"Let's remember, our rights and our privileges flow from our creator and not from our member of Congress."

-Tim Pawlenty, in Iowa this weekend.  (Link here.)

Maybe somebody should tell Elena Kagan.

It's full steam ahead on embryonic stem cell trials in humans!

Despite the fact that the use of embryonic stem cells in animals has raised health concerns for the recipients of the treatment . . .

Despite the fact that the use of adult stem cells in humans is already treating human disease without those health concerns . . .

Despite the fact that harvesting embryonic stem cells requires the death and destruction of a live, growing, human fetus . . .

And despite the fact that scientists are concerned the company proposing the trial hasn't done the requisite animal testing . . .

Barack Obama's Food and Drug Administration has approved an application for a clinical trial injecting cells derived from aborted children into other human beings.  (Link to story here .)

Why the rush?

Abortion advocates, like Obama and most (if not all) Democrats, are on the wrong side of the moral debate.  And they know it.

They're desperately seeking to plant the "necessity" of killing babies to cure disease into the American psyche.  They're rushing embryonic stem cell research because they can't afford to have ethically-derived, adult stem cells curing all the diseases reserved as "moral" justification for aborting children.

This is making me sick.

Won't - Can't - Then who will?

The government of the United States won't guard our national borders, enforce our immigration laws, and protect America from the scourge of illegal immigration.

State governments, at least according to a federal judge in Arizona , can't do the job.

That leaves me wondering . . . who will?

Or, sadly, is the cause lost?  And the country with it?

Not a happy Sunday for Robin Carnahan

Why not?

The top of the page, very bold headline in the very Pro-Carnahan St. Louis Post-Dispatch read:  "POLL SHOWS BLUNT IN LEAD."  (Link to story here - if the website is actually working.)

Now, of course, those of us paying attention have been reading that writing on the wall for some time now but it is great to see the liberal local newspaper confirming that Roy Blunt is up six points in the race for the United States Senate.

The Post is also reporting that in the same poll 57% of Missourians disapprove of Barack Obama's performance as president.  That bodes well for Blunt (and Missouri).  Only 37% approve of Obama's job performance.

Here's a not-so-subtle message to the 9% of Missouri voters who disapprove of Barack Obama's job performance but, apparently, aren't lined up behind Roy Blunt quite yet . . . Robin Carnahan would be vote in the back pocket of Barack Obama for remaining length of his presidency.

It is time to lend your support.  Put on that Blunt bumper sticker.  Donate if you can.   Tell all your friends and get out to vote.  The GOP needs the seat.  And Missouri needs Roy Blunt.

Bart Stupak must be proud . . . U.S. Government to fund killing of Pennsylvania children

It has now been reported (link here ) that the Obama administration, despite empty promises and even a sham of an Executive Order to the contrary, has decided to use American taxpayers' money - yours, mine, and even Bart Stupak's, to fund abortion in Pennsylvania.

The liar-in-chief, a.k.a. Barack Obama, had promised that under Obamacare, "no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions."

So much for Obama promises.  Would you like your Obamacare vote back Bart?

Eric Holder tells the truth about Immigration

            From the front page of today’s St. Louis Post-Dispatch under the headline “U.S. battles Arizona law in suit over immigration” . . . “The Justice Department, contending that immigration is a federal responsibility, sued Arizona on Tuesday and asked a federal court to halt the state’s new law aimed at illegal immigrants.

            “Attorney General Eric Holder said the lawsuit was prepared after extensive consultation with law enforcement officials and civil rights groups that oppose the state law.

            “’Setting immigration policy and enforcing immigration laws is a national responsibility,’ Holder said.”

            This story sent me over the edge and dragged me out of my self-imposed hiatus.  Two important points need to be made:

First, the Obama administration prepared this lawsuit “after extensive consultation” with people and groups “that oppose the state law.”  Maybe they should be consulting some of the folks in Arizona dealing with the reality of failed immigration enforcement.  Maybe they should be consulting with some people who support the law before deciding to attack it.  Maybe there is a way for Washington and Phoenix to work together.  In a rational world, there would be.

Second, the lawsuit is based on the reality that the federal government is supposed to be protecting America’s borders.  Attorney General Holder’s words, “setting immigration policy and enforcing immigration laws is a national responsibility,” could not be more true.  Unfortunately, they miss the point of the Arizona law entirely . . .

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS NOT MEETING ITS “RESPONSIBILITY.”  Until it does, someone must, and Arizona is trying.  Whether their approach is perfect or not is a matter for another day. 

If the federal government wants the states to stay out of immigration enforcement, the federal government should enforce our immigration laws and protect America’s borders.

A big victory for the Constitution and Americans

Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that the Second Amendment prohibits state and federal governments from banning possession of guns.  Though this right should seem obvious to all.  It was only upheld by a 5-4 vote.  But a win is a win.

The art of the Chicago deal. What did they know? And when did they know it?

Testimony today in the Rod Blagojevich's corruption trial revealed that Blago's inner circle believed that Barack Obama knew about an offer from the then-governor to appoint Obama-friend Valerie Jarrett to the U.S. Senate in exchange for Obama appointing Blago to a cabinet post, preferably Secretary of Health and Human Services.  (Link to story here.)

Would that really surprise anybody?  Americans elected a Chicago politician to the White House.  Shouldn't America have expected him operate like a Chicago politician?

To what end I'm not sure but Blagojevich's attorneys are now seeking access tot he FBI's notes of an interview with Obama on the subject since today's testimony raises "the issue of President Obama's direct knowledge and communication with emissaries and others regarding the appointment to his Senate seat."

I think that the public has the right to know this cadre of Chicago politicians knew.  What did Obama know?  What did Rahm Emanuel know?  And when did they know it?

And, now that I think about it, what did they do with that knowledge?

He learned from the "best"

Click here to read "The Smoking Gun" on Al Gore's Clintonesque sexcapades.

But, no worries Al, you're a Democrat.

If only . . .

Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, claims that her favorite word is "the Word."  The Word made flesh through Jesus Christ.  (Link here.)  "And that Word is," Pelosi continued, we have to give voice to what that means in terms of public policy that would be in keeping with the values of the Word."

I certainly wish that Ms. Pelosi would live up to that.

She should, especially since she realizes that "we have to make sure we're prepared to answer in this life, or otherwise, as to how we have measured up."

Maybe it is time to stop supporting the widespread destruction of human life Madam Speaker.

Barack Obama's Priorities

Today is Memorial Day, "a day of remembrance for those who have died in our nation's service."  It is a day that, traditionally, the President of the United States attends a ceremony at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier in Arlington National Cemetery.  Today, Barack Obama sent Vice President Joe Biden in his place because he is on vacation in Chicago.  (Link here.)

While attendance at the ceremony in Arlington is "traditional," it is not mandatory for presidents to attend.  Some do, some do sometimes, and some don't.  But the real galling thing is not that Obama skipped the event.  In fact, I give him credit for attending a ceremony at Abraham Lincoln National Cemetery, but America is at war in Iraq and in Afghanistan.  And there is a major ecological disaster continuing in the Gulf of Mexico yet Barack Obama is on vacation . . . again.  This is Obama's second vacation since the BP Oil rig exploded on April 20.

Two vacations in just over a month.  Now, don't get me wrong, I think the country would be better off if Obama took a lot of LONG vacations over the remainder of his term but the question must be asked . . . just what are Obama's priorities?

Now to the true priority of the day . . . to the men and women who died in service of this great country . . . may you rest in peace.  And to those of us who live in freedom because of their sacrifice . . . may we never forget.

In case you're wondering . . .

this blog is still alive.  And so am I - just very busy these days, baseball games, meetings, kids, and, occasionally, even work at my paying job.  So I haven't been keeping up with the daily blogging duties.  And now summer is just around the corner.  I don't expect to find more time.  So, to all my loyal readers out there, sorry for the days to come.  I won't be posting every night - or even every Sunday through Thursday night - as was my typical practice.  But I won't go far.  Posts will appear from time to time, maybe even often (who knows?), whenever I find the time or the impulse to write.

Please, no tears.  (And Robin Carnahan shouldn't jump for joy either.)  By the time election season heats up, I'll be back in the regular swing of things.

Justice Kagan?

It appears that Elena Kagan will be the next justice of the United States Supreme Court.  She clerked for Thurgood Marshall, worked for Bill Clinton, and currently serves as Barack Obama's Solicitor General.  And, she's only 50 years old.

Chances that this could be a good thing for conservative principles?  Or the country?

Why the left-leaning media hasn't said much about polls in Missouri's U.S. Senate race recently . . .

The above table from Real Clear Politics shows a pretty clear trend in Missouri voters from Democrat Robin Carnahan to Republican Roy Blunt.  Shouldn't that be newsworthy?  Where are the media reports?

Well, I suppose that goes without saying.

A message from Arizona to President Barack Obama and the federal government:

What happens when Christians turn the other cheek?

Link here to see.

Now, don't get me wrong.  I think that turning the other cheek is noble and the right thing to do.  It does seem rather unfair and backward, though, like life itself.

Who are the 39%?

In a poll released today by the National Journal, 39% of American voters reported being completely uninformed, biased to the gills, bribed with government handouts, or just plain stupid.  That 39% "said they would vote to re-elect Pres. Obama if the election were held today."

The truth . . . from Barack Obama's own budget director

Barack Obama's Fiscal Commission met last week.  Peter Orszag, the President's Budget Director spoke.  Surprisingly, he told the truth.  Not so surprisingly, we haven't seen much reporting of what he said.  Here are a couple of excerpts . . .

"Sustained, growing long-term deficits will increase our reliance on creditors from abroad, reduce investment in our labs, factories and businesses, and weaken confidence in the federal government's creditworthiness."

Translation:  The federal government is spending borrowed money like a bunch of drunken sailors, steadily destroying the country's economic engine, and increasing our indebtedness to the Chinese.

"Under current policies, our projected deficits amount to about 5 percent of GDP in the second half of this decade, much higher than would be prudent or sustainable."


Translation:  Unless the federal government stops spending borrowed money like a bunch of drunken sailors - soon - the country will be in deep sh#@!

Unfortunately, there is no sentiment at the White House to listen to Mr. Orzag.  It is too difficult, you see, to buy the votes the Democrats need to retain power on a fiscally responsible government.

"Simply put," Orszag said, "it may be easier to ignore long-term problems, but we will pay a severe price if we do so . . ."  (Emphasis added.  Link here.)

"Government is us."

Here's an interesting quotation from Barack Obama's commencement speech at the University of Michigan yesterday (pulled from this AP story):

"But what troubles me is when I hear people say that all of government is inherently bad.  . . . When our government is spoken of as some menacing, threatening foreign entity, it ignores the fact that in our democracy, government is us."


That says a lot.  Where to begin . . .

First of all, Obama is so handily losing every argument against existent, rational human beings these days that he's chosen to instead argue against phantom nonexistent or irrelevant straw men.  He says that he's troubled by people saying that "all of government is inherently bad."  Who's saying that?  Nobody I know.  Nobody rational anyway.  And certainly no nationally known leader of the Republican Party.

Second, but for those folks who claim that Barack Obama is not American, I don't think anybody is calling the U.S. government a "foreign entity."  The government can be and, under Obama, seems to be gaining or solidifying the ability to menace or threaten its citizenry.  I think that America's founding fathers would be proud of those of us who remain wary of Washington's power.

Finally, Obama wants to placate fears of government power by reminding us that "government is us."  You know what, since the government is "you" right now, Mr. Obama, my fears are actually heightened at the moment.

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.

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.

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 stlouisconservative@gmail.com.  I'll be happy to publicize them on this site.

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 CNNMoney.com:  "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.

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.

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

Your Taxes: Their Spending

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!

"Fifty-eight percent of Americans (96 percent of Republicans, 10 percent of Democrats and 54 percent of Independents) support repealing the health care reform legislation that was signed into law by President Barack Obama in March, according to a new national survey conducted April 6-10 by researchers from Indiana University's Center for Health Policy and Professionalism Research."

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.

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.

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.)

Kowtow

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

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.

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.

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.)

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.

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.)

Why?  

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.

Easter

"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!

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.)

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)

Hutaree

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.