What puzzles many is that in all this passionate rhetoric, there seems to be some words missing. Huckabee never mentions them. Simon didn’t include them. And in all those 100 proposed articles of impeachment against the president, the words never appear.

How can you impeach a president without mentioning “high crimes and misdemeanors?”

That’s the constitutional standard and for people who purport to love our founding document, there is precious little said about a serious case to be made that the lies, the incompetence, the political calculation, the whitewashing, and even the stonewalling and denial of documents add up to a reason to overturn the election and make Joe Biden president.

Michael Hirsh writing in the National Journal:

All this will no doubt come back to haunt Hillary Clinton should she decide to run for president; in some cases, she appeared to have been too removed from the events in Benghazi. Hicks at one point testified that that he personally spoke to Clinton at 2 a.m. on the night of the attacks, which makes the administration’s vague description in subsequent days even more suspicious.

But that hardly adds up to a cover-up. In the end, Darrell Issa, R-Calif., the chairman of the committee, may find himself digging yet another dry well, as he has done so many times. Even before he took over the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, with zero evidence in hand, Issa called Obama “one of the most corrupt presidents in modern times.” In his relentless search for evidence (and headlines) since, he has found nothing to back up that statement, including his highly publicized and largely fruitless hearings last June into the the Justice Department’s botched “Fast and Furious” gun-tracking program.

Benghazi was a tragedy. It will, almost certainly, remain a political issue. What it is not – by a long shot — is a scandal yet.

That last by Hirsh may be more wishful thinking than cogent analysis. What the administration’s actions and omissions regarding Benghazi isn’t, by a long shot, is criminal or impeachable — yet. A scandal it surely is, especially after the testimony yesterday from three highly credible witnesses seriously contradicted the story about the attack and its aftermath coming from the White House. Even the House GOP report on Benghazi issued last month contains the germ of scandal regarding the way that the unclassified talking points were altered.

But an impeachable offense never makes an appearance in the report, nor did any of the compelling testimony yesterday come close to attaching direct blame for any of the transgressions mentioned — none of them impeachable –to the president. You can’t impeach a president for being a naive fool, or an incompetent boob. You can’t impeach a president because he chose aides, assistants, or cabinet secretaries who can’t, or won’t do their jobs. You can’t impeach a president for looking into a camera and lying to the American people. Nor can you impeach a president for playing politics with national security, failing to rescue Americans under attack, or going to sleep in the middle of a crisis.

It is embarrassing for so many on the right to talk about the “unraveling” of the Benghazi narrative being the “end of Obama’s presidency.” The fact is, even if the press went into a feeding frenzy over this story, fulfilling the dreams of Obama’s most strident opponents, and spreading the details of the scandal far and wide, it is doubtful that the public would be outraged enough to demand the impeachment of the president. Obama’s approval rating is still in the low 40’s and given his base of support, it is unlikely to drop into the mid 20’s — a number that eventually convinced Richard Nixon, with the help of GOP leaders who believed if Nixon stuck it out through a senate trial, it would destroy the party — to resign.

The last three presidents have all had to deal with the issue of impeachment from rabid partisans who care little about constitutional standards and less about the good of the country. Both left and right have made fools of themselves the last decade by treating the extraordinarily serious issue of impeachment as just another political tool, employing it as the ultimate attack — the WMD of political combat.

It is not edifying for the right to emulate the absolute worst tactics of their opponents. Yes, hold Obama and his administration accountable by getting to the truth of what happened in Benghazi. But unless real evidence surfaces that ties the president directly to an impeachable offense, it would behoove all of us to abandon the idea of tossing out the votes of 65 million Americans who returned Barack Obama to office last November.

Subtitle of this next exciting episode of the RINO Hour of Power is “Everything you were too afraid to ask about Benghazi lest someone think you a right wing nut.”

Along with your usual host Rick Moran will be co-host Jeff Kropf. And our expert guest will be Washingtin insider Bridget Johnson, Washington editor of PJ Media.

The show streams live from 8:00 - 9:00 PM eastern time. A podcast will be available shortly after the end of the show.

You can join us live by clicking the icon below or by clicking here.

Join us for another wild and wooly episode of the RINO Hour of Power with your host Rick Moran and special guest host Rich Baehr of the American Thinker.

The effort to skim money from bank deposits held by citizens of Cyprus to pay for a bank bailout has failed for the moment. But the significance of this move is not lost on ordinary people in the west who now fear their government could try something similar.

Could it happen here? We’ll discuss the Cyprus crisis along with the recently concluded CPAC conference and other issues with Investor Business Daily editorial writer Andrew Malcolm.

The show streams live from 8:00 - 9:00 PM Eastern time. A podcast will be available shortly after the end of the show.

You can join us live by clicking the icon below or by clicking here.