A couple months ago, I had an on-air conversation with veteran liberal commentator Cokie Roberts who spent a great deal of time discussing her belief that then Republican frontrunner Mitt Romney would struggle in early Republican primary states because they are heavy laden with evangelical Christian voters.  Those voters, she supposed, would struggle against their inner bigot when it came to voting for a Mormon. 

Curious about this sudden liberal concern over anti-religious zealotry, I followed up her analysis with a question: "On the heels of the outrageous leftwing attacks on the Mormon church during the Proposition 8 battle in California, and given some of the recent mockery of the Mormon faith coming from left wing commentators like Bill Maher, suppose Mitt Romney does win the nomination, Ms. Roberts.  How much worse do you think the religious bigotry of the left will be in the general election?"  Though she eventually acknowledged that yes, "there could be some of that," overall she seemed dumbfounded at the question. 

And why wouldn't she be?  For well over a generation, the bigot label has been reserved solely for conservatives who disagree with the prevailing societal winds as defined by the left.  Liberals, meanwhile, who for years have expressed personal disdain for traditional values and those who espouse them, have proven collectively immune from such a hostile characterization.  And this phenomenon extends beyond the world of politics.  Just ask Tim Tebow.

The only explanation for what can possibly be fueling this hatred and contempt for Tebow is that he thanks Jesus Christ at every opportunity.  That reality alone is what is driving these self-defined paragons of tolerance into the realm of derangement.  And if that seems like too strong of a descriptor, consider the words of left-wing Rabbi Joshua Hammerman in a recent column: "If Tebow wins the Super Bowl, against all odds, it will buoy his faithful, and emboldened faithful can do insane things, like burning mosques, bashing gays and indiscriminately banishing immigrants. While America has become more inclusive since Jerry Falwell's first political forays, a Tebow triumph could set those efforts back considerably."

For years, liberals have publicly denounced the disagreement and moral disapproval conservatives have articulated towards various belief systems as "irrational hatred."  That's why this Tebow situation offers a teachable moment that conservatives should not let pass by.  While resisting the urge to condone and embrace destructive beliefs and behavior is not irrational nor hateful, impugning millions of faithful Christians by suggesting that they will torch mosques and exile immigrants just because a football player leads his team to victory is both.

What causes it?  Given that Tebow has preached no sermon, written no scathing op-ed blasting the practice of abortion, taken no public stand on the issue of gay marriage nor endorsed the eventual presidential nominee of the Republican Party, the only plausible explanation for such absurdity is that he dares to boldly utter the name of Christ, unreserved and unashamed.  If that be not bigotry, the word has no meaning.

If liberals want a real reason to despise Tim Tebow, it should be because his mere presence in the national spotlight has pulled the veil off of their seething and self-evident anti-Christian bigotry.

This column was first publised at The American Thinker.

Here's something I never thought I would type: Barack Obama gets it, and Glenn Beck doesn't seem to.

During his recent interview with 60 Minutes, Obama was asked by CBS reporter Steve Kroft how the president sized up the field of Republicans vying to be his opponent in 2012.  Obama's answer was candid and refreshingly accurate: "It doesn't really matter who the nominee is gonna be," he said. "The core philosophy that they're expressing is the same. And the contrast in visions between where I want to take the country and what-- where they say they want to take the country is gonna be stark."

The president couldn't be more right in that assessment - a reality that I think is lost on many of us who are political junkies.  Those for whom the world of politics is either our livelihood or at least an obsessive hobby, we tend to view issues through a different lens and apply a level of detailed inspection to them that average citizens simply do not. 

For instance, my wife and I watched the recent Republican presidential debate in Iowa together.  She cares about her country and the direction it's going, but she's not the least bit interested in following the day to day drama of the presidential horse race.  In fact, this was the first primary debate she has seen this year.

As the debate was unfolding, I noticed a remarkable difference in the way we perceived it.  I was being hypercritical of certain responses or question dodging, yet she was constantly saying things like, "That was a good point," or "I like him," or "He knows his stuff."  When the debate was over, her comment was, "This is going to be hard, isn't it?"  But contrary to the media template that has emerged about the "epically weak Republican field," she didn't mean it was going to be hard trying to figure out which one of those jokers could possibly compete with Obama.  No, when I asked her to clarify she said, "It's going to be hard to figure out which one of them to support when they all are so much better than what we've got."  Bingo.

While I was obsessing over the trivial differences in style or the substantive conflicts of specific policy between the candidates, my wife was looking at the big picture - each of those Republican candidates represented a marked departure from the Obama regime.  And dare I say she is much more reflective of the hundreds of millions of eligible voters who will head to the polls next year?

That reality is what makes Glenn Beck's recent comments so perplexing.  Set aside the silly proposition that a Tea Partier who supports Gingrich over Obama is only doing so because of race.  I attribute that nonsense to a frustrated Beck trying to draw attention to Newt's progressive proclivities, rather than an honest indictment of a large swath of the population with whom he shares mutual respect and admiration.  But Beck's underlying assumption that a President Gingrich (or Romney to a slightly lesser degree) would be replicas of President Obama is mystifying.  And his further suggestion that he would consider a third party alternative to Gingrich is beyond irresponsible given that it all but ensures a second term of the very man Beck has rightly castigated as leading our country into the abyss.

As a man of integrity, I can only assume that Beck is charting this course based on principle.  Fair enough.  But as an admirer of Beck who recognizes the profound influence he wields on the right, I humbly ask what principle does he hold that makes throwing Israel under the bus the best option? What principle does Beck hold that makes continuing to expand the practice of legalized child killing the proper decision? What principle does Beck hold that makes the implementation and ingraining of ObamaCare into the fabric of our society a more noble choice?

Conservatives would be well advised to make the case for their candidate in this primary and promote them vigorously, while keeping in perspective what even the President himself understands: that all six of the individuals on the recent Republican debate stage represent a fundamental shift in philosophy from the current occupant of the White House. 

Considering that Americans are now facing double the gas prices since Obama took office, almost double the unemployment from what it was the majority of Bush's terms, double the debt, double the deficit, four times as many foreign countries under the thumb of the Muslim Brotherhood, fewer staunch allies who trust us, one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world, more Americans than ever on food stamps, and the looming threat of a dramatic uptick in job loss as the president's own signature "accomplishment" from his first term (ObamaCare) is fully implemented, that's a reality that every conservative - including Glenn Beck - should be shouting from the rooftops.

This column was first published at The American Thinker.

Veteran White House correspondent Lester Kingsolving had the temerity to ask the question: "Does the Commander-in-Chief approve or disapprove of bestiality in our armed forces?"  I could be mistaken, but I am guessing this is the first time the subject of human sex with animals ever came up at the daily White House press briefing.  Obama Press Secretary Jay Carney made it clear he was sincerely unimpressed with the question, condescendingly brushing it off by scolding, "I don't have any comment on that...let's get to something more serious."

Shock value aside, it's a reasonable question given that the liberal Democrats in the United States Senate managed to tuck an amendment into the recent defense appropriations bill that would repeal Article 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice which states, "Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy."  If Jay Carney finds the issue to be unserious, he should have taken the opportunity to harpoon members of the president's own party who authored the repeal rather than the reporter who merely asked about it.

It's fair to assume that the intended purpose of those seeking the repeal of Article 125 was far more about legalizing human sodomy than it was about giving the green light to bestiality.  Repealing the ban on intimate sexual contact between practicing homosexuals is merely the next logical step after having opened the military door to them.  The President made repealing the ban on open homosexuality his major order of business regarding the American armed forces.  His rationale was that it was discriminatory to prohibit those with different sexual preferences, inclinations and attractions from serving their country with pride.  But if that's the case, then what is the logical distinction that can be drawn by those same "civil rights champions" to deny such an opportunity to those who are sexually attracted to animals?  Why make them "lie about who they are?"

Typically when this question is posed to liberals, they offer the same "you've got to be kidding" reaction that Kingsolving received.  But noticeably absent from their snickering, jeering and scoffing dismissals is any form of a coherent response to the question.  If the answer is so obvious, let's hear it.  What makes a liberal who sits in moral judgment of another person's sexual attraction to animals any less bigoted and discriminatory than a conservative who sits in moral judgment of a person's attraction to members of the same sex?  What is the standard that is used?

A similar philosophical challenge can be made in the realm of pedophilia.   Around the same time the bestiality story broke, disgraced former Penn State football coach Jerry Sandusky granted an on-camera interview to the New York Times where he acknowledged to the reporter that he was, "attracted to [young] boys and girls."  As socially unacceptable as it may be, that doesn't change the fact that it's his preferred sexual experience.  And Sandusky is far from alone.

For years, pedophiles have testified to the fact that they are sexually aroused by young children in a way that they just don't find elsewhere.  Given the left's prohibition on "judging," where does that leave us with men like Sandusky?

Let me clarify this point: I am not suggesting that homosexuality and pedophilia are equivalent. They are not. Nor do I believe that they should be treated identically under the criminal law. Homosexual participants are typically consenting adults, while pedophilia usually involves an unwilling and victimized child. Therefore, child molesting involves a degree of sexual abuse that homosexuality does not encompass.

That stipulated, the left must explain how they can consider it ethical to sit in judgment of the sexual predilections of a self-described MAP (minor-attracted person) while they piously forbid others to sit in judgment of those of an LGBT.  Liberals have preached for decades that one does not "choose" their sexual appetite or preference. They have told us that it is bigoted and hateful to delegitimize or discriminate against another's natural sexual penchants, whether or not we personally share their urges. 

So Jay Carney's arrogance notwithstanding, Kingsolving's question was not an outrageous one after all.  For the sake of clarity and sanity, it is time that the left be required to declare the standard by which they seek to define our society's sexual norms.  What of a military man who wants to copulate with an animal, or of a pedophile who is attracted to young children?  Are those feelings natural?  Must they be respected?  Were they born that way?  If not, does that not contradict everything the left has been preaching?  Or if so, how can liberal progressives possibly condemn them without violating the very standard of bigotry they have been beating conservatives up with for a generation? 

No wonder Carney took a pass.

In the first Thanksgiving address given by an American President, George Washington encouraged his fellow citizens in 1789 to join him in, "acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness."  Clearly demonstrating an equal grasp on the gravity and meaning of such an occasion, current U.S. President Barack Obama followed in Washington's footsteps by calling this generation of Americans to a day of, "eating great food, watching a little football, and reflecting on how truly lucky we are."  Quick, grab a tablet of stone and chisel in that pellet of eternal insight before it escapes our mortal consciences.

Perhaps the comparison is unfair given that Obama did issue a written statement that thanked God for, "the many kindnesses and comforts that grace our lives."  Nonetheless, conservative critics pounced, observing that the same President who never misses the opportunity to host an Iftar dinner and extemporaneously proclaim the great benevolence of the God of Islam, just totally blanks on the magnanimity of the Judeo-Christian God amidst the very holiday our people have historically set aside to honor Him for His blessings.

Fox News columnist Todd Starnes fired the first volley, noting that the president's, "remarks were void of any religious references although Thanksgiving is a holiday traditionally steeped in giving thanks and praise to God."  From there a bevy of right leaning commentators attacked the president for his sin of omission.  Might I humbly suggest that a more meaningful critique of the President's speech should focus less on what he didn't say, and more on what he did?

To posit, as President Obama did, that the great prosperity of the United States is the consequence of "luck" is as controversial and radical as anything this president has said during his time in the national spotlight.  Yes, as controversial as proclaiming Israel should go back to its pre-1967 boundaries.  Yes, as radical as suggesting that knowing whether or not to defend the unalienable right to life was above his pay grade.

Because in a very real way, this comment puts the entire presidency of Barack Obama into context.  It starts making sense out of the muddled picture we have had of Obama and piecing together the fragments of a larger worldview that has been shadowed by the meaningless media caricatures of the man. 

Taken by itself, crediting luck as the source of American greatness could perhaps be excused as a slip of the tongue or a lazy retreat behind a tired rhetorical cliché.  But when placed in context and added to other previously isolated statements into a combined symphony of thought, it explains why the president seems so uncomfortable and confused when asked about American exceptionalism.  It explains why he obstinately omits reference to the Creator God as the source of man's rights when quoting from the American Declaration of Independence.  It explains why he frequently seems ashamed of American preeminence, feeling obligated to prostrate himself before foreign leaders or apologize profusely for our national sins - real or imagined.  It explains both a foreign and domestic policy designed to relegate America to the role of world participant rather than world leader.

President Obama misunderstands the significance of American greatness because he misappropriates its foundational source.  In his secular socialist worldview, America's riches were not the reward from One whom Abraham Lincoln called the, "beneficent Father who dwelleth in the Heavens."  They were not the result of a national obedience to the Natural Lawgiver, nor the consequence of a national commitment to conform to the timeless truths of His moral order.

No, to the man who is now the face of the free world, they were nothing more than the byproduct of an advantageous roll of the civilizational dice.  If a transcendent being was involved, it was only to spin the globe blindfolded and un-ceremonially plop its finger down randomly on the United States, instigating a flood of prosperity that was no more purposeful than it was deserved. 

That is why, in Obama's mind, there is nothing more exceptional about America than Britain or Greece; why we have no right to admonish the human rights atrocities occurring with impunity in China; why America should presume to hold no position of moral superiority in our dealings with foreign thugs and tyrannies; why our time is better spent apologizing for our arrogance than recommitting ourselves to the glorious truths of our founding.  And it's why food and football are just as likely to cross his lips on Thanksgiving as is the One to whom we have, at the direction of presidents far greater than Barack Obama, historically rendered thanks.

If anything, this unfortunate episode reminds us of why Thanksgiving 2012 will offer a brand new reason for national gratitude.

This column was first published at The American Thinker.