Mr. Robinson begins his Oct. 13 editorial comment Obama's High Bar in this manner:

Somebody explain this to me: The president of the United States wins the Nobel Peace Prize and Rush Limbaugh joins with the Taliban in bitterly denouncing the award? Glenn Beck has a conniption fit and demands that the president not accept what may be the world's most prestigious honor? The Republican National Committee issues a statement sarcastically mocking our nation's leader -- elected, you will recall, by a healthy majority -- as unworthy of such recognition?

Does Mr. Robinson really want an explanation?  No.  He is enamored with the Nobel Peace Prize, an honor only given to progressive American presidents.  In this case it was given to Obama quite early, even before he could sacrifice Israel or any other ally.  Before he could surrender our Iraq victory or any success in Afghanistan where we might catch OBL.  Before he could take control of the census, before more than half of the economy could be placed under federal control.  Before he could take ownership in GM away from stockholders (many retired people) and give it to the union.  Before his nouveau Communist method could take control of private business and economy, despite the Tenth Amendment.  No, Mr. Robinson did not want an answer to the question.  He believes that President Obama deserves this just for doing nothing productive.

Mr. Robinson's opinion of critics follows the party line.

Why, oh why, do conservatives hate America so?

Mr. Robinson apparently believes that anyone who disagrees with President Obama hates America.  Hmmm.  Just a year ago dissent was patriotic.  It seems that the Left has had a change of heart.

Mr. Robinson does not believe that there is any sound reason to reject recoginition of the legitimacy of this award.

The problem for the addlebrained Obama-rejectionists is that the president, as far as they are concerned, couldn't possibly do anything right ...

Well, if the nomination was done in February, what had he yet accomplished.  And really, what has he done?  It's the Dem's Senate and House that are doing the work.  He talks about his health care plan, but he has none.  He denounces police for doing their job even when he says that he does not have the facts.  He has done nothing to control federal spending.  He has devalued our currency by monetizing our economy and bringing inflation.

Mr. Robinson seems to have idea what Obama's foreign policy is about

Obama has shifted U.S. foreign policy away from George W. Bush's cowboy ethos toward a multilateral approach. He envisions, and has begun to implement, a different kind of U.S. leadership that I believe is more likely to succeed in an interconnected, multipolar world. That this shift is being noticed and recognized is to Obama's credit -- and to our country's.

Yes, Obama has shifted away from an independent America to the traditional and Leftist perspective of the Wilsonians.  There is nothing new here.  There is no change.  It is the imperialism of socialism that seeks to use multilaterism to impose purportedly American interests on the world.  We saw the destructiveness of Clinton's neo-liberal economic policies on Latin America.  We can anticipate the same from President Obama.  Assuming, that is, if he is actually going to do something positive, something other than posturing.

Yes, President Obama has taken this nation further Left than we might have imagined.

This type of emperor worship is destructive.  It leads to a surrender of intelligence to the unquestioned goals of The Leader.  And that is dangerous.

Amid cries of a new McCarthyism, today's Left continues to move further and further away from liberty and towards communism.

We've all heard about the plain liberation theology of Wright and the affirmed communism of Van Jones.  We know of President Obama's communist mentor Saul Alinsky and we cannot forget Bill Ayers.  Now here's another for the list.

Check out Ray Nagin.  He worked on Obama's 2008 labor campaign.  And he is the former head of the Ohio Communist Party.

We must try to understand why the commies flock to Obama unlike Clinton and the rest.  They are getting pretty bold.  And that ought to be a real concern for those who love liberty.

No, the world will  not end.  Not at the hands of Republicans, Democrats, or any other political group or manipulator.  My prediction is about the coming presidential campaign.

When I think about the current state of the Republican party and the very populist conservative movement, both the party and the nation are in store for a surprise.

The Dems are vulnerable.  Some of their recent "victories" were in close races.  And with President Obama now doing nothing meaningful (well, he is surrendering in both Iraq and Afghanistan, despite our clear victory in Iraq), the door is open to a candidate with both qualities.

What does the Republican party have?  Newt Gingrich and Michele Bachman.  Both social conservatives.  Both quite intelligent.  And able to make a sound argument.  Bachman would have no trouble in a debate with the Vice-Plagerist.

Gingrich is also the one who can help with access to health care without destroying 17% of the economy.  His discussion of the topic was on CSpan-broadcasted debate a couple of years ago.  With some modification it has practical possibilities.

So -- I anticipate a Gingrich/Bachman ticket.  They can win.

A saying derived from the classic The Art of War, it is a principle that transcends warfare.  In logic and debate, for instance, one is obliged to defend one's position against criticism.  A position is not acceptable as sound unless it is able to hold its own against criticism.  One might infer that, in one sense, there are no sound arguments because it appears that every position is subject to criticisms that are impossible to answer.  There is a sense in which that is true.  It's not necessary that a sound argument be flawless, but rather that it be consistent and properly structured, with the result that it survives those criticisms of structure.

Today I watched President Obama's address to the Human Rights Campaign, a homosexual advocacy group, from yesterday (10/10/2009).  He wants to end "discrimination in all its forms" and he attempts to build what he considers "a more perfect union."  Despite the historical nonsense of the latter statement (the cause for the Constitution vs. the Articles of Confederation has nothing to do with either presumed natural, aka "human", rights or civil law), the former expresses the most unsound argument of the homosexual rights movement.  But it's not simply the incoherence of the tolerance doctrine.  Much has been written on that in the past.

President Obama's politicization of religious liberty provides a view into the most disgusting world view that I have yet heard a President speek in public.  His words speak volumes:

The non-evangelical conservative may choose an appeal to classic liberalism.  This is useful, but probably cannot be accomplished with simple pragmatism.  Secular conservatives, it seems, cannot forget either natural law or natural rights.  Without these the more recent incarnations of naturalism might have the upper hand.

Stop the Talking Points is a new blog dedicated specifically to confronting the talking points of the anti-captialist (a nice way of saying Marxist) movement toward a more Leftist US system.  Because (though I really dislike his tone, the conclusion is essentially correct) Glenn Beck is correct that these folks hate liberty and love socialism.  They hate our Constitution and love the redistributive agenda.  It is their platform.

OK, next week's game is big.  Really big.  Wisconsin ought to be ranked, but is not.  They deserve it.  And a win next week should place them in the top 15, no problem.  So here is my strategy (as though I have any influence) to beat the Buckeyes.

1.  OSU has a big, fast defensive line.  The best up-front offensive strategy is to force them to over-run plays.  Then they will be baited to under-run plays, and then the running game can proceed.

So how do you make a fast defensive line over-run a play?  Make them move back and forth.  Tressel likes those line wedges to create a slant hole for a runner.  If the badger offensive line can create these, quickly, and force the line to think run constantly then the short pass will open up.

2.  Builiding on that, Tressel always has some great linebackers.  The play selection should force them to either come in or drop back. So, some creative formations will open up the middle.  Some draw plays, delay plays, and the like will open up the short pass and short run.  And it's not hard to win with a series of plays that regularly produce 5-8 yards each.

3.  Concentrate on the short pass plays, but have the wide receivers alternat from deep to post, and even to pulling the linebackers off the line to support the run.

IOW, I think the best offensive strategy is a set of play calls that keeps the defense thinking too much.  That makes a defense unresponsive.

These principles should be kept in mind whever we hear President Obama give his reasons for nationalizing the health insurance industry:

1.  The economy is rebounding despite his stated premise that a rebound requires nationalizing the industry.

2.  A decrease in insurance cost does not have a positive economic benefit.  Removing profit from the private economy does exactly the opposite -- it kills the economy.

3.  The public option will be available to all as a default.  When companies switch from profit-based insurance to tax-based insurance, unemployment must increase.

4.  Unions support the public option only because it means more union government jobs.

BSK presented this challenge, to present a coherent argument against homosexual marriage, in his recent comments:

The fact is you haven't presented any legitimate, rational arguments against gay marriage. You have pushed your bigotry and hid behind a bunch of thinly-veiled pseudo-arguments but could not actually demonstrate how you (or any other hetero individual) is adversely impacted by the elimination of the denial of marriage to same-sex couples.

You claim to have demonstrated a rational discussion of the topic, but any rational rebuttal to your argument has simply led you to spin in another direction. So, answer the question: How are you harmed by gay marriage?

And, if you want to deny your bigotry, why do you insist on bringing up stories of negative interactions with gay men that are in no way related to the conversation? To slyly justify your bigotry? To paint the group with broad strokes? Simply saying something does not make it true. You have not been rational. And you have been bigoted. If you disagree with this, PROVE ME WRONG.And if you are going to point to biblical justifications, then I'll have to continue to call BS. First off, there are a host of things that the bible considers sinful or otherwise opposes, yet I do not see you approach such topics with the same vitriol. Secondly, seeing as how we are not a theocracy, our legal opinions must, specifically, NOT be informed by scripture. Thirdly, the bible (as are most religious texts) is full of bigotry.

And if you are going to point to biblical justifications, then I'll have to continue to call BS. First off, there are a host of things that the bible considers sinful or otherwise opposes, yet I do not see you approach such topics with the same vitriol. Secondly, seeing as how we are not a theocracy, our legal opinions must, specifically, NOT be informed by scripture. Thirdly, the bible (as are most religious texts) is full of bigotry.

The constraints are these:

1) The arguments must be rational

2) The argument must show how gay marriage affects others

3) The argument must contain no Biblical references, or be informed by Christian theology

The direction we will take is to first examine the constraints that BSK has placed on the argument.  These constraints are problematic and appeal to a method that seeks to find its end by limiting the scope of the discussion.  The secular and rational components can be dealth with first as inappropriate constraints.  After that we can present the case against homosexual marriage.

Undefined Secularism

The idea, the principle, of secularism can be defined from two perspectives. On the one hand, secularism is the non-inclusion of religious language. The U.S. Constitution, for example, is secular because it does not contain any overtly theological language. It is passive on the subject. On the other hand, secular may also be understood a the active, intentional rejection of any religious language. Again, the U.S. Constitution is, by this definition, not secular because it does not reject religious language from either the nation’s social structure or local laws. The only specific religious statement concerns religious tests for office. Even here, however, it says nothing about the character of the candidate, but only about restrictions placed upon candidates. In other words, this statement merely enforces passive neutrality on religious questions.

In this light it is easy to see why, early in our nation’s history, religious live was neutrally promoted and at the same time no denomination was promoted. It was not until the late 20th century that the definitions began to change so that even a neutral promotion of private religious behavior would become criminal (unconstitutional).

BSK leaves his call for secularism with the latter position -- that religious should necessarily be excluded (unless, of course it would agree, inwhich case I'm certain that he would accept such language).  That demand is rejected for two reasons.  First, because it is contrary to our history of democracy and open debate; second, because it places an unreasonable constraint on both the nature of the argument and those who are allowed to participate in the debate.  It is a shallow attempt to end the debate by control instead of allowing the debate proceed and so arrive at its conclusion.

 It has been held by many, for millennia, that man is the measure of all things. This is especially true in current dialogue on homosexual marriage. With reason, it is conjectured, intolerance and bigotry can be confronted and defeated. But reason always comes with its own baggage, even more than the variant definitions of secular.  Reason is a method, not a system of thought.

Incoherent Reason

The idea of the reason-driven life often, most often, lacks any coherent constraints or framework. With the practical ethic (the real framwork of this undefined thing called reason) floating somewhere between pragmatism and utilitarianism, it is easy to imagine a world where population reduction among minorities becomes a government program, where newborn children are left exposed to die (or are actively put to death), or where children have their brains sucked out, all in the name of someone else’s rights. A society with no moral constraint is a monster, as are those who promote and defend such behavior.

Reason also has no (for as a method it cannot have) definite teleology. As such it can only lead to tolerance when the reasoning person decides, arbitrarily, that tolerance is needed. It was reason that led to the intolerance of the Holocaust and the U.S. eugenics movement. The teleology of reason is at the whim of those in charge.

Reason as a criteria is also unfalsifiable. It is a term so broad that it can produce no mechanism which can be challenge. There is no measure for reason. Now, one might appeal to either European rationalism, or perhaps to Hindu ideals. But I have yet to find a Western secularist who is willing to push or throw a Hindu widow onto the funeral pyre in the name of tolerance. This is because the Western secularist still finds his moral home within the Christian ethic, no matter how hard they try to escape. That is their heritage and their inheritance.

This is not the common principle of tolerance in interpersonal matters. But the tolerance doctrine is a type of policy directive which intends to specify certain items of concern while ignoring (not tolerating) contrary opinions.  In the case of homosexual behavior we are told that the behavior is to be tolerated.  at the same time the proponents of homosexual behavior and marriage express an intolerance of any orthodox Christian response to their message. 

The intolerance of the homosexual proponents goes as far as to disallow religious content to the objection.  This exclusivity not only begs the question on its face but also creates an intrinsically histile atmosphere, thus stifling dialogue.  (That appears to be the the intent.)  This type of "just go away" or "shut up" attitude not one where teh Christian ought to be silent.

The tolerance doctrine is in fact misdefined.  It is merely a pragmatic, somewhat utilitarian, and altogether naturalistic world view that seeks to replace Christianity with its own theodicy.  Still, as a form of tolerance it is incoherent and as an alternate world view is it both intolerant and intolerable.

On Homosexual Marriage

In light of the failings of both reason and secularism as valid foundaitons for establishing homosexual rights such as marriage, we can now raise other foundation as suitable objections.  The question of immorality is certainly suitable, given the general public sentiments about the nature of marriage.

Though the homosexuality proponents have enjoyed a great deal of success in their public persuasion regarding "love" and their redefinition of "marriage" and "family" to include most everything.  But the discussion is far from over.  It takes little effort to show the meaningless of these arbitrarily broad definitions.  By appealing to classic definitions of these terms have maitain a simle historic defense of traditional marriage and at the same time show the incoherence of their new dictionary.

In a final, desperate appeal the homosexual proponent might become libertarian.  The quesiton of "no harm" is frequently raised.  This might be valid if we were living in a nation which was so libertarian.  but we do not.  Sexual morality is a part of state alws, and ought to be, to reflect the nation's religious constituency.  Were we also living in a religion-free society then the argument might find some other validity.  But again, we do not, so it does not.

Though that might appear arbitrary, it is not.  For public officials to promote immorality is a matter that the NT deals with (Mt. 14, John the Baptist v Herod).  For Christians to be silent on this would be inconsistent with the Biblical example.  (Going further, we ought confront sin in all areas of public life, irrespective of IRS intrusion.)

Conclusion

As arguments for homosexual marriage, the claims of secularism and reason fail.  Secularism fails because it is both vague and arbitrary.  Reason fails for its incoherents.  The remaining arguments of libertarian practice are both arbitrary and inconsistent.  Only a religious morality can be consistent, and the Christian position meets that criteria.

If this position amouts to bigotry, then I am also bigoted against a woman marrying a dolphin, borther marrying sister, polyandry, cohabitation, and so forth.  The inconsistency with the homosexual position is that the line between moral and immoral (if such a line even exists) is wholly arbitrary (for it can be nothing other).  The moral position has its support in Biblical revelation, and only that is consistent with human biology.