Mike Corthell

Mike Corthell
Editor & Publisher at Fryeburg Free Press MEDIA

Sunday, February 28, 2010

Obama's personal appeal & snake oil not selling

''President Barack Obama‘s manner and tone at last week’s marathon health care summit didn’t impress. His irritation, aloofness and general dissatisfaction was evident.'' President Obama during his campaign for the White House was widely hailed as a charismatic charmer with a talent for speechmaking and a dangerous ability to parlay popular appeal into policy.
More than a year later, a different picture of Obama is emerging. Impatient with gainsayers and frustrated with the political process, the president seems increasingly disenchanted as progress on his own agenda remains elusive.
Obama's manner and tone at last week's marathon health care summit was noted for his irritation, imperiousness and dissatisfaction.
"I think he is running up against the reality of getting things done in Washington, which is you have to play more hardball," said Democratic strategist Keir Murray. "He could take a page from the old Bush team -- shove it down their throats and defend it later."
Obama came to office promising to change Washington, and he tried to set a tone early on with novel gestures like hosting a bipartisan cocktail party for lawmakers and inviting others for basketball.
But those invitations have tapered off as Obama's agenda has stalled in Congress. It more often appears that his limited experience in elected office failed to prepare Obama for how frustrating governance would be in such a partisan hothouse as...

Who wrecked the economy? Blame hippies

Right On!

''Did Woodstock Hippies Lead to the Financial Collapse?
New Film Claims Hippies-Turned-Boomers as Responsible for Excessive Spending, the Mortgage Crisis, and Recklessness on Wall Street''

A new film is gaining traction among tea-party followers for suggesting that the collapse of the US financial system has roots dating back 40 years to the Summer of Love. "Generation Zero," a film set to premiere in March, examines what producer David Bossie says is a "historic perspective on a generational change" that led to the September 2008 bank collapse.
Bossie says generational narcissism, as represented by the 1969 Woodstock Festival, is responsible for the excessive spending, mortgage crisis, and recklessness on Wall Street.
"The people who were at Woodstock turned into the yuppies of the '80s and the junk bond traders of the '90s and the Wall Street executives of the 2000s," he says. "They went from Woodstock to driving a Jaguar."

Ancient Egyptian priests needed some LIPITOR ®

''The new translation of the hieroglyphic inscriptions reveals a menu rich in beef, wild fowl, bread, fruit, vegetables, cake, wine and beer. Many of the items, not least goose, were laden with saturated fats. The bread was often enriched with fat, milk and eggs and the cakes were typically baked with animal fat or oil. Salt was used as a preservative.''

The banquets offered by high priests to appease the gods of Ancient Egypt may have been welcomed as a perk of the job but they also increased their chances of cardiovascular disease and early death, research suggests.
The priests, a powerful bureaucracy under the pharaohs, would place vast plates of roast fowl and copious quantities of wine and beer before a god’s statue in a rite repeated three times each day. Then the food was divided up among the priesthood and taken home from the temple to be shared with their families.
Egyptologists and scientists at the University of Manchester have disclosed in
The Lancet the cost of keeping the gods happy. By combining translations of hieroglyphic inscriptions on temple walls showing details of food offered to the gods with analysis of mummified remains, they have assessed their atherosclerosis, the build-up of fat and calcium in the arteries.
The findings show that cardiovascular disease affected the privileged of Ancient Egypt long before fried food and a sedentary life made heart attacks and strokes a modern killer. Rosalie David, of the university’s KNH Centre for Biomedical Egyptology, said that it was a telling message: “Live like a god and you will pay with your health.”

Belief in God relieves depression

And conversely...

''The Canadian researchers who found that belief in God lowers anxiety and stress also based their conclusions on measurements — monitoring the brain activities of believers and nonbelievers charged with some challenging tasks. "We found that religious people or even people who simply believe in the existence of God show significantly less brain activity in relation to their own errors."

The "Big Man Upstairs" is getting accolades from mental health specialists who say they are finding that a belief in God plays a positive role in the treatment of anxiety and depression.
University of Toronto psychologists reported last year that "believing in God can help block anxiety and minimize stress," their research showcasing "distinct brain differences" between believers and nonbelievers.
A new study released Wednesday by Rush University Medical Center in Chicago took the idea a step further.
In patients diagnosed with clinical depression, "belief in a concerned God can improve response to medical treatment," said the new research, which has been published in the Journal of Clinical Psychology.
The operative term here is "caring," the researchers said. "The study found that those with strong beliefs in a personal and concerned God were more likely to experience an improvement."
The researchers compared the levels of melancholy or hopelessness in 136 adults diagnosed with major depression or bipolar depression with their sense of "religious well-being." They found participants who scored in the top third of a scale charting a sense of religious well-being were 75 percent more likely to get better with medical treatment for clinical depression.

Atheists lose faith in Dawkins

''The forum’s implosion has been jumped on by Christian groups as a sign that the Dawkins community is not as free-thinking as it is claimed.''

Richard Dawkins is accustomed to provoking the wrath of religious communities, but now a schism seems to have opened up within the atheist community who make up his fan-base.
The split occurred after he announced that a discussion section on his website, considered one of the busiest online atheist forums, would in future be tightly moderated and “irrelevant postings and frivolous gossip” would no longer be allowed.
The change was scheduled for next month but such was the torrent of abuse after the announcement that the forum had to be locked down, deepening the rift between Professor Dawkins and his 85,000 online fans.
Writing on
RichardDawkins.net yesterday, in a posting entitled “Outrage”, he said that there was “something rotten” in internet culture and pledged to rid his website of its abusive element. http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/

Scientists unravel mysteries of intelligence

"We took patients who had damaged parts of their brain, tested them on intelligence to see where they were good and where they were bad, then we correlated those scores across all the patients with the location of the brain lesions," Glascher explained. "That way, you can highlight the areas that are associated with reduced performance on these tests which, by the reverse inference, means these areas are really important for general intelligence." It's not a particular brain region that makes someone smart or not smart.
Nor is it the strength and speed of the connections throughout the brain or such features as total brain volume.
Instead, new research shows, it's the connections between very specific areas of the brain that determine intelligence and often, by extension, how well someone does in life.
"General intelligence actually relies on a specific network inside the brain, and this is the connections between the gray matter, or cell bodies, and the white matter, or connecting fibers between neurons," said Jan Glascher, lead author of a paper appearing in this week's issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. "General intelligence relies on the connection between the frontal and the parietal [situated behind the frontal] parts of the brain."
The results weren't entirely unexpected, said Keith Young, vice chairman of research in psychiatry and behavioral science at Texas A&M Health Science Center College of Medicine in Temple, but "it is confirmation of the idea that good communication between various parts of brain are very important for this generalized intelligence." http://news.yahoo.com/s/hsn/20100226/

A thumb in the eye of Adolf Hitler

Adolf Hitler at innocents?

''Like many Hasidim, Mrs. Schwartz considered bearing children as her tribute to God. A son-in-law, Rabbi Menashe Mayer, a lushly bearded scholar, said she took literally the scriptural command that “You should not forget what you saw and heard at Mount Sinai and tell it to your grandchildren.” When Yitta Schwartz died last month at 93, she left behind 15 children, more than 200 grandchildren and so many great- and great-great-grandchildren that, by her family’s count, she could claim perhaps 2,000 living descendants.
Mrs. Schwartz was a member of the Satmar Hasidic sect, whose couples have nine children on average and whose ranks of descendants can multiply exponentially. But even among Satmars, the size of Mrs. Schwartz’s family is astonishing. A round-faced woman with a high-voltage smile, she may have generated one of the largest clans of any survivor of the Holocaust — a thumb in the eye of the Nazis.

Getting ready for the end

''Liz and I are committed to continue our training camps here and around America during the next seven months barring a complete collapse of this nation.''

Events are cascading so fast that preparation time is being compressed like the debris field on 9-11 at the World Trade Center disaster. Even among former skeptics, the apprehension is building rapidly that a banking catastrophe, terrorist event, or Middle East nuclear outbreak is unfolding on cue for the elite manipulators to complete their diabolical and deadly plan.
As you have waited for this installment, I am hopeful that it began a series of ideas for your own blueprint that has taken shape both--from a sense of awakened creativity--and a sense of heightened anxiety to get this done. I am not a date setter, but this one ranks up there with Noah getting the Ark finished ahead of the first sprinkles, or at least somewhat close to that. “Global warming,” Planet X, human munching E-T’s, or Bank of China U.S. Debt Collectors in Red Army uniforms all qualify you for this plan.
Remember, your list of priorities may differ from mine and your ability to achieve all of these goals may not be the same as mine or someone else’s, but the very fact that you got this underway, actually well along the way, or even close to being completed, is light years ahead of some or God help ‘em many, who just don’t care. Move on anyway, you will never, ever regret doing what you did. Your friends and family will be forever grateful that you motivated them, educated them, and in fact saved them from any number of very negative outcomes, considering the world--both natural and geo-political--that we live in. So, let’s get started right where we left off.

Third World status? It's coming

''The unfunded liabilities are so gigantic that there is no way government is going to be able to deliver all of Medicare’s promises in addition to all the other entitlements. I believe Glenn Beck is preparing us for 50% in cuts and a return to post thirties-forties depression standards in order to save the ship from sinking and we all go down.'' Like relatives politely squabbling at a family event, President Obama along with his Democrat team and Republicans wasted seven plus hours of our time on February 25 listening to the Health Care summit. While the Republican legislators tried to make some excellent points, about the time I thought they were about to sine die, the president then took an additional 20 minutes for his summation of the event. It was noted he talked nine minutes longer than all the Republicans combined but he’s president so his time didn’t seem to count, he said.
In a few days it will be full speed ahead with his original agenda. While there were several rather controversial moments, perhaps the one that got the most attention was when former presidential candidate Senator John McCain was told by President Obama, “We aren’t campaigning any more. The election is over.” In other words, “Shut up. I won you lost!” Other GOP participants kept reading points from the earlier bills and quoting word for word what our dipstick Democrat leaders have made making absolute liars out of them. Calling it the Beer Summit may have been more accurate because without his teleprompter, our Harvard man President Obama kept stumbling over his words. Remembering how Senator Barbara Boxer (D-Cal) asked a Brigadier General to call her “Senator” rather than “maam”, I was appalled at how disrespectful and condescending President Obama was when he referred to Summit participants by their first names. http://www.newswithviews.com/Betty/Freauf157.htm

Dictator mocks a nation facing famine with a birthday feast broadcast on TV

'It is lavish, careless and extravagant on the part of the organisers that they dedicate $500,000 to one person, an amount which could feed 50 villages.

''Mugabe has ruled Zimbabwe for 30 years and overseen the country's economic collapse. He had expected taxpayers to pay for the party but had to go cap in hand to corporate supporters and friendly embassies when the MDC finance minister refused.''

Eight thousand lobsters and 4,000 portions of caviar were eaten last night at a birthday party for Robert Mugabe which was broadcast live to a nation facing famine.
The £330,000 televised feast to celebrate the Zimbabwe president's 86th birthday came as crop failure and drought raised the prospect of widespread hunger in the poverty-stricken country.
Mugabe's political opponents, the Movement for Democratic Change, said the food served was enough to feed 50 villages.
The MDC branded the 12-hour all-night gala a 'senseless extravagance'.
Also on the menu were 200lb of prawns and 500 bottles of whisky.
Guests at the party in Bulawayo were entertained by a Jamaican reggae star flown in specially and more than 30 musicians.

Majority says government threat to citizens' rights

''The poll was conducted February 12-15, with 1,023 adult Americans questioned by telephone. The survey's sampling error is plus or minus 3 percentage points for the overall survey.''A majority of Americans think the federal government poses a threat to rights of Americans, according to a new national poll. Fifty-six percent of people questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Friday say they think the federal government's become so large and powerful that it poses an immediate threat to the rights and freedoms of ordinary citizens. Forty-four percent of those polled disagree.
The survey indicates a partisan divide on the question: only 37 percent of Democrats, 63 percent of Independents and nearly 7 in 10 Republicans say the federal government poses a threat to the rights of Americans.
According to CNN poll numbers released Sunday, Americans overwhelmingly think that the U.S. government is broken - though the public overwhelmingly holds out hope that what's broken can be fixed.

Muslim leader implodes on air

Jibril Hough - now over-exposed...

A Muslim convert, Hough [pronounced: Huff] denied being affiliated with Hamas, but then proceeded to defend the terrorist group, claiming "they haven't attacked Americans."
A Muslim leader who has tried to portray the founder of the Congressional Anti-Terrorism Caucus in Washington as an extremist "hatemonger" was himself exposed as an extremist on a popular radio program.
For years, Jibril Hough has represented himself and his North Carolina mosque as "moderate," while putting Rep. Sue Myrick, R-N.C., on the defensive as an anti-Muslim fanatic who "shoots from the hip" when sounding the alarm about homegrown Islamic terrorism. Myrick, a member of the House Intelligence Committee, co-founded the Capitol Hill caucus after 9/11 to educate Americans about the growing threat from jihadists.
But during an
in-studio interview Friday with Charlotte radio personality Keith Larson of WBT-AM, Hough was confronted with documents revealing his mosque – the Islamic Center of Charlotte – is owned and controlled by an organization connected to a plot to funnel millions of dollars to Islamic terrorists.
The North American Islamic Trust holds
the deed to ICC, an 800-member Sunni mosque located on five acres at 1700 Progress Lane in Charlotte. The U.S. Justice Department recently blacklisted its owner NAIT as an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terror finance case in U.S. history. The government also identified NAIT as a front for Hamas and the radical Muslim Brotherhood in America.
Get "Muslim Mafia," the book that exposed CAIR from the inside out, autographed, from WND's Superstore!
Saudi-funded NAIT owns the title to hundreds of radical mosques across the country, including the notorious 9/11 mosque in Northern Virginia – Dar al-Hijrah Islamic Center
(deed) – which helped some of the hijackers obtain housing and IDs and also counseled the Fort Hood terrorist and several other known terrorists.
Hough, ICC's spokesman, at first expressed surprise when confronted with the information, claiming he'd never before seen the deed and did not know NAIT was named in a federal terror probe.

'Religious texts are so appalling, you are better off having porn'

College students urged: Trade Bible for Playboy - "As a Christian myself, I just take offense to it," one student told the TV station.
"Did they really do that?" asked another. "It kinda made me want to cry, it really did."
In the lobby of the University of Texas at San Antonio's humanities building, a hand-drawn poster announces, "Free porn: Just trade in your holy books (Bible, Koran, Vedas) for porn."
A student group at the university called The Atheist Agenda is reviving its Bibles-for-porn program, called "Smut for Smut," for three days beginning March 1, according to a report from San Antonio's KENS-TV.
"The idea is that religious texts are so appalling," said Atheist Agenda group member Brian Talker in a 2006 interview with UTSA student publication The Independent. "They are so full of genocide, misogyny and ludicrous ideas that far overshadow any banal common-sense platitudes like loving thy neighbor, that you are better off having porn, which isn't nearly as smutty."
A current member of the group told KENS the program is also meant as a slap against religious leaders and the "hypocrisy" of their condemnations of pornography.
"They've been going and rallying against pornography for the longest time," the unidentified student said, "and the disgusting, depraved acts that are within the Bible, Koran and Vedas completely outnumber any [faults] of any pornographic image."
Find out how corruption is "packaged, perfumed and marketed" to us as good and wholesome. The culture-war classic "The Marketing of Evil" is now available as a 4-disc AUDIOBOOK read by the author, David Kupelian! Other students, however, have expressed outrage. http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=126441

Saturday, February 27, 2010

Start over with Obamacare?

Left Turn: Democrats Are Listening to the American People

''...no matter how many times Republicans call health insurance reform a "government takeover," in fact, the Democratic plan facilitates a transparent market for private-sector insurance and does not take away the coverage of any American who likes his or her plan.''

Do Americans want Congress to "start over" and "scrap" the bill? A Kaiser Family Foundation poll released this week shows that 58 percent of Americans would be "disappointed" or "angry" if Congress gave up work on health care -- which, as Leader Boehner knows, would surely be the result if we stopped now. When the American people hear in unbiased terms what's actually in the bill, they support it. For instance, two of its most important provisions -- stopping insurance companies from discriminating against Americans with pre-existing conditions and creating a competitive private marketplace where individuals can buy insurance at lower rates -- receive strong support in poll after poll. "The bill that is set to be rammed through Congress will cause [Americans'] premiums to go up."It's doing nothing that causes premiums to go up, as evidenced by the recent announcement from a California insurance company that premiums for their beneficiaries will increase by as much as 39 percent. The president has proposed an independent board that will review rate increases and empower states to stop just these sorts of abusive rate hikes. And that is in addition to the policies already in the Democratic plan, which the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office found will slow the growth of premiums, with the large majority of Americans seeing either no change at all or a reduction in their costs. "Republicans have offered a commonsense plan squarely focused on lowering costs. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office confirmed that it will lower premiums by as much as 10 percent." http://www.aolnews.com/opinion/article/opinion-democrats-are-listening-to-the-american-people/19374404

If you can control your god, you have no God

''You may not have been a slave in Egypt, but you were – or perhaps are – a slave to sin, on your way to hell. But God loved you so much that he sent his son Jesus Christ to die in your place and pay the penalty for your sin. So if we really appreciate what God has done, if we know anything of his all-encompassing forgiveness, then it should be our pleasure to seek to live a life that is pleasing to him – not because we have to, but because we want to.'' Imagine what would happen if the lines, traffic signals and signs vanished from our streets and highways. There would be chaos. Yet for many, that is what their life is: chaos. They have no moral compass to guide them, no set of absolutes – only their opinions. If there is a god in moral relativism, then it is a god of one's own making.
So, how do we know the truth? By going to the only source of absolute truth: the Bible. Within its pages, we find a set of God's absolutes that provide us with a clear grid by which to live. They are the foundation whereby we can know right from wrong, good from evil and true from false. We call them the Ten Commandments.
The first commandment is one that most of us think we don't ever break: "You must not have any other god but me" (Exodus 20:3 NLT). A survey revealed that 76 percent of all Americans consider themselves completely true to this commandment. But is that really the case? It is very doubtful that most Americans never have had something or someone else in place of the true God.
It all starts with the place God occupies in our lives, because we will serve who – or what – we worship. Jesus said, "You must worship the Lord your God and serve only him" (Luke 4:8 NLT).
If God is No. 1 in your life, then everything else will find its proper balance. But if he is not, then everything else will be in chaos.
Note the wording God used to preface the Ten Commandments: "I am the Lord your God, who rescued you from the land of Egypt, the place of your slavery" (Exodus 20:2 NLT). God reminded the Israelites of what he already had done for them and how he had so graciously answered their prayers and demonstrated his love. He reminded them of how he had brought them from a miserable life of slavery and had delivered them.
God was about to give them basic rules for living, yet he didn't start by threatening them or scaring them. He began by reminding them of what kind of God he is: a loving, caring God who rescued them from misery.

Too lazy not to homeschool

''There's an old saying: "Don't work harder, work smarter." Maybe that applies to raising children. For the lazy Christian parent: Work smart – homeschool your kids.'' There are many reasons my wife and I homeschool our children and have done so for 13 years now. These include reasons you might hear from typical homeschooling Christians: the ability to teach biblical values, the benefit of tailoring curriculum to learning styles and interests, the flexibility of daily schedules that enable spontaneity and special activities. But the main reason I homeschool my daughters is because I'm simply too lazy not to homeschool them.
Sure, homeschooling is a lot of work, especially for the mother, but it doesn't compare with the work needed to effectively deprogram a child who is not homeschooled.
Christians are tasked with bringing up their children "in the nurture and admonition of the Lord," to raise them to embrace the truth of the Bible and live out that truth in obedience day to day. If a Christian sends his children to the government schools for several hours each week – or even to the age-segregated and peer-dependent environs of a private school – how many hours and how much effort is needed to counteract the inestimable impact of the secular worldview and cultural swamp such a child experiences in even one day?
Do the math. If a child is subject to the current atheistic indoctrination that passes for education in the government schools for six hours a day, how many hours would his or her parents have to spend to undo that influence? And, even if it were possible, are there really Christian parents who go through such an exercise? Again, I'm just too lazy to do so.
With data that will shock the objective observer, "The Harsh Truth About Public Schools" explains why more Americans are yanking their kids from the government system.
If one of my daughters were to come home from school having been wrapped up in a juvenile scenario of matching up boys and girls, and she begins to value such silliness, how many hours might it take me to counsel her through the countless broken hearts when campus romances explode? And worse, how many hours would be needed to deal with good old-fashioned rebellion when it rears its ugly head thanks to today's pervasive youth ethic of disrespecting their parents?

Reviving sovereignty of the states

''Is the federal government sovereign, with authority over state governments? Or, are individual state governments sovereign, with authority over the federal government? It's a simple question; it's the answer that's a problem.''
The federal government exists because representatives of the states created it. This fact should provide a clue. The federal government was designed by representatives from the states in a document called the Constitution of the United States. The federal government became a reality when the Constitution was ratified by the ninthh state, New Hampshire, on June 21, 1788. This infant government, created by the states, began operation March 4, 1789. From that day until this, people have been arguing over whether the federal government or the states possess the supreme authority.
It is quite clear that the people who designed the federal government intended it to be limited in its power. Article I, Section 8 sets forth 17 enumerated powers of the federal government. The first clause empowers the new government to "lay and collect taxes," to provide for the "defense and general welfare" of the United States. Here's where the argument gets nasty.
One group of people argues that the phrase "general welfare" means whatever Congress wants it to mean with no limitations. Another group of people argues that if this is what the designers intended, why on earth would they have bothered to enumerate the remaining 16 specific powers? It's a reasonable question that the first group prefers to ignore rather than answer.
Here's your chance to educate our "leaders" in Washington -- send Obama, Pelosi and Reid a copy of the Constitution, along with a note urging them to take it to heart!
To be sure that the federal government's authority stayed limited, the primary architect of the Constitution, James Madison, introduced the Bill of Rights in the very first Congress in 1791. These first 10 Amendments further clarify the authority and limitations of the federal government. The 10th Amendment, in particular, limits the federal government to those powers enumerated in the Constitution and explicitly reserves all other powers to the states and to the people.

Pombo for Congress

''One of the ways to fight back is to send a real cowboy back to Congress. His name is Richard Pombo. And I did not get paid to make this political announcement.'' No doubt this is going to be a banner year for the election of freedom-cherishing, liberty-protecting men and women to the U.S. Congress.
I don't pretend to have the resources or knowledge to know who the very best candidates are in every race in the nation.
But I do have some familiarity with a few.
One of them is former Rep. Richard Pombo, running anew for California's 19th Congressional District seat held by retiring Rep. George Radonovich.
Do I know who else is running?
Do I care?
Because there could simply be no better representation in that Northern California district than Richard Pombo. End of story.
I know Pombo well.
There is no one who stands taller for liberty and the Constitution than him.
He cannot be bought. He cannot be co-opted. He is not capable of falling under the spell of the Beltway insiders.

With liberty and free ice cream for all!

'Let them eat soft-serve'

''Obama was elected on his promises of endless ice-cream benefits. If we all agreed to whatever "changes" he promised, we could eat all the ice cream we wanted for free.''

There's a story that circulated the Internet in 2008 about a third-grade class that held a mock presidential election to teach the children about the real election. Two kids – Jamie and Olivia – were selected to be candidates.
Jamie's speech was a thoughtful analysis of how he could make the classroom a better place if he were elected. He received enthusiastic applause.
Olivia's speech was more concise. "If you vote for me, I will give you ice cream."
Needless to say, the class went wild. Upon further questioning, Olivia could not explain who would pay for the ice cream. The class didn't care. They were 9 years old, after all. They just wanted free ice cream.
Apparently Olivia didn't care who would pay for the ice cream, either. All she cared about was getting elected. She expertly manipulated her classmates, dancing them like puppets on strings. She knew she could make empty promises, give no accountancy of how those promises would be kept, and win. She was right.
Does this sound familiar?
One year into his administration, Obama has become an expert at manipulating his childish classmates … er, supporters. He promises an endless stream of ice cream with no accountancy of who will pay for it beyond a vague "tax the rich" mantra.
Tired of keeping quiet about increasing government control? Express yourself with the magnetic message: "No Hope in Socialism"
I believe an ice cream mentality is a sign of immaturity. We expect third-graders to vote for free ice cream because 9-year-olds don't understand economics. But mature people know that someone must pay for the ice cream. This is known as TANSTAAFL: There Ain't No Such Thing As a Free Lunch. Ladies and gentlemen, it's you and I – the hardworking citizens of this country who are desperately clinging to whatever employment we can find – who will be paying for the ice cream, along with generations of our descendants. And, I might add, receiving very little of it ourselves.

'Don't ask, don't tell' is a GOOD policy

''...if his sexual proclivities were known, he could never have been the superstar ladies' man, the poster boy for handsome Hunkdom. So he and those who profited from his stardom kept it quiet until almost the end.''

''Is his sexual appetite, and how he satisfies it, his identity? Or should he (or she) not be judged solely on performance, skill, responsibility and intelligence? In short, judged not on what he or she does to satisfy sexual urges, but on who he or she is.'' Roger was such a great guy, one of my best friends. Unfailingly upbeat, jolly, energetic and caring. He'd go out of his way to help anybody, anytime. He lived for music, and he and I wrote and recorded songs together. He was gifted.
For several years he ran a recording studio I co-owned with my manager, and with my knowledge and permission, he often let aspiring musicians use our studio to record demos of their songs – for free. And he'd stay, engineer and clean up afterwards in the wee small hours.
I loved the guy, and he loved me and my family. I'll always treasure a Christmas gift from Roger, a beautiful sculpture of a baby sitting up, legs crossed, looking pensively at the floor as if lost in baby thoughts. To me, that little baby will always be Roger.
I was with Roger in the VA hospital as he was dying of AIDS. A lot of his thick lustrous hair was gone, as were most of his teeth. He was very thin and weak, but we managed to laugh softly at wry jokes, and his indomitable spirit was still there, carrying him to the moment of his departure. I loved him then more than ever. And he knew.
We didn't talk much about his homosexuality, because even though he knew I was concerned about it, concerned for him, it didn't affect our relationship at all. He was my friend Roger, and I was his friend Pat.
I had another friend, Roy. That was his real name, though the world knew him as Rock. A major, iconic movie star, he too was homosexual. But the world didn't know that, until he was famously revealed to be dying of HIV/AIDS. He, and those close to him, knew well that if his sexual proclivities were known, he could never have been the superstar ladies' man, the poster boy for handsome Hunkdom. So he and those who profited from his stardom kept it quiet until almost the end.
My wife, three friends and I were with him the night before he died. In his lovely, quiet Beverly Hills home, he too was terribly ravaged by the disease. He couldn't speak, and his emaciated body bore no resemblance to the one millions of women had dreamed of. But his eyes shone as our little group gathered by his bed to pray with, and for him. Obeying the admonition in James 5 in the New Testament, I poured a little oil on his bare chest and rubbed it in with my hand, praying for him to be healed and restored. He smiled gratefully at all of us.
His countenance had brightened, and his friend/caregiver Tom exclaimed, "Roy, tomorrow is going to be a better day! I'll lay out your 'happy clothes,' and maybe you'll feel good enough to get up." But early the next morning, as Tom opened the shutters to admit the first rays of the sun, Roy, in his "happy clothes," slipped away to join my friend Roger, and our friend Jesus. I believe, since they both gave their last days to their Lord, we'll be together again … and I so look forward to that. http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=126352

Confused conservatives or amoral anarchists?

''There are very popular preachers today who are more concerned with giving you your best life now than they are with eternity. They brag about the fact that they do not mention sin in their preaching. I can tell you this: that the Holy Spirit has nothing to do with their ministry lest He be working against it. … When a man says he has no ministry dealing with the sin of men, the Holy Spirit does! It is the primary ministry of the Holy Spirit to come and convict the world of sin. …'' The astounding response to Ryan Sorba's chastising of CPAC for allowing sponsorship by GOPride, an anti-marriage, GLBT activist organization, is a troubling reflection of the schizophrenic condition of the conservative movement.
CPAC has been a credible conservative conference reflecting all three legs of the conservative stool as described by William F. Buckley – social/moral, economic and national defense. Logically, a true, "complete" conservative comprises all three in my opinion. More specifically, I believe that a fully rounded, well-grounded and mature Christian will fit the description of what we call a conservative.
The problem, like the word "Christian" itself, is that it has been misused to the extent that it no longer has real meaning without further specifics. For example, what I saw in the CPAC clip (interestingly also dovetailing with Ron Paul's strong showing in the straw poll) was the rise of libertarian/anarchist activists in conservative and Republican events.
Is there really a difference? Joseph Farah provided an excellent description in his column
"The political spectrum 101." The compelling reality is that conservatism without the social/moral "leg" of the stool as its foundation – in reality its anchor – eventually leads to moral anarchy and/or tyranny. It is the condition we are seeing now of those who can sit and cheer when beating up on Washington, D.C.'s abuses in regards to economics and national security and jeer the standard of marriage.
However, I do not blame CPAC or even the misguided activists who do not have a moral guideline – as always, I look to the first line of defense, the historic supplier, the primary responder, the God-ordained source of that moral standard. It's the church, stupid.
Does Rick Warren's spiritual agenda include New Age elements? Find out in Warren Smith's "Deceived on Purpose"
A profound and compelling illustration of the meltdown of the moral influence in the church is given by Paul Washer, founder of Heart Cry
The "mainstream" of evangelicalism as defined by the pastor of the largest church in America, referenced by Washer above – his initials are Joel Osteen – has confused church growth with making disciples and teaching all He commanded. We have substituted toothy-grinned platitudes for teaching the Holy Scriptures and have filled congregants with cappuccinos instead of God's Word.

Does the GOP have death wish?

''The politically inconvenient truth is there is no "Hispanic vote" except in the minds of political hucksters and open-borders lobbyists like La Raza. Like the old saying goes, if you are a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.'' It's not surprising that there are some prominent conservatives who are willing to betray the American taxpayer to get a new amnesty for 15 to 20 million illegal aliens. But do they have to add insult to injury by lying about amnesty's impact on the Republican Party?
At the recent Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Washington, D.C., Americans for Tax Reform President Grover Norquist gave enthusiastic backing to a new group formed for the express purpose of pushing new amnesty legislation in alliance with congressional Democrats and the Obama White House. When everyone else is declaring amnesty dead in the water for 2010, Norquist and his business-lobby friends ride to the rescue.
But what makes the new "Latino Partnership for Conservative Principles" especially deceptive and troublesome are the lies Norquist and his allies must tell about the so-called "Hispanic vote" to make this gambit credible. The mantra for the new amnesty scenario is a seductive political pragmatism: Republicans are being told they must support a new amnesty or "lose the Hispanic vote for the next 50 years."
That dire warning is built on demographic lies and myths about "what Hispanics want," but all of the evidence points in the opposite direction. The amnesty agenda is not only bad policy for America, it is suicidal politics for the Republican Party.
The proponents of this phony "political realism" must indulge in two falsehoods to make their case. First, they say amnesty is a necessity on partisan political grounds. Then, in order to mitigate the crassness of that argument, they claim that it is also good policy because the Latino culture is one of "deep conservative, pro-family values." Neither claim is true.
Concerned about the flow of illegal aliens over our border? Don't miss Tom Tancredo's book, "In Mortal Danger: The Battle for America's Border and Security"
As University of Maryland political scientist James Gimpel has shown, new immigrants vote Democrat by a two-to-one margin after becoming naturalized citizens. This ratio is even higher for immigrants from Mexico and Central America, the origin of 80 percent of those who would benefit from a new amnesty. It is an act of masochistic self-delusion to believe that the voter registration and party affiliation patterns of the last 50 years will suddenly be reversed, and it is an act of utter stupidity for Republican leaders to adopt an electoral strategy based on that self-delusion.

Facts never get in the way of the ideology of the left

''The love affair on the left with "green jobs" is, of course, about ideology, which is why facts are irrelevant. It is another excuse to grow government and bring European socialism to America. What could be a better opportunity than to claim that the planet's atmosphere is now out of whack because of capitalism?''

Green money, not green jobs

Van Jones is back, reconstructed and rehabilitated.
Jones, recall, departed from his White House job as "green jobs czar" after publicity about his association with a "9/11 truther" organization that alleges complicity of the Bush administration with the 9/11 attack.
He was already a lightening rod, having characterized President Bush as a "crackhead," using profanity to describe Republicans and offering gems like blaming "white polluters and white environmentalists" for "steering poison" to minority communities.
But as White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel understands that power brokers should "never waste a crisis," those on the left grasp that you never waste an asset like a black self-described communist from the 1990s with an Ivy League degree and a best-selling "green jobs" book.
Go "green" and let the world know what really needs recycling in 2010 with the magnetic bumper sticker: "Recycle Congress"
So now Jones has new jobs at Princeton University and Washington's Center for American Progress. And, to seal the public rehabilitation, he will be awarded the NAACP's Image Award, and has been called by NAACP President Benjamin Jealous a "national treasure."
Central to Jones' work will, of course, be the continuation of his "green jobs" agenda. The Center for American Progress announcement says he'll be a senior fellow and leader with its Green Opportunity Initiative.
CAP was founded by rich liberals who thought the left needed a think tank like conservatives have (as they concluded they needed talk radio, and hence founded the now-defunct Air America). One of the major sources of funding of CAP was Marion and Herbert Sandler who got rich building Golden West Financial selling Adjustable Rate Mortgages with teaser rates to unsophisticated buyers. Yes, the very greedy kind of businesspeople the Obama administration would have us believe caused our current economic crisis.

Friday, February 26, 2010

Get ready to suffer like it's 1979

The evil vs awful party

''Yes! I voted for Obama the Muslim!

''As flawed as many Republicans are -- and I have written extensively on this very subject on this very website -- the folks who were right about Obama were the not-so-flawed Republicans. The very folks who rightly warned of a government run by the terrible trifecta of Obama-Reid-Pelosi were mostly the same folks who warned of the dangers of having folks like McCain represent the party.''
The debate over third parties and how bad the Republicans are comes down to this: evil versus awful. That's it. Your next Congress and your next president will be from either the evil party or the awful party. Whatever perfect virginal party that is out there yet to be formed will not come to fruition in time to save the republic.
Besides, no one in politics is perfect, and virgins are almost equally rare.
Threatened with the loss of liberty from the "fundamental change" on the way from the Obama crowd, none of us on the right should luxuriate in irrelevant and phony purity. There's a reason they call government "making sausage." No one who has ever actually been in the sausage factory can remain pure. You can do that only if you remain irrelevant. Irrelevance will not stop the evil of a government takeover of our society.

Glenn Beck: Liberal -- lowercase

Beck, a Teddy Bear? Just watch the claws.

Having never met Glenn Beck, I can only base my knowledge upon what I hear him say on Fox and the radio; however, the comments at WND are correct in that he is no conservative. He is a liberal in the classical sense. Not a Liberal, but a liberal. He's neither a conservative nor a libertarian – not even a Republican.
This man is concerned only with the good. Regardless of others' opinions or lack of reverence about Glenn's religious beliefs and past history, I see no compromise of principle or truth in his words. I see an honorable man concerned with doing the right thing for his family and his country and his God. I also see Glenn as a man open to changing his mind if you show him the truth. I see him dig deeper and wider and grow his base of knowledge the further he goes. I see a man open to information and a clear dedication to improving both his ideas and ability to articulate wisdom and knowledge with goals clearly defined to be a preservation of the American way of life.
I do not see him compromise on his interpretation of the truth in order to sell advertising or for power or money or to be popular. I can see no esoteric meanings in his words. What you hear is what he is thinking; nothing hidden, no deception or sophisms.
If anyone observes him questioning or supporting a climate hypothesis and they disagree, then Glenn is open to the science.
Perhaps this is why we find ourselves in this dark political, economic and culturally moral decline – because we no longer recognize reason. If Glenn Beck is not a contemporary conservative (classically liberal), then show us one.

The Best Possible World

We are not in a 'Sliders' episode.

''Freedom will not produce a perfect world. Just the best possible world.''

Markets never fail. They cannot fail. Free markets are perfect representations of reality. Indeed, they are reality itself. Markets may not effect your agenda or advance your goals, but they do NOT fail. Ever. It is childish to say that they do fail when they don't deliver what you want. To say that the free market fails is to say that reality fails. Or to say that truth fails – which makes absolutely no sense. Reality simply is.
Government interference in the free interactions of people, i.e., the market, is always an attempt to cheat reality. Insane and childish. It's a game of let's pretend. Let's pretend that everybody has earned a house. Let's pretend that everybody is equally credit worthy. Let's take money from some people and give it to others so they can pretend that they are prosperous. Let's mandate minimum wages so that people can pretend that they are contributing more than they are, thereby keeping them down by stealing their incentive to actually improve themselves and to be more productive. The corporate bailouts, more let's pretend. Let's give them billion-dollar handouts so that we can all pretend that everything is OK.
But it can't be done. You cannot cheat reality. You can only play make-believe and make matters worse. It sometimes seems that the make-believe solves problems, but it just covers over them and makes things worse down the road.

What happened to presidential leadership?

''Have we become a people incapable of accepting the sacrifices previous generations made, and of producing leaders with the vision and strength of character that our leaders of old possessed?''

We inherited the worst situation since the Great Depression. That is the reflexive response of President Obama to the troubles from which he has been unable to extract his country.
Even before the inauguration, he says, there were projections of a $1.2 trillion deficit for 2009. That deficit is not my deficit.
Presidents are usually blamed for deficits run while they are in office. But, in fact, presidents do not write budgets. Congress does. Presidents sign them. And the mammoth deficits of 2008 and 2009 came from budgets approved by a Congress run by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. Did Sen. Barack Obama vote against those budgets?
Don't miss Ron Paul's latest best-selling book, in which he urges citizens and elected officials alike to "End the Fed"
As for the troubles he inherited, the president has a point. From day one, he has had to deal with two wars, a financial crisis and an economy careening into recession.
But Harry Truman inherited two great wars, an atom bomb and an ally, Josef Stalin, about to dishonor his commitments and enslave half of Europe.
Richard Nixon came to office a minority president in the year of Tet, urban riots, campus uprisings and the assassinations of Dr. King and Robert Kennedy. He inherited a war in which 500,000 Americans were fighting, and came to a capital city dominated by a media that detested him and a Congress where, for the first time since Zachary Taylor, the opposition controlled both houses.
Ronald Reagan, too, inherited the worst recession since the Depression, a hollowed-out Army, a Soviet Empire that had overrun Vietnam and Southeast Asia and seized Afghanistan, Angola, Mozambique, Grenada and Nicaragua, and a NATO shot through with Eurocommunism and pacifism.

Liberal paranoia about Christian conservatives

"I want to share with you four ideas that I think should carry us forward. ... The first one is this: God's in charge. ... In the Declaration of Independence, it says we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights. It doesn't say we're endowed by Washington, D.C., or endowed by the bureaucrats or endowed by state government. It's by our Creator that we are given these rights."

The left's paranoia about the intersection of Christianity and the public square continues unabated. It's amazing how much they fear something that represents such a little threat to them.
In his column in the British newspaper The Guardian, Northeastern University associate journalism professor Dan Kennedy rails against Republicans' "intolerance" of secularism and accuses them of representing a threat to the First Amendment.
In their penchant for projection, leftists accuse conservatives and Republicans of intolerance, when in fact, their own intolerance dominates the issues of freedom of speech and religion. Liberals accuse conservatives of being theocrats, when they are the ones trying to chill religious freedom and expression.
One would expect that Kennedy, having made these charges, would provide some proof in his column that Republicans have abridged or advocated abridging someone's First Amendment rights – such as using the authority of government to infringe on citizens' freedom of speech, press, religion, assembly or petition or somehow violating the establishment clause.
Don't miss our Founding Fathers' most inspired arguments for constitutional government translated into today's English: "Federalist Papers In Modern Language"
I searched in vain for the payoff. He provided no examples, no scintilla of proof that Republicans are even skirting up against an activity that could fairly be considered threatening to Americans' First Amendment guarantees.

Left Turn: Bill Press: Republicans green light reconciliation

Blair House. The smell came from full bedpans...

''So, whatever the results, call the summit a success. Now the whole world knows: Democrats are serious about health-care reform; Republicans are not. And now Democrats know what to do next: Forget about Republicans. Use reconciliation. And get the job done.''

History repeated itself this week at Blair House, the nation's official guest house for former presidents and foreign dignitaries, across the street from the White House at 1651 Pennsylvania Avenue.
It was here in 186l that President Abraham Lincoln offered command of the Union Army to Gen. Robert E. Lee. He refused. It was here on Feb. 25, 2010, that President Barack Obama offered Republican leaders of Congress the opportunity to join Democrats in offering basic, quality health-care protection to all Americans. They also refused. Two opportunities lost.
The fact that the bipartisan health-care summit didn't achieve any bipartisan results should have come as no surprise. Republicans made it clear even before the event: They did not come to play, they came to kill. Four days earlier, President Obama posted his health-care proposal online and invited Republicans to do the same. They refused. In the meantime, as reported by Huffington Post's Sam Stein, they attacked the summit as illegitimate for seven reasons: Democrats weren't willing to start from scratch; Obama had already put together his own proposal; his proposal was not long enough; no governors were invited; nor any state legislators; the summit was funded by taxpayers; and the whole thing was designed to make Republicans look bad.
Don't miss the Whistleblower magazine edition entitled: "Medical Murder: Why Obamacare could result in the early deaths of millions of baby boomers"
Together, those complaints added up to a "pre-existing condition" against constructive dialogue, which proved true, 10 minutes into the summit, when the first Republican speaker took the floor. Sen. Lamar Alexander opened the discussion by denouncing Obama's plan, asking him to jettison all the work done in the House and Senate on health care over the past year and start from scratch, and demanding that Obama and Democrats begin the summit by promising never, never to use reconciliation to pass health-care reform legislation in the Senate. When Republicans start there, you know they're not serious about reaching any agreement.
Nonetheless, even without a bipartisan compromise, the summit was still a worthwhile exercise, for two reasons. Because, on national television, it exposed congressional Republicans for who they really are: a bunch of naysayers with no ideas of their own to offer. And because it gives Democrats, finally, the excuse they need to give up any idea of trying to make a deal with Republicans and pass health-care reform the only way possible: with Democratic votes only.

The Nazi Health Care Game Continues

''Real health care is something that the American people know can be managed and improved from the private sector and involves carrying for ALL, offering quality and needed care in a timely matter. Real health care doesn’t kill young and old and set people up to feel guilty for even being a live. If you want hideous lines, controlled health care, and a program this country cannot afford……by all means support Obama and congress with health care.''
So far, Obama and congress get no medal for brilliant health care service. They do however get a few gold medals for attempting and planning to control the largest part of our economy and shredding our constitution and freedom. Now, Obama has been pushing his new, raised from the dead version of a health care bill. Naturally, he and the members of congress are consulting, ‘reconciling’ and having 6 hour summits. You know, they are talking and trying to show respect now to House and Senate Republicans.
Manipulation, kiss up, pay offs and distortion are happening everywhere. Unfortunately it appears that their Lazarus is raising from the dead again. It will know doubt be a bastardized but twin like version of the Senate Health bill from what we hear now. I believe this
recent talk with the Republicans by Obama was just to have a strategy to assign blame to if something doesn’t pass or something different passes and the public continues to turn against Obama and his policies. Somehow Bush and the Republicans will be to blame for it all, then behind them the racist birthers and Tea Party people.
I predict the large majority, which is growing every day now, will continue to turn against Obama if he and congress continue to ignore Americans who simply do not want any form of this health care bill. As it is now, according to a recent
CNN poll, only 25% want the Dems to pass their health care bills! What about that does Obama, Reid and Pelosi not hear???

Every vile thing is now in Washington, D.C.

The Hope. The Contrast. The People.

''From the early pilgrims who traveled from distant lands with Bible in hand, to those who properly seek entrance to our free land--and contribute to it-- the beauty of America rests with her people.''

In Washington D.C., the seat of power should represent “We the People” but it no longer does. Instead, every vile thing has found habitat in our nation’s capital. As if by intent, regardless of political party, there is an agenda to utterly destroy what “We the People” stands for. As the Constitution states, we, the American people, has “derived her powers from the “Laws of Nature” and of Natures God and by it has secured for themselves and their posterity Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
What makes America beautiful?
Is it the mountains? Though they grace our skies from coast to coast and provide some of the most breathtaking images the eye has seen…no.
Is it the coastal lands? Without question, we gain a refreshing and tranquil experience as we walk along these peaceful locations, but these are not the source of America’s beauty.
Is it the rich deposits of resources that have allowed us to enjoy unprecedented wealth? No.
Is it the fact that our comforts make us the envy of the world? No
I could continue this imaginary discourse and take you to all the marvels America has to offer, yet I would end each description with “No“ to the question, “What makes America beautiful?”.
Before I cut to the chase and tell you what makes America beautiful, let me flatly tell you that it’s neither liberty or freedom. As well, the let me also state that the key component that makes America Beautiful also can destroy her beauty.
What, indeed, does make America beautiful?
Her people.

US - America: A Police State?

Are the people being herded like wild pigs?

''Only a blind or deliberately naïve man cannot see that America--the once-proud "land of the free"--is being systematically turned into a twenty-first century police state. Good grief! The Heritage Foundation's Index of Economic Freedom notes that America is not even listed among the "free" countries of the earth. We are ranked in the second tier, of "mostly free" countries.''

There is a classic story about how no one had been able to capture a herd of wild hogs that was rooting up crops from numerous farms. It got so bad that rewards had been posted for anyone clever enough to corral the critters. But even this resulted in only limited success.
One day a stranger (who was a wily old trapper) came into town and--entering the general store--ordered a truckload of fence posts and fencing, along with some feed. When asked what he was going to use it for, he said, "I'm going to get those wild hogs y'all are having trouble with." Of course, everyone in the store laughed at the overconfident stranger. A few weeks later, however, the stranger rode into town with the back of his truck tightly packed with the smelly swine.
When asked how he was able to accomplish what no one else had been able to do, the old trapper replied, "Simple. I started putting the feed out in a small clearing and the hogs began freely eating the feed. It didn't take long and they were there every day. Then I put up the fence posts, but with no fencing. At first the hogs were a little skittish, but it wasn't long and they ignored the posts. Then I began putting the fence up, but I left the gate off. Again, the hogs were skittish at first, but soon realized they could come and go freely, and before long, they were devouring the free food with a vengeance. Then, one day when the hogs were aggressively consuming the vittles, I slammed the gate closed."
Ladies and gentlemen, I submit that what the old trapper did to the wild hogs is exactly what our soon-to-be oppressors are doing to us! What is worse, most Americans seem about as oblivious to the whole thing as that bunch of pigs. For anyone who is paying attention, however, the signs of growing enslavement are everywhere.

Haiti's children held hostage by UNICEF's agenda

''At least 10 other children have died or become worse while waiting to be airlifted out of the country. Dozens of children are in critical need of care, and there has been no shortage of American hospitals or pilots willing to take them," but without the paperwork – itself seemingly impossible to procure – pilots are afraid that they will be prosecuted for helping children.'' By the age of 8, Bernard had been living alone as a beggar on the streets of Haiti for more than a year. His mother abandoned him when he was 7. He has not seen her since. Two weeks ago, Dr. John Leininger, president of Harvest International and long-time veteran of Haitian orphan relief, found Bernard. The boy was begging, hungry, filthy and covered in scabies, a contagious skin disease caused by a species of mite that burrow in the skin and create rashes, sores and extreme itching. With Bernard's consent, he was taken to the orphanage for medical treatment, food and some TLC. He has not left since.
"The question is this: Is he an orphan?" Dr. Leininger asks. "When a parent has to choose between starvation and abandoning that child, is the child an orphan? Certainly! But the latest guidelines would prevent us from having Bernard adopted. ... This is just one more method UNICEF has used successfully to prevent adoptions."
This frustration is common. Within the community of Haitian orphan rescue mission organizations, it has long been known that United Nations Children's Emergency Fund, or UNICEF, frowns upon American adoptions. Since the devastating Jan. 12 catastrophe that left hundreds of thousands of Haitian children orphaned and in deplorable conditions, UNICEF has mounted an international publicity campaign and worked behind the scenes pressuring Haitian government officials to shut down international adoptions. Their message to the world has been clear: In order to preserve local cultures, out-of-country adoptions must be stopped.
No group has done more to save children's lives and give hope to Haiti's orphan population than Christian orphanages. Despite this fact, the scope of UNICEF's anti-adoption activities was officially extended last week to public opposition to orphanages. Marie de la Soudiere, the coordinator for UNICEF's separated-children fund
told Time magazine: "Our answer is 'no' to orphanages."
Support WND's charity of choice for Haiti relief, the Jeremiah Denton Foundation
UNICEF's plan is now to register and take greater control of Haiti's orphans. According to UNICEF's own spokesman, they have currently registered a mere 130 of the nation's 350,000 plus orphans – not a whopping number.

A minority report about minorities

'Hangem high'

''President Lyndon Johnson took a lot of bows in 1964 for getting the Civil Rights Act through Congress, even though just a few years earlier, Sen. Lyndon Johnson had not only voted against the bill that repealed the poll tax, but even voted against the anti-lynching bill.''

Because white Americans are so terrified of being called racists, they rarely marshal a defense. Instead, they tend to stammer and stutter, muttering "Am not" under their breath, mimicking an angry child who has been called a baby by an older sibling.
For instance, the astronomical drop-out rates among Latino students is generally blamed on whites. Because nothing negative must ever be laid at the feet of minority groups, a sensitive, politically correct white majority must always hold itself accountable for their failings. Well, not all white people, of course. As a rule, white liberals are always prepared to link arms with Hispanic race hustlers to blame conservatives.
Here in Los Angeles, a 10-year study found that 30 percent of students who were placed in bilingual classes in early primary grades were still in the program when they entered high school, which greatly increased their chances of bailing out before they graduated.
As if that's not depressing enough, over half of those students were born in the United States!
In his new book, Burt Prelutsky, like a modern-day Zorro, slashes away at leftist icons: "Liberals: America's Termites or It's A Shame That Liberals, Unlike Hamsters, Never Eat Their Young"
America, as people are fond of saying, is a land of immigrants. We, or at least our ancestors, came from all over the world. But I dare you to come up with a group of immigrants from Asia, Europe or Africa whose children aren't speaking English within a year of arriving on our shores. But here are all these native-born Americans who, even after several years in school, can only speak Spanish. And that's the fault of gringos? I don't think so.

The folly of Steele's 80/20 approach

''Since there are three areas of vital principle, there are three headings under which the neglect or violation of principle gives rise to fatal flaws: preserving the U.S. Constitution; preserving the sovereignty of the people; and preserving the principle of legitimacy that substantiates the people's right to self-government.'' I have argued that the 80/20 approach to candidate evaluation advocated by people like RNC Chairman Michael Steele defies logic and common sense. Put simply, it neglects the fact that some issues are more important to the survival of the nation and its liberty than others. The 80/20 approach tacitly adopts the unprincipled assumption that there are no established standards of judgment that have to be respected. This assumption is of course in line with the moral relativism that is characteristic of our time, especially among a lot of our educated elite.
In place of this flawed approach, I suggest something more consistent with the principled logic on which the United States was founded. That logic begins from the assumption that to be legitimate all governments must respect certain requirements of right, requirements built into human nature that therefore reflect the sovereign will of the Creator. People striving to act in accordance with those requirements are in the right and therefore literally have the right to be free from objection, interference or harm from others as they pursue their goal. This is the substance of the unalienable rights alluded to in the American Declaration of Independence, which sees the aim of securing these rights as the purpose for which governments are instituted. Because as individuals all have an equal claim to possess these rights, no one can rightly claim precedence over them. Therefore, neither superior force nor other incidental attributes give anyone a natural claim to rule others. The lawful exercise of government power derives only from an agreement amongst individuals as to the delegation of such power, a delegation necessarily limited by the terms of the agreement and its respect for the claim of rights that make such agreement (consent) the sine qua non of governmental legitimacy.
How can you counter the liberal corrosion that has filtered into every issue affecting our daily lives? Find out in Mark Levin's "Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto"
The legitimacy of the constitutional government of the United States is explicitly based on such an agreement. It was arrived at in principle when the original states of the Union articulated in common the principles of right that justified their assertion of independence from Great Britain. It was then more full articulated in the form of the United States government, ordained and established by the unanimous consent of the people of the United States when they ratified the U.S. Constitution. The preservation of this form of government is the sworn duty of every official at every level of government in the United States. To carry out this duty the judgments and actions of every such official must be consistent with the terms of the agreement and with respect for the claim of rights that make it the sine qua non of governmental legitimacy. This logically gives rise to the first standard by which every official and every candidate for office must be judged, to wit, that in all their actions and all the positions they take or advocate they strive to preserve the Constitution of the United States and respect the claim of equal unalienable rights on which the lawfulness of its governmental powers depends.

The 2012 GOP Dark Horse Is...

''...if DeMint wants to run, if he wants to save the Republican Party from conservatives (and there is plenty of evidence that the latter is true), there are worse environments for him than 2012.'' The dark horse for the Republican presidential nomination in 2012 is not former Sen. Rick Santorum, though he is seriously considering a bid, nor is it Sen. John Thune, who has given the matter less thought but whose name is brought up by the conserveoscienti: it's Sen. Jim DeMint, the Republican from South Carolina. DeMint, in this scenario, would run as a spoiler/insurgent candidate in 2012, setting himself up for a full-on presidential run in 2016. DeMint, running in 2012, would knock Sarah Palin out of the primaries, crushing any momentum she received out of Iowa ... even though DeMint would be the obvious homestate favorite, Palin needs a victory in South Carolina to acquire momentum for later contests in larger states with less conservative electorates. (It's not that South Carolina is less conservative, it's that it's seen as part of the process.) Anyway, if Mitt Romney or Tim Pawlenty wanted help, they could find a way to...persuade DeMint to run a spoiler's campaign in Iowa and South Carolina...and then find an elegant way to drop out...positioning himself perhaps as a vice presidential candidate (obsessed with spending and the deficit, well-made to make sure that Southern white voters turn out, balancing the ticket). In any event, DeMint could become the conservative front-runner in 2016 -- even though the likes of Jon Huntsman, Jr. (who still has presidential ambitions, all the way from China), Bob McDonnell of Virginia and even Jeb Bush would be viable candidates. http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/02/the-2012-dark-horse-is/36557/