It’s official. A controversial petition effort has succeeded in San Fransisco. This November, the city’s voters will decide whether or not to ban infant circumcision.

If the measure passes, circumcision would be prohibited among males under the age of 18. The practice would become a misdemeanor offense punishable by a fine of up to $1,000 or up to one year in jail. There would be no religious exemptions.

This would be the first ban of its kind in the United States. It would undoubtedly trigger litigation from religious groups alleging a First Amendment violation. Circumcision has religious significance for Jews and Muslims.

While religious freedom is surely threatened by the San Fran proposal, the larger threat is against parental rights. The vote evokes a question which serves as a litmus test separating libertarians from communitarians. Are parents the natural custodians of their children, or mere civil guardians beholden to the judgment of others?

“Parents are really guardians, and guardians have to do what’s in the best interest of the child. It’s [the child's] body. It’s his choice,” said Lloyd Schofield, the measure’s lead proponent and a longtime San Francisco resident, who said the cutting away of the foreskin from the penis is a more invasive medical procedure than many new parents or childless individuals realize.

Schofield’s view of the parental role is instructive of the Left’s war against parenthood. Unfortunately, the emotions evoked wherever children are concerned drive many well-meaning conservatives toward the same line of thinking.

Opponents of parental rights like Schofield imagine some esoteric distinction between individual rights and parental authority. If an adult wants to [fill in the blank], that’s one thing. But they don’t have the right to force it on their children.

This position is extremely problematic. It betrays a flawed view of individual rights, if not an outright rejection of them.

Who gets to determine what is in the best interest of a child? Surely, children cannot be expected to make such decisions on their own. So who may act in their stead? Parents are the only individuals with any natural claim upon that role.

In a free society, the only prohibition is against harming another. The mistake opponents of parental rights make is regarding children as that other, as if they are distinct from their parents, as if they are mere roommates whose agency is violated by parental intrusion. Of course, children are not independent agents. They are wards subject to the judgment of their custodians. Evoking their rights is therefore evoking parental rights. The threshold for state encroachment upon parental judgment is no different than the threshold for state encroachment upon individual judgment. They are, quite literally, one and the same.

This is not a frivolous issue. It strikes at the core of fundamental American values – religious freedom, natural law, and individual rights. What is the principle which informs our regard for those rights? Do we let people act upon their own judgment because they always make rational decisions? Do we let people act upon their own judgment because they agree with us? Or do we let people act upon their own judgment because it is their inherent right to do so, whether they are rational or not, whether their judgment aligns with ours our not?

The answer is well established. The entire concept of religious freedom proceeds from it. Your religion does not have to make sense to me. Your decisions do not require my approval. Your actions are not subject to my judgement. How quickly that falls by the wayside once we imagine the state as parent.

Leftists still don’t get the Tea Party, and neither does the Republican party establishment. Reuters recently reported on a private meeting which took place between several Tea Party activists and House Speaker John Boehner. The mood was less than cordial.

One of the 25 or so [Tea Party] leaders, all from Boehner’s district, asked him if Republicans would raise America’s $14.3 trillion debt limit.

According to half a dozen attendees interviewed by Reuters, the most powerful Republican in Washington said “yes(…)”

That answer incensed many of the Tea Party activists, for whom raising the debt limit is anathema.

From the sidelines, the Left snickers and wags a finger.

Boehner, along with much of the GOP, is “stuck between the Tea Party and a hard place.” But, he only has himself to blame for bringing the activists into the fold and over-promising what he could deliver with control of a single chamber of Congress.

Surely, there are Tea Party activists with unreasonable expectations of what Republicans can accomplish with control of the House. However, the major beef Tea Partiers have with Republicans is not their lack of accomplishment. It’s their unwillingness to stand and fight, their apparent lack of principle, and the resulting impotence toward shifting the narrative in Washington.

The crux of the conflict between the Tea Party and Republicans is a choice between short-term pragmatism and entrenched political warfare. Too often, the questions Republicans ask themselves are. Will this work? Can this pass? Will we win?

The Left never asks these questions. They never concern themselves with whether a course is practical. They focus on controlling the narrative, framing the debate, then dominating the conversation. Doing so enables them to affect whether a future gambit, which may not work today, works tomorrow. They’re willing to double-down when the long-term benefit is worth the risk.

Just look at the lengths Democrats were willing to go to in order to shove Obamacare down our throats. They didn’t care how much it cost them in 2010. They only cared about affecting a fundamental transformation which would benefit their cause in the long-run.

That’s what the Tea Party demands of Republicans. Will the debt ceiling be raised? Almost certainly. The point is how. What will Republicans get in return? What will Democrats have to concede? How will the debate be framed? How will conservatives control the narrative? How will Boehner put the Left on the defensive, and strike a counter-blow that will sour their comparatively small victory?

Ron Musilli, 62, a native of Troy, recalls asking Boehner what leverage points the Republicans planned to focus on in debt limit talks with the White House and Senate Democrats.

“We haven’t figured that out yet,” he recalls Boehner replied.

That’s unacceptable. The fear is that Republicans haven’t concocted a strategy against the White House because they are more focused on “managing expectations” among conservatives. That leads the Tea Party to the conclusion that serious changes are due in 2012.

“The Tea Party will almost certainly primary those they want to get rid of,” said Larry Sabato, a politics professor at the University of Virginia. “They are not out to rebuild the Republican Party. They are out to take over the Republican Party and make it more like the Tea Party.”

“If it takes some Republican defeats along the way to make that happen, then that is what they’ll do,” he added.

Believe it. There is a place for pragmatism in political calculations. But like a shield absent a sword, it can’t do much against a fully armed opponent. If Republicans are unwilling to fight, if they lack the courage of their espoused convictions, if they can’t stomach hardcore political warfare, they’ll be replaced by those who can.

Young workers, the lifeblood of any economy, are set to flee New York in droves.

A new Marist College poll shows that 36% of New Yorkers under the age of 30 are planning to leave New York within the next five years – and more than a quarter of all adults are planning to bolt the Empire State.

The New York City suburbs, with their high property values and taxes, are leading the exodus, the poll found.

Of those preparing to leave, 62% cite economic reasons like cost of living, taxes – and a lack of jobs.

This should surprise no one. People work to provide for themselves and otherwise pursue happiness. When fiscal policies and regulation create an environment hostile to that objective, people are going to leave. That is, if they are allowed.

The ability to vote with your feet is an essential check on state and local government. But it requires maintaining a clearly defined federalism, with strict division of powers between each level of government. New Yorkers have somewhere to flee to, because the jurisdictions of state and local government are inherently limited. It should be obvious, but the point is often lost in our national policy debates.

Before Obamacare, Massachusetts had Romneycare. Minnesota has a number of state-run healthcare programs. Several states in the union have dabbled in various socialist ventures. Yet the national outcry against such policies, seen most prominently in the Tea Party, is a relatively recent development. Why? Because nationalizing such policies removes exodus as a viable protest of last resort, raising the stakes of debate and backing dissenters into a corner. You can move from Minnesota to Texas with relative ease. Relocating to another country is much more difficult.

That’s a large part of the reason our political discourse is so polarized, because we’ve adopted a one-size-fits-all approach to public policy whereby minorities are railroaded by the national majority. Instead, we ought to return to the libertarian live-and-let-live approach which the Founders enabled through clearly divided power. Doing so will require bold statesmen in state and local government, willing to reject funds from on high when strings are attached.

There is no better guarantor of liberty than divided power. A national government which dictates the policies of each state cannot be held in check. States free to compete for the best and brightest, even if run by dyed-in-the-wool leftists, will eventually be forced to reverse course by the inevitable consequences of their horrible policies. To get business and young workers back, they will have to lower taxes, reduce regulation, and compete to become the freest and thus most attractive state in the union.

Laughing all the way to the bank.

Labor unions claim to champion the Worker, confronting management in pursuit of “fair” compensation. However, the real enemies of organized labor have always been competing non-union workers.

We need look no further than the word “scab.” This pejorative reference to someone who crosses a picket line was coined for a single purpose, to coerce behavior through intimidation.

That’s the only way a union can function. The only way to prevent people from filling vacancies left by strike is to – well, prevent them. That is why conservatives tend to oppose organized labor, not because there is anything inherently wrong with collective bargaining, but because we detest coercion.

The case is vividly made in an ongoing development as instructive as it is amusing. The Huffington Post has been under strike for weeks, and nobody seems to notice.

[The] strike has been called by two legitimate unions: the Newspaper Guild (an affiliate of the Communications Workers of America) and the National Writers Union, Local 1981 of the United Auto Workers. The two unions, and hundreds of bloggers throughout the country, are trying to get a share of the riches pocketed by the owners of the Huffington Post via its sale to AOL, and, as important, set a standard for fair treatment in the future…

This strike can be won. But, the many bloggers who call themselves “liberals” or “progressives”–people who collect money from unions and/or ask for labor’s political endorsements–have to stop crossing the Huffington Post electronic picket line. But, they continue to work for–scab– at a workplace that is being struck and boycotted.

Part of the unions’ frustration stems from the nature of an “electronic picket line.” It’s a hell of a lot tougher to intimidate people when you can’t physically obstruct them, shout them down, or pay a “visit” to their house.

[A] campaign–to publicly identify and praise people who support the strike and publicly identify the scabs–is about to commence in earnest.

Why do the unions want to “identify the scabs?” So they can be effectively bullied into acting against their self-interest.

That’s perhaps the most amusing aspect of the story, leftists nakedly perusing self-interest. In shrugging off the strike, HuffPo bloggers are affirming a fundamentally conservative principle.

Here are three of the justifications from a few of the scabs I have spoken to or emailed with directly–all of whom have received labor money and/or labor political endorsements.

… I’ve determined that she [Huffington] is too important to me and I don’t care whether I’m scabbing or you call me a scab.

Ok, you are a scab.

I get five times as many people to read what I write about [X topic...] so I’m not going to do this.

“This” being honoring the picket line.

I’m an independent contractor who writes where I choose whether the place is organized or not.

Perhaps the lamest of the excuses I’ve heard.

Hilarious, isn’t it? What these HuffPo contributors are saying is, Listen, I’m getting value out of my consensual relationship with The Huffington Post. I’m  sorry you’re not. But that’s you’re problem.

Indeed, why should anyone refuse to work if the work benefits them? More to the point, why should anyone be kept from working if the work benefits them?

Next: What union coercion says tells us about their claims…

The first rule of extortion is, you don’t call it extortion. When thugs come around to collect, they don’t act like they’re taking your money, they act like they’re claiming theirs. They treat you as if you stole from them, and they’ve come to set things right. It’s a psychological assault employed by all tyrants. What’s yours is mine. You keep what I allow, and should thank me for the privilege.

That same thuggish sentiment underlies our government budget debates. The Left has skillfully established the premise that the state owns all wealth, and lets us have some of it. Acceptance of this notion enables the Left to sit in judgment of what individuals spend their money on, and whether that money would be better spent elsewhere.

Minneapolis Star Tribune columnist Lori Sturdevant provides an effective example.  Under the current federal tax code, yachts with certain amenities qualify as second-homes, making them eligible for the same mortgage interest deduction a taxpayer would receive for a house. Congressman Tim Walz (D-MN) has introduced a bill which would disallow that deduction. From Walz’s perspective, it’s a no-brainer.

We’re going to have to make some hard decisions to tackle our national debt, but this isn’t one of them. Closing this tax loophole restores the Mortgage Interest Deduction to its original purpose: helping middle-class families realize the American Dream through home ownership.

Sturdevant concurs, and appeals to Minnesota state legislators to make a similar effort.

You’d do well to start scouring the state tax code for the Minnesota equivalents of yacht subsidies. Look for the breaks embedded in the tax code that benefit people who don’t need taxpayer assistance, and root ‘em out.

Note the language. Studevant refers to tax deductions as “subsidies.” Walz calls them “special interest tax giveaways.” Like any good extortionist, they inverse ownership right off the bat. You don’t own your money. The state does. You keep what they allow, and should thank them for the privilege.

The trap here is conceding to debate the issue as framed, arguing whether the wealthy should keep their yacht deduction. Debating that point misses the larger one. What we should contest is the fundamental premise which informs our current tax system. Why do we tax income? Why are there deductions of any kind? Sturdevant states the answer succinctly with the phrase “taxpayer assistance.” That’s what a progressive income tax is all about, wealth redistribution.

A [Democratic] governor who wants to shift the state tax burden toward upper-income earners should appreciate how doing away with tax breaks could achieve that goal.

Republican legislators who want to avoid raising tax rates and dream of even reducing them in a deficit year should see that eliminating tax breaks might make that possible.

And all who care about getting the most public good from the public purse shouldn’t think only about how the purse is spent.

They should think about what’s being withheld from that purse, and for what reason. They should ask whether the withholding is buying a public good, or a private yacht.

That’s the notion which ought to offend us, not rich people spending their own money. Much of our political discourse proceeds from the premise that there is a collective right to seize what individuals make, based on a comparative analysis of how it might be used. We may question how other people spend their money, subject their personal decisions to our judgment, and confiscate their wealth if we can rationalize a better way to spend it.

We should be debating that premise, not a particular policy informed by it. It’s the difference between haggling with extortionists over the terms of their “protection” and standing up to their tyranny outright.

The Tea Party stands as a moral challenge to the status quo. It’s not a third-party movement. It’s an extra-party movement. It’s not political. It’s philosophical. It is a manifestation of the market, an example of how free minds and free will seep through the cracks of the established paradigm to fulfill unmet needs.

Although it did not manifest in rallies and town halls until 2009, the seeds of the Tea Party were planted 15 years earlier. Republicans took control of Congress in 1994, propelled by the Contract with America. The sweeping reforms Republicans pledged to attempt were largely unsuccessful, an outcome they could lay at the feet of President Clinton. Nonetheless, the perception among rank-and-file conservatives was that the Republicans failed to deliver.

Republican credibility was further eroded when the party held both the White House and Congress during the presidency of George W. Bush. After years of listening to pundits suggest that Democrats were the sole driving force behind ever-expanding government, conservatives watched in awe as Republicans drove the ship of state 180 degrees away from every principle they ran on.

That led to widespread apathy among the grassroots, deflating Republican campaigns and enabling the Democratic victories of 2006 and 2008. Of course, the inauguration of Barack Obama and the subsequent acceleration of government activism through bailouts, nationalized health care, and other forms of “fundamental transformation” reinvigorated conservatives. But they weren’t about to be fooled twice.

Instead of rallying under the Republican banner, discontented citizens took to the streets under the Gadsden flag. The Tea Party became a revolt against politics-as-usual, against partisanship over principle, and for a return to the principles of the Founding.

Among the grassroots movement, many voices have emerged to articulate a philosophy of fiscal responsibility, constitutionally limited government, and free markets. We’ve scoured the net to bring you some of the best bloggers championing that message. We sought to bring to light writers whose work deserves more attention than they currently receive. We wanted to introduce you to voices you may not have heard of before and will be glad to know. These aren’t folks who necessarily identify as Tea Partiers, but who boldly articulate the philosophy which drives the movement. Here are the top 10 Tea Party bloggers you need to read.

Next: The Canine Pundit…

When President Barack Obama announced to the world that Osama bin Laden was killed by American forces in Pakistan, he made sure to distinguish the Al-Qaeda leader’s career of terror from any religious affiliation.

… the United States is not –- and never will be -– at war with Islam. I’ve made clear, just as President Bush did shortly after 9/11, that our war is not against Islam. Bin Laden was not a Muslim leader;

Conservative talk radio host Bill Cunningham, who was on the air at the time of Obama’s announcement, took the president’s claim further and suggested that Bin Laden was not a Muslim at all. Such remarks are based upon the premise that Islam must be “perverted” or “distorted” in order to justify violence in its name.

Someone forgot to send that memo to an imam operating out of the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem.

In a Youtube video uploaded by the imam he said: “The western dogs are rejoicing after killing one of our Islamic lions. From Al-Aqsa Mosque, where the future caliphate will originate with the help of God, we say to them – the dogs will not rejoice too much for killing the lions. The dogs will remain dogs and the lion, even if he is dead, will remain a lion.”

The imam went on to promise revenge, stating that Obama will “hang together with Bush Junior.”

About 25 people holding pictures and posters of bin Laden rallied outside a Gaza City university. The crowd included al-Qaeda sympathizers as well as students who said they opposed bin Laden’s ideology, but were angry at the US for killing him and consider him a martyr.

Here’s a question for President Obama, Mr. Cunningham, and any other hand-wringer attempting to compartmentalize Bin Laden’s religion from his acts of war. If Muslims are claiming Bin Laden as their own, who are we to argue?

Before stating with certainty that Bin Laden was not a Muslim, or not a Muslim leader, or that his war against the United States and her allies was not a manifestation of Islam, it may be instructive to look at some of Bin Laden’s own testimony regarding his ideology and motives.

From a Time magazine interview in 1998:

Our work targets world infidels. Our enemy is the crusader alliance led by America, Britain and Israel. It is a crusader-Jewish alliance.

From a Time magazine profile published on September 16, 2001:

The pieces of the bodies of infidels were flying like dust particles. If you would have seen it with your own eyes, you would have been very pleased, and your heart would have been filled with joy.

From a statement in al-Quds al-Arabi, as quoted by CBS News on September 12, 2001:

I’m fighting so I can die a martyr and go to heaven to meet God. Our fight now is against the Americans.

From a video statement broadcast on the Arabic-language Al-Jazeera network on October 7, 2001:

Every Muslim must rise to defend his religion. The wind of faith is blowing.

From Messages to the World: The Statements of Osama bin Laden (2005) by Bruce Lawrence:

Every Muslim, from the moment they realize the distinction in their hearts, hates Americans, hates Jews and hates Christians. For as long as I can remember, I have felt tormented and at war, and have felt hatred and animosity for Americans.

From Bin Laden’s 1996 fatwa (note: a fatwa is an Islamic legal ruling, specific to the religion of Islam, and prescribing action for Muslims):

It should not be hidden from you that the people of Islam had suffered from aggression, iniquity and injustice imposed on them by the Zionist-Crusaders alliance and their collaborators… The people of Islam awakened and realized that they are the main target for the aggression of the Zionist-Crusaders alliance…

From Bin Laden’s 1998 fatwa (which you should again note is an Islamic legal ruling prescribing action for Muslims):

The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies — civilians and military — is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque [Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim.

Of course, the hand-wringers will say that Bin Laden only professed to speak for Islam, and was radically distorting its tenants. Forgetting for the moment our friendly Al-Aqsa Mosque imam quoted above, let’s take a brief look at what Islamic scripture has to say about terrorism and the infidel.

From Sura 9:5:

…slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them.

For a comprehensive examination of this “verse of the sword” in context, click here.

Whether we are at war with Islam, or ought to be, is a subject for another post. Regardless, the fact of Islam’s war against us is incontrovertible. It is a reality which policy-makers and pundits need to accept, then boldly confront.

Editor’s Note: This list post is presented as part of NewsReal Blog Weekend Double Feature. The original of this list  can be read here. Check out the other half of this double feature — Walter’s list on the political themes in “Star Trek” here.

Science fiction and fantasy have always been ideal genres for exploring controversial political, religious, and philosophical ideas. The absurdity of circumstance in which such stories are set serve to detach an audience from reality, creating a kind of hypothetical laboratory for exploring thoughts which might be rejected elsewhere.

As a libertarian conservative and a life-long Star Wars fan, I was somewhat taken aback by 2005’s culminative installment Revenge of the Sith. Politics had dominated much of the prequel trilogy, but had been kept within the context of the story. Sith was different, as New York Times film critic A. O. Scott noted.

Mr. Lucas is clearly jabbing his light saber in the direction of some real-world political leaders. At one point, Darth Vader, already deep in the thrall of the dark side and echoing the words of George W. Bush, hisses at Obi-Wan, ‘If you’re not with me, you’re my enemy.’ Obi-Wan’s response is likely to surface as a bumper sticker during the next election campaign: ‘Only a Sith thinks in absolutes.’

Indeed, Lucas has indicated on more than one occasion an underlying leftist sympathy which shaped his popular saga. As a fan, I find this ironic, since my perception of Star Wars has always affirmed my conservative ideals. Here are a handful of elements from the saga which propagate principles of the Right.

Editor’s Note: This list post was first published here. It’s presented as part of NewsReal Blog Weekend Double Feature. This afternoon we’ll also be republishing Walter’s list post on the conservative themes of Star Wars, the original of which can be read here.

Science fiction affords storytellers the opportunity to couch political ideas within fantastic metaphors. In this way, ideas can be explored which might otherwise seem objectionable. In some cases, an audience might not consciously realize they are being influenced to think a certain way.

Perhaps the greatest example of science fiction writing which has pushed a particular ideology upon the popular culture is Star Trek. Over the course of nearly five decades, the brand has expanded from televisions series into feature films, countless books, fan conventions, and mounts of merchandise.

Why has Star Trek been so popular? Creator Gene Roddenberry attributed the original series’ success to the philosophy it espoused.

The whole show was an attempt to say that humanity will reach maturity and wisdom on the day that it begins not just to tolerate, but to take a special delight in differences in ideas and differences in life forms. We tried to say that the worst possible thing that can happen to all of us is for the future to somehow press us into a common mould, where we begin to act and talk and look and think alike. If we cannot learn to actually enjoy those small differences, take a positive delight in those small differences between our own kind, here on this planet, then we do not deserve to go out into space and meet the diversity that is almost certainly out there. And I think that this is what people responded to.

Ironically, this multicultural meme leads to a self-fulfilling prophecy. Tolerating every idea enables ideas which are destructive. As the franchise has progressed, it has (perhaps unwittingly) demonstrated this flaw in its own message.

Next: The United Nations in space…

Editor’s note: click here for NRB’s comic artist Bosch Fawstin’s take on this issue.

Once upon a time, superheroes were a source of comfort and escape from the difficulties and ugliness of real life. While real-life recession and terrorism aren’t likely to meet any tidy resolutions soon, we can always count on Batman to solve the Riddler’s latest puzzle just in time, or Spider-Man to save the damsel in distress (well, usually).

Somewhere along the line, though, it was decided that our heroes had to grapple with real-world issues. When done sparingly and handled well, this can elevate the genre, such as Harry Osborn’s battle with drugs or 2008’s brilliant The Dark Knight. But more often than not, such efforts these days instead result in train wrecks of heavy-handed political proselytizing and moral confusion.

Such is the case with the latest development in DC Comics’ Action Comics #900, in which Superman decides he has to renounce his U.S. citizenship:

In it, Superman consults with the President’s national security advisor, who is incensed that Superman appeared in Tehran to non-violently support the protesters demonstrating against the Iranian regime, no doubt an analogue for the recent real-life protests in the Middle East. However, since Superman is viewed as an American icon in the DC Universe as well as our own, the Iranian government has construed his actions as the will of the American President, and indeed, an act of war.

Superman replies that it was foolish to think that his actions would not reflect politically on the American government, and that he therefore plans to renounce his American citizenship at the United Nations the next day — and to continue working as a superhero from a more global than national perspective. From a “realistic” standpoint it makes sense; it would indeed be impossible for a nigh-omnipotent being ideologically aligned with America to intercede against injustice beyond American borders without creating enormous political fallout for the U.S. government.

First, it’s interesting to note that the story’s starting dispute comes dangerously close to a damning indictment of Barack Obama for not taking a stronger stand on the Iranian protests of summer 2009, which is surprising coming from an iconic cultural mainstay and a major entertainment company. And while John Hawkins is right to note that there are certain practical difficulties with throwing someone as powerful as Superman into geopolitical situations, I can see definite story potential in exploring the tension between Superman’s no-nonsense moral clarity and the empty suits on Capitol Hill.

But renouncing his citizenship? That goes far beyond distancing himself from any particular policy or administration. As an alien raised on a Kansas farm who grows up to fight for truth, justice, and the American way both as a superhero and as a newspaper reporter, Superman’s American identity and values have always been central to the character. That’s not to say he should be a pawn of the government, or that he should never save the day overseas, but it does mean he can’t simply switch who he is at will.

At the heart of this concept seems to be a recurring leftist inability to distinguish a nation’s citizens from her government. Superman’s not a government agent; he doesn’t need to be a “global citizen” to act independently of Uncle Sam.

Gutting his patriotism isn’t the only way the Man of Steel has been badly mishandled in recent years; remember when 2006’s lukewarm Superman Returns had him impregnate Lois Lane, then leave the planet for years? It makes you wonder: who do we turn to when our heroes are the ones who need saving?

This list post was originally published here in January.

I write a lot about conservative talk radio, so (alas) I have to keep track of the Left’s hair-raising, borderline insane attacks on Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and other hosts.

Here’s a round up of some of the biggest and craziest (unsuccessful) campaigns to destroy these powerful and popular pundits.

First up: the latest attempt to brand a talk radio host a “racist” fails miserably…

#5 “Monkey hear, monkey don’t”

Did you hear about the racist redneck talk radio host who referred to African-American students as “monkeys”?

The truth is: he didn’t.

Earlier this month, while criticizing his city’s dysfunctional public school system, WSPD’s Brian Wilson said:

“But certainly, teaching little monkeys to peel bananas and so on and them learning to do it correctly on cue does not mean that they’ve learned everything except a funny parlor trick.”

If you don’t see anything “racist” in those remarks, you’re not alone. The city’s public school system isn’t even overwhelmingly African-American; it’s 41% white and 8% Hispanic.

Nevertheless, the local newspaper, the Toledo Blade, easily convinced a gaggle of professional race-baiters to condemn Wilson’s imaginary bigotry. Then the trumped up “controversy” led to a public demonstration, with outraged protesters demanding an apology from the station.

Most predictably of all? When Wilson’s defenders pointed out that his 14-second clip had been purposely wrenched out of context, the Blade – which had run the “story” on four consecutive front pages — refused to admit they’d made a monkey out of a molehill.

Instead, the editors kept piling on, pointing out that, “Mr. Wilson doesn’t limit incendiary remarks to the airwaves. Atop his Web site is a picture of a microphone aflame.”

(Did I mention that the name of the crusading newspaper is… the Toledo Blade?)

Thanks to persistent pressure from the city’s alternative paper, the “story” is finally unraveling, but only after two weeks of daily character assassinations, and stubborn rumors of Wilson’s looming dismissal. (He still has his job.)

As the Toledo Free Press put it in their invaluable postmortem of the smear campaign:

“Toledo is not the hub of industry it once was, but if The Blade continues to manufacture stories like its recent Brian Wilson series, the Glass City’s production will rival Pittsburgh’s during the steel boom.”

Next: onto two big names — but only one big brain…

In the great state of Minnesota, we have something called the Legacy Amendment which increased our state sales tax to create a slush fund for all kinds of extraneous goodies related to “outdoor heritage, clean water, parks and trails, and arts and cultural heritage.” The result has been increasingly odious lobbying efforts to claim a slice of that taxpayer pie. Legislators can’t seem to give the money away fast enough. As the state wrestles with a $5 billion budget deficit, funds raised by the Legacy Amendment go to such essential items as paying a science-fiction writer $40,000 to speak to an audience of 500 at a small town library.

Like Frodo’s quest to destroy the Ring, an effort is underway to repeal the Legacy Amendment in the same manner it was created, though a ballot initiative. In the meantime, the slush fund’s beneficiaries continue to squabble over the state’s fiscal crumbs like a hoard of orcs tearing at man-flesh.

Among them is Minnesota Public Radio. In a recent email to members, the public broadcasting organization pleaded for help in pressuring legislators to keep the gravy train flowing.

Minnesota Public Radio is proud to be a recipient of Minnesota Legacy Amendment funding that has allowed us to create over a dozen new arts and cultural programs over the past two years. Given the fact that MPR is our state’s largest cultural organization, reaching 96% of the state with free arts and cultural programming 24 hours a day, we believe this is money well spent.

Today, the Minnesota House of Representatives is proposing a significant and unprecedented cut to MPR’s Legacy funding, even as the pool of Legacy funds is growing. This is not about deficit reduction — Legacy Amendment funding is constitutionally dedicated and cutting MPR will do nothing to help the state’s bottom line(…)

Without this vital funding, MPR will be forced to cancel many of these new programs that impact hundreds of thousands of Minnesotans.

It is true that shifting Legacy Amendment funding from MPR to some other boondoggle will not affect the deficit. Like passing the Ring from one bearer to another, it does nothing to squelch its evil. However, there’s little doubt that MPR and others will raise similar objections once the Legacy Amendment repeal effort picks up steam.

When that happens, the “impact” upon “hundreds of thousands of Minnesotans” will be apparent in how quickly they chip in – out of their own pocket – to keep MPR’s programs afloat. Minnesotans can take a look at those projects and start saving their nickles and dimes now. Of course, Minnesotans are just as likely to look at MPR and decide they’d rather put their money in the gas tank, or spend it on food. The bottom line is, they ought to have that choice.

The measure of MPR’s value is the same as any product or service, whatever someone is willing to pay for it. If MPR is truly as valuable as they make themselves out to be, they should have no problem raising the funds to continue. Alas, MPR is not confident in the value of their product, and unwilling to rely upon the market to judge its worth. Instead, they turn Minnesotans against each other in a proxy war to plunder on their behalf.

MPR is hardly alone in such schemes. There are ostensibly “conservative” constituencies just as willing to mug their neighbors for some esoteric “public good,” which just so happens to line their pockets.

Regardless of who the perpetrators are, the practice is wrong and must come to an end. That’s the point upon which the Legacy repeal effort will succeed, and upon which the truly vital conduct of government will progress.