Thursday, April 29, 2010

Sometimes laws have intended effects

Here's the headline from this Associate Press story:  "Illegal immigrants plan to leave over Ariz. law."

Huh.  Well, wasn't that the point of the law in the first place.

If we were to pass similar laws in Missouri . . . Illinois . . . nationwide . . .

A fight for life . . . and a sad, lonely, horrible death

So sad but, unfortunately, so true . . .

On Saturday, doctors attempted to abort a baby boy, 22 weeks into his life after conception, in Rossano, Italy.  When the doctors failed in their attempts to legally kill the baby, they simply left him to die, wrapped in a sheet, presumably alone, and struggling to survive.  When a hospital chaplain went to pray beside the boy's body on Sunday, he found him alive, moving and breathing.  The boy was immediately taken to the neo-natal unit at another hospital.  Unfortunately, he died on Monday.  The police are investigating the case as a homicide.  (Link to story here.)

Here's the reality of human law - in Italy, as in America today - killing a viable human being, capable of survival outside of his or her mother's womb is legal.  But, remove that same human being from the womb, and suddenly, miraculously, that human's human rights kick in and it is no longer legal to kill him or her.

Inside - no rights at all, not even to live.  Outside - human rights, including the right to live.

Is this not a completely artificial boundary?  Human beings, growing, moving, living, as human beings are entitled to human rights.  Those rights must be protected.  Human law must change.  Abortion must end.  Life must be protected.

Allow this sad story to have a positive impact.  Tell it to everyone you know.  Use it to show the sham and selfishness and horror of abortion.  Allow the life of this Italian baby to have some greater meaning.

Wednesday, April 28, 2010

DeMint: The President's Way

Republican Senator Jim DeMint (South Carolina) on the impasse on financial services reform legislation:

"What it [Barack Obama and the Democrats' proposal] is is a takeover of the financial and credit system.  This seems to be the president's way is it's not about fixing the problem, just like with healthcare, it's about getting more federal control over something.

. . . 

The president is the one who put the kibosh on working together, and now he's just trying to use the mainstream media to confuse the American people.  The fact is I think he thinks Americans are stupid, and he's going to play this out until he gets a headline in every paper that Republicans are obstructionist.  The fact is, he's the one who's obstructing real bipartisanship." 

Stand firm Republicans.  There is more than enough federal control over more aspects of American life than necessary or desirable.  Stop Obama's agenda whenever it conflicts with the best interests of the country.  The people won't call it obstructionist.  We'll call it representative democracy.

If you don't let me play, I'll take my ball and go home!

In a scene right off the playground, Florida's Republican governor, Charlie Crist is losing his state's G.O.P. primary election for the U.S. Senate.  Rather than acknowledge that he's not the people's candidate, he is, apparently, going to leave the party and run for Senate anyway . . . as an "independent."  (Link to story here.)

How selfish can a politician be?  The U.S. Senate is the most important battleground of the 2010 election cycle.  Chopping the number of Democrats down from sixty and regaining Republican control of the Congress (or at least regaining a significant voice in it) should be the top priority of every American citizen.  It is the only way to put the brakes on the Obama/Pelosi/Reid fast-track to Socialism.  But what happens when the presumed victor in the Florida Republican primary, Marco Rubio, and Crist are both in the race against the Democrats' nominee . . . Rubio and Crist split the Republican vote and the Democrat wins - and wins a six-year term.

So Crist has decided that if he can't be Florida's next U.S. Senator, he would rather a Democrat win than his Republican opponent.  Politics over principle.  Self over country.

Show some class Governor Crist.  And show that you care what happens to the United States of America and its people.  There's still time to change your mind.  If you lose the primary, lose with honor and fade away.  Don't take the GOP down with you.

Tuesday, April 27, 2010

How's that "hope" and "change" working out for Macon, Missouri?

Barack Obama will be in Macon, Missouri, tomorrow.  It will be a photo-op where the president pretends to be listening to real people from the rural community in the northeastern part of the state.  Pretend, of course, is the key to that sentence.  Roy Blunt is actually listening to real people from Macon.  Here are a few of them:

It seems pretty clear that Obama's "hope" and "change" isn't helping Main Street as promised.  In fact, it is hurting.  Now isn't the time to send the liberals another vote in the U.S. Senate.

Get your cameras ready

24th State has the scoop . . . Robin Carnahan has postponed a fundraising dinner to appear with Barack Obama when he visits Missouri on Wednesday.

So, to anybody who plans to be in Macon for that appearance - get your cameras ready.  Carnahan is usually pretty shy when Obama's in the area.  Your snapshots could be rare and valuable.  They will certainly be valuable to Roy Blunt's campaign for the U.S. Senate.

If anybody gets any good ones showing Carnahan and Obama together, e-mail them to me at  I'll be happy to publicize them on this site.

Monday, April 26, 2010

A ban on red light cameras in Missouri . . . it is closer than you might think.

The Missouri Senate, by a 23-8 vote, passed an amendment to a transportation bill today banning red light traffic cameras anywhere in the state.  (Link to story here.)  The bill isn't final yet, though, and still faces legislative hurdles.  But, if the bill becomes law, it would be a victory for freedom, privacy, and the Constitution.

Kudos to Senator Jim Lembke (R-St. Louis) for sponsoring the amendment.  Keep up the fight!

From the "Gosh, couldn't see that one coming" Department

From  "The recovery is picking up steam as employers boost payrolls, but economists think the government's stimulus package and jobs bill had little to do with the rebound, according to a survey released Monday."  

What a waste of $800 billion of our children and grandchildren's money.  Nobody in their right mind thought the so-called stimulus bill would bring back the economy but with that much money spent, you'd think that Barack Obama and the Democrats could have bought some popularity.

Sorry - no time for blogging . . .

but enjoy this chart showing Robin Carnahan's rubber-stamp of Barack Obama's version of change.

Wednesday, April 21, 2010

On which side of a dais should the American flag be placed? (Hint - Don't ask Robin Carnahan)

The correct answer is . . . to the right of the speaker in the "position of honor."  (Link to relevant U.S. Code section here.)

It seems that U.S. Senate candidate Robin Carnahan, shown above in a shot taken from a video that her campaign posted on the web, is unaware of this protocol.

Here's a small bit of advise, not given to help your candidacy, but to ensure proper respect for the flag . . . please make yourself aware of the rules for proper display of the flag.

Obama has no "litmus test" on abortion for Supreme Court nominations . . . yeah, right.

According to Barack Obama, he has no "litmus test" on the issue of abortion when it comes to choosing his nominee to replace John Paul Stevens on the Supreme Court.  (Link to story here.)

That would be great, if only it was true.  Obama's claim is simply another example of him saying what he thinks his audience wants to hear.  Instead of simply telling the truth - he won't nominate anyone who he believes would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade - Obama, instead, speaks in code saying that he will "choose a nominee who pays heed to women's rights [except, of course, unborn women] and privacy when interpreting the Constitution."  That code, of course, means the same thing.

Don't be fooled.  And don't think that Barack Obama has an open mind on abortion and the Supreme Court.

Tuesday, April 20, 2010

What could the future be like . . .

As a Missourian, the most important thing that you can do for the future of America in 2010 is everything that you can do to elect Roy Blunt to the United States Senate in November.

Please do what you can to make it happen.  See what you can do here.

The latest on Robin Carnahan

Monday, April 19, 2010

Your Taxes: Their Spending

Sunday, April 18, 2010

The photo that Robin Carnahan doesn't want Missouri to see

True or False: No one is above the law.

False.  Missouri's governor, Democrat Jay Nixon, apparently believes that he is above the law.  Nixon recently signed a bill into law and then, immediately, declared that he wouldn't follow it.  (Link to story here.)

Governor, you're wrong.  Here's my call to Attorney General Chris Koster (another Democrat, at least I think he's a Democrat this month) to sue.

58% of Americans want REPEAL of Obamacare

We knew that folks didn't want Obamacare.  Now we have the data to prove it!

To that 58 and, I suspect growing, percent in opposition, you have only one hope . . . Vote Republican for every office on the ballot, from Senator to dog-catcher in 2010.

Democrats = Obamacare.

Republicans = Repeal.

It really is as simple as that.

Thursday, April 15, 2010

Blood samples without a warrant . . . are they kidding?

The Missouri House of Representatives, by a wide margin, has passed a bill "to crack down on Missouri's drunken drivers."  (Link to story here.)  

Well, who could be against "cracking down" on drunk drivers?  I'm not.  By all means, "crack down."

But wait a minute.  The devil is usually in the details.  What does "crack down" mean?  Well, in this case, according to the official summary of the bill, it means 19 different things.  Some of them are good and some innocuous.  On the other hand, the bill "allows a blood sample to be extracted without consent and without a warrant from any person suspected of operating a motor vehicle in an intoxicated condition if the person has refused to submit to a chemical test."

If this bill becomes law, it would mean that the police would have the right to have you strapped down, stuck with a needle, and bled without your consent and without having a judge review the facts of your arrest and sign off on a warrant beforehand.  All this in the name of being tough on drunk driving.  A Show-Me style police state?  Do we really want that?

Representative Mike Colona (D-St. Louis) was one of 28 votes against the bill and against 123 in favor.  Colona is a liberal Democrat and I suspect that we disagree on nearly everything but he's right on the money this time, calling the passed bill "an end run around the rights guaranteed in the Fourth and Fifth Amendments."

I understand the motivation of the supporters of this bill.  They must be frustrated that individual drunken drivers can refuse breathalyzers and blood tests and avoid prosecution for their offenses.  It takes to long, I'm sure they would say, to get a warrant.  The driver could sober up.

But the problem shouldn't be solved by trampling the Constitution.  No, the problem should be resolved by expediting the warrant process.  If the police have probable cause to genuinely believe that a driver was drunk, and that driver refused to provide a sample for chemical analysis, it should be possible to have a judge on call to review a legitimate request for a warrant and issue one if the circumstances call for it.

If there is a problem, it is with the warrant PROCESS, not with the warrant REQUIREMENT.

This is an example of good people, with good motivations, using the wrong means to reach their laudable goals.  But this bill must be stopped in the Missouri Senate.

Romney-Palin 2012? Palin-Romney 2012?

I've seen worse tickets.

Why the speculation now? Link here.

Wednesday, April 14, 2010

Did anyone else smell a rat . . .

when they heard about Poland's president, Lech Kaczynski, being killed in a plane crash in Russia?

Did anyone else recall Russia's attempted poisoning of Ukrainian presidential candidate Viktor Yushchenko?  (Link here.)

Is the Cold War KGB returning?  Has it already returned?

Apparently I'm not the only one.  (Link here.)

Monday, April 12, 2010


The American President's latest bow to a foreign leader goes to Chinese emperor - er, President - Hu Jintao.

Sunday, April 11, 2010

Abortion's Reductio ad absurdum . . . too bad it is true

"Reductio ad absurdum (Latin: "reduction to the absurd") is a form of argument in which a proposition is disproven by following its implications to a logical but absurd consequence."

Today, while waiting with my sleeping daughter in her carseat in the back of the family minivan, I read this story.  It sickened me.  Because of the evil policies of the Communist government in China, about 30 million little baby girls have been killed.  And that's just in the generation that will be "of marriageable age" in 2020.  How many millions more have been murdered since the one-child policy began in 1979?

Wholesale slaughter of girls, to this extreme, is a reduction of the horror of abortion to an absurd extreme.  But unfortunately for the world, this absurdity is devastatingly true.

Why presidential elections matter . . .

Just in case you thought the election of Barack Obama didn't matter, John Paul Stevens, the Supreme Court's oldest and probably its most liberal member is retiring at the end of this term.  (Link to story here.)

Here's hoping that Obama makes as big a "mistake" picking a replacement as Gerald Ford made when he appointed Stevens in 1975.

Thursday, April 8, 2010

Cows: Stop blaming us for "global warming!"

The "Global Warming" crowd has long blamed domesticated cattle, ranchers, and diary farmers for global warming because cows are gassy, flatulent creatures.  They produce methane.  Methane is a "greenhouse" gas - one of many that environmentalists believe is responsible for rising temperatures (event though they aren't really rising).  

But not so fast . . . grazing cattle, a new study shows, reduce production of another "greenhouse" gas (nitrous oxide) by microbes in the soil.  So, with every cow, methane goes up and nitrous oxide goes down.  

Here's what it all boils down to . . . the earth is a very complex system folks.  Very.  Its details are beyond our understanding at this point.  The scientists who claim to know what is causing "global warming" (if it actually exists) don't really have a clue.  They're just guessing and trying to sound certain so that their funding doesn't dry up.

Wednesday, April 7, 2010

Why there are Democrats . . . and why those of you who pay income tax are going to pay more and more and more

I don't often make mistakes and even more rarely admit one but     . . . 

For much of my adult life, I've been convinced that if the issue of abortion, magically or by the grace of God, ceased to exist, so would the Democrat Party in the United States.  It is their rallying cry.  It is the brush with which they paint conservatives as extreme Bible-thumping misogynists.  But I've been wrong.

Democrats also exist because they take money from you and me and give it to their voters. They redistribute wealth from one group of people to another and, in that way, buy power with money that isn't even theirs to begin with.

What convinced me?  This story from Stephen Ohlemacher at the Associated Press.  In it, Ohlemacher reports that nearly half - 47% of all American households will pay NOTHING in federal income taxes this year.  Nothing!  We have "a tax system that exempt almost half the country from paying for programs that benefit everyone, including national defense, public safety, infrastructure and education."

And, get this, a full 40% of American households "make a profit from the federal income tax, meaning they get more money in tax credits than they would otherwise owe in taxes.  For those people, the government sends them a payment."  This is highway robbery on a massive, nationwide scale.

Did you realize that if your in the 53% that actually pays taxes in this country that the government is taking some of your money and handing it directly to 40% of your neighbors?

So where does all the money the government spends come from?  Well, the government either borrows it or it comes from the 70% of all tax revenue that comes from the top 10% of earners nationwide.  

70% comes from 10% while NOTHING comes from 47% . . . and most of that 47% actually get a check in the mail from the rest of us marked "courtesy of your friends in Washington, D.C."

So why does this breathe life into the Democrats?  Simple.  The Democrats stand for more government, more programs, more handouts.  And isn't it easy to support a party that wants more government, more programs, and more handouts, if you're benefiting but don't have to pay?

The Democrats stand for higher taxes . . . but only on the so-called wealthy.  Right now, the "wealthy" constitutes 53% of us - the taxpayers.

If we don't stand up to them now, when we're still a slight majority, what power could the Democrats wield if their 47% natural base of non-taxpaying Americans became a slight majority?  In a democracy, how much could 51% of the citizens take from 49%?

The answer, as anyone reading this far should know, is scary!

If the federal income tax is continued - and not replaced with a different funding mechanism entirely - a flat tax rate with minimal deductions is the way to go.  Every American who earns an income should be entitled to one standard deduction, at or near a true poverty line, the minimal amount of money that it would take to feed, house, and clothe oneself and his or her dependents, then on a certain percentage of every dollar earned after that should be taxed.  I'd have to check many more numbers and do math beyond my skill-set to choose the appropriate percentage but if everyone paid the same percentage, the rich would still pay more (since they earn more) but those earning less would still have a personal stake in tax policy.  

But, guess what, that's not likely to happen.  Why not?  Too many people like the system just the way it is.  The Democrats couldn't stand to give up the power to take money from you to buy votes from their constituencies.  Never.

The Democrats have to go folks.  The message could not be clearer.  Now is the time.  This is the year.  Clean out Congress in November.  Your wallet and your country depend on it.

(By the way, lest you believe that I'm as cocky as Michael "Big Mike" Lynche on American Idol, whose chestnuts were pulled from the fire by the judges tonight - and who by all appearances felt that he, by his very being and greatness, was entitled to their gift of a second chance, the introductory paragraph at the beginning of this post was done for effect . . . mostly.)

Monday, April 5, 2010

Barack Obama, the Open Playbook, and the Unilateral Nuclear Freeze

Who knew back in 1982 that the "vanishing liberal" from Bloom County would get himself elected president?

Who knew that electing Barack Obama would result in the publication of America's nuclear strategy to our enemies - along with everyone else?

Who knew that the nuclear freeze position adopted by the Democrats in the 1984 party platform - when they were trounced by Ronald Reagan - would be enacted unilaterally 26 years later?

Here's the link to the story.  And here's the crux of it . . . the United States is publicly promising that we won't use our nuclear weapons to defend ourselves against non-nuclear countries . . . even if they attack us with chemical or biological weapons of mass destruction.  And, we're also promising not to develop any new nuclear weapons.  Unlike our enemies, we're also quite likely to keep those promises.

Now nobody in their right mind is warm and fuzzy over nuclear weapons.  I'm certainly not fond of the big guns.  They certainly shouldn't be fired off at the drop of a hat.  But I live in the real world.  In the real world, it makes no sense to tell people when and where a country would or would not use anything in its arsenal.  Doing so allows our enemies to trot right up to the line and know what not to do to cross it.  With ambiguity, they might stay farther from the line, just to be on the safe side.

Promising a nuclear freeze in the short term might not be a big deal.  America is well-armed.  But what does the future hold?  Will systems deteriorate?  Will defenses be developed?  Will our deterrent be diminished?  Declaring a freeze on development of new nuclear weapons is a threat to America's future national security.

Sunday, April 4, 2010

Why is Al Gore getting camera shy?

Al Gore is scheduled to speak at Duke University on Thursday.  The speech is expected to last about 45 minutes and he's expected to take questions from students.  And the media is invited . . .  but only to the first 5 minutes of the speech.  (Link to story here.)


I suspect that he has figured out how much easier it is to deny one's outlandish exaggerations and fabrications when later proven wrong if there is no proof that such statements were made.

Gore seems to have learned a valuable lesson - in addition to picking up an Oscar and a Nobel Prize - from An Inconvenient Truth.  He's gotten too shy shy.


"Why do you look for the living among the dead?  He is not here; he has risen!"  Luke 24:5-6 (NIV)

Christ is risen!

Happy Easter everyone!

Friday, April 2, 2010

Good Friday

"Are ye able," said the Master,
"To be crucified with Me?"
"Yea," the sturdy dreamers answered,
"To the death we follow Thee."

Lord, we are able.  Our spirits are Thine.
Remold them, make us, like Thee, divine.
Thy guiding radiance above us shall be
A beacon to God, to love and loyalty.

(Words by Earl B. Marlatt, Music by Harry S. Mason.)

Thursday, April 1, 2010

Maundy Thursday

The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me."  In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me."  For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes."

1 Corinthians 11:23-26 (NIV)


I find the arrest of nine members of a religious group(?) or cult(?) or extremist militia(?) or terrorist organization(?) or survivalist organization(?) known as Hutaree very interesting.  But facts about who they are and what they did to warrant arrest are hard to come by.  It's easier to find out the secrets of the Freemasons than to figure out what these folks did to deserve (or not deserve) arrest - just ask Dan Brown.

Don't take this the wrong way.  They may be extremist wackos who were ready to take innocent lives and, in fact, need to be behind bars.  Or they just may be extremist wackos.  Given the dearth of information, I just don't know.

Apparently, according to the opposing lawyers on the case, these folks are either law abiding citizens who are merely exercising their constitutional rights under the First Amendment and Second Amendment by "possessing weapons and voicing opposition to the government," or they are violent folks with "dark hearts and evil intent" who "broke the law by conspiring to oppose the U.S. government by using violence and weapons."  (Link to story here.)

What are the facts?  What is the truth?

The indictment says Hutaree planned to kill a police officer then ambush the funeral to kill more police officers.  But the charges include "seditious conspiracy, attempted use of weapons of mass destruction, and possessing a firearm during a crime of violence."

How did they attempt to use WMDs?  And what WMDs did they have when they attempted to use them?  As a friend put it today, were they the same ones we found in Iraq?  Is an improvised explosive device now considered a weapon of mass destruction or was there something else?

And what "crime of violence" did they carry out while possessing a firearm?  Is there a robbery - rape - murder involved?  And why are there no charges mentioned for that underlying crime?

Finally, how far did the conspiracy go?  Did they take any action or was it all talk?  Are they being prosecuted for meaningless talks about never-gonna-happen fantasies?

The government either deserves an "atta boy" or it has overstepped its bounds.  Is there a journalist out there to get to the bottom of this story?  My kingdom for a journalist.